From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 00:46:38 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 00:46:38 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120890 > Del replies: People WERE willing to hear Harry out fully - it's Harry who wasn't willing to talk. Seamus asked, Zacharias asked, but Harry refused to talk. He demanded that they believe the fantastic and thoroughly simplified version DD fed them. Alla: Ummm, what fantastic version? Simplified, yes, I am not sure I can call it fantastic - it was still truth, just not as detailed one. I think it simply was too traumatic for Harry to talk about the details. Del: There was NOTHING for people to hear out FULLY. People were FORCED to take a decision based on a few unsupported and undetailed lines of story. Forced by Harry. I can't blame them for going against Harry. Honestly, if a teenager said tomorrow that he didn't kill another kid,it's the aliens who did it, and no he's not going to tell more, well,I wouldn't believe him either. Alla: I think name "Voldemort" should ring more bells for people in WW than story about aliens. They went through a horrible war with said wizard already, so if someone claims that Voldemort babck, and not just ANY teenager, but someone who even if unwillingly helped to vangush him, I'd say they should listen. So, yes, I CAN blame them for going against Harry, but I understand the unwillingness to admit that someone who caused such terror is back. And of course I blame Fudge most of all for not listening to dumbledore and Harry and influencing public accordingly. Just my opinion, Alla From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Jan 1 01:27:11 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 01:27:11 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120891 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Del replies: > Quite the way I see it, yes. But with the major detail that what she > thought the group was going to be about was only practicing DADA. She > wasn't aware of the political quality it would put on. > Hickengruendler: And that's the point where I have some problems with. The group was only about learning DADA. Marietta was part of the group for half a year, and all they did in this time was learning DADA. The only thing they did that was really anti-Ministry was the name, Dumbledore's Army. And I might have understood Marietta better, if she had gone to Umbridge right after the first meeting in the Hog's Head, or after the first meeting in the RoR. But she waited several months. She knew that the class wasn't doing anything other than learning DADA to defend themselves/pass their OWLs. She knew it was harmless, and she still ratted on them. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Jan 1 01:31:26 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 01:31:26 -0000 Subject: Fudge's evidence (was: Marietta and Hermione) In-Reply-To: <01e101c4ef81$d24eb650$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" wrote: > > Del replies: > > The confession of a supposedly-dead, now soulless wizard, made to DD > > and his two closest subordinates? > > By the way, do we even know whether DD revealed that confession to the > > public? Did he mention Barty Crouch Jr to anyone? > > charme: > > I *think* and I could be wrong about my interpretation of this, but DD > actually tells Fudge about Barty Jr in GoF, after Jr's soul has been sucked > out by the Dementor. I don't know if we have canon which particularly > states he told the public of the confession, no. Hickengruendler: Yes, Dumbledore told Fudge about Crouch's confession under Veritaserum. IMO, Fudge had more than enough evidence. He heard about Crouch's confession, he heard what Harry told Dumbledore and he saw the Dark Mark on Snape's mark. He chose to ignore everything just because he wasn't ready to face the truth. Everybody else, even Umbridge, had less personal evidence, and it is more understandable, that they didn't believe Harry. But there's no excuse for Fudge. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 02:06:57 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:06:57 -0000 Subject: Hermione and the Centaurs (was: Marietta and Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120893 Salit wrote: I think Hermione had to do some very quick thinking under very > stressfull conditions. As such the idea to use the centaurs was good. > Where Hermione messed up is the > same place where she messed up with the House Elves. While extremely > intelligent, Hermione lacks the ability to understand and emphasize > with the mindset and feelings of creatures who signinificantly differ > from her (e.g. part Humans). Her interaction with the Centaurs was > what made the situation for them worse. This is where her prejudices > towards part humans (including the house elves) hurt her - she tries > to use and manipulate them but does not really understand what makes > them tick. Carol responds: The point we may be missing here is that the Centaurs were even more prejudiced than Hermione. She merely misunderstood or underestimated their hatred of human beings. (Pippin is calling it "xenophobia"--prejudice against outsiders [literally "fear of foreigners"] but we could also call it "speciesism" if we want to be politically correct. After all, the Centaurs classify themselves as Beasts rather than Beings and don't consider themselves part-humans.) They were willing to severely injure or even kill three human beings, two of them "foals," because one adult insulted them and one young person assumed that they would protect her and and another young person. Hermione's behavior may be foolish and certainly reflects her inexperience; Umbridge's behavior is unquestionably rude and arrogant; but the Centaurs' anger is surely excessive and their behavior is brutal. I see little difference between the Centaurs who carry off Umbridge and injure her almost to the point of insanity and the Death Eaters who toss the Muggles in the air at the QWC. To be sure, the Muggles are innocent and Umbridge is guilty of injuring Harry and threatening him with worse injury, but the Centaurs don't know that and wouldn't care if they did. They are not punishing her for what she did to Harry; they are punishing her for daring to underestimate their intelligence. But IMO, if their intelligence arrives at the conclusion that such an insult merits a painful death, it deserves to be insulted. The punishment does not fit the crime. The herd here represents the mob mentality, which is just as bad in Centaurs as in humans. Their misunderstanding of the humans is at least as great as the humans' misunderstanding of them, and their violence is out of proportion to the single spell that Umbridge attempted to cast in self-defense--especially when they attempt to extend that violence to Harry and Hermione in response to Hermione's plea to their nonexistent humanity. Carol From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 02:09:11 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:09:11 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120894 Alla wrote: "Ummm, what fantastic version? Simplified, yes, I am not sure I can call it fantastic - it was still truth, just not as detailed one." Del replies: Sorry, I was being elliptic, my fault. I meant that such a simplified version of the truth was bound to sound completely fantastic : "LV is back through unspecified means, he killed Cedric Diggory, he wants to kill Harry Potter and to take the world over again". It sounds as crazy as saying that Elvis is alive again and sang at a friend's wedding last week-end. Alla wrote: "I think it simply was too traumatic for Harry to talk about the details." Del replies: I agree. I understand that Harry was not able to talk about those things at first. What I'm saying is that I also understand how it looked to those who had only a very simplified version of the events and who were basically asked to believe Harry blindly. Alla wrote: "I think name "Voldemort" should ring more bells for people in WW than story about aliens. They went through a horrible war with said wizard already, so if someone claims that Voldemort babck, and not just ANY teenager, but someone who even if unwillingly helped to vangush him, I'd say they should listen." Del replies: If Harry had been actually trying to get some attention, he would most probably have dragged LV back from the dead : getting rid of LV is what got him his fame to start with, so pretending that LV was back but that Harry had managed to defeat him again would have looked like the best way to become an instant hero all over again. So the fact that it was precisely Harry, and Harry alone, who proclaimed that LV was back might have looked very suspicious to many people. Alla wrote: "And of course I blame Fudge most of all for not listening to dumbledore and Harry and influencing public accordingly." Del replies: Agreed !! Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 02:18:33 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:18:33 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120896 Hickengruendler wrote: "And that's the point where I have some problems with. The group was only about learning DADA. Marietta was part of the group for half a year, and all they did in this time was learning DADA. The only thing they did that was really anti-Ministry was the name, Dumbledore's Army. And I might have understood Marietta better, if she had gone to Umbridge right after the first meeting in the Hog's Head, or after the first meeting in the RoR. But she waited several months. She knew that the class wasn't doing anything other than learning DADA to defend themselves/pass their OWLs. She knew it was harmless, and she still ratted on them." Del replies: Hum, good point! I agree that it doesn't make much sense. So I would have to guess that either JKR made her wait that long because it wouldn't have worked plot-wise to make her betray earlier, or there's something we don't know or understand about Marrietta. The second solution is much more interesting for me, but if I had to place a bet I would put it on the first solution. I don't think Marrietta ever was anything more than a plot device for JKR, so I don't think there's any real backstory to explain why Marrietta waited for that long. I sure wish there were, but JKR hasn't given us any kind of hint. Too bad. Del From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 02:34:08 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:34:08 -0000 Subject: I like Hermione! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120897 I (vmonte) wrote: I also think that Hermione is a great Heroine for young girls. She tells girls that being studious and smart are cool. When I was young, every book I read and movie I saw had the female lead falling in the forest during a chase scene. And the female lead would often need to be rescued by the male hero. Hermione, thank goodness, is not like that. And even though she is not the lead of the story, the HP books would suffer without her presence. vmonte again: I was just sent a personal email message by a HPFGUPS member who used an invalid return address so that I could not respond back. Dear "he/she who must not be named," I'm sorry that you feel that women are weak and that the majority of men (unlike women) are able to keep their composure in dangerous situations. I'm also sorry that I started laughing when you mentioned that Ron and Harry were more accustomed to dangerous situations than Hermione. And I love how you describe women as (innately?) more emotional. Well, what can I say except that Snape must be just one big gal in drag then. Lastly, you end your email by saying that you are ready for some slaps in the face by me. Well guess what, I'm too composed for that, although a valid return address would help. Happy New Year! vmonte From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 02:39:28 2005 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:39:28 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120898 > Carol adds: > One more point in support of Del. Harry refuses to explain, either to > Cho alone or to the DA, how Cedric died. Granted, he might not have > been believed if he had done so, but he doesn't even make the attempt. > There's only the half-truth, stated by Harry and echoed by Dumbledore, > that Voldemort murdered Cedric. Bodiless Vapormort, whom the DA > members may or may not know was formerly inside Quirrell's head, > murdered a TWT champion? The DA members don't know that Wormtail > resurrected Voldemort, much less that Babymort ordered Wormtail to > "kill the spare." It's surprising that *any* of the DA members other > than the Gryffindors believe Harry. He's told them virtually nothing. > > And it's no surprise at all that Marietta, whose mother works for the > MoM, thinks he's inventing the story of Voldemort's return, perhaps to > cover his own guilt in Cedric's death. He's provided no evidence > whatever to support his claim. As Del indicates, the only available > "information" was what the MoM provided via the Daily Prophet. Harry > does not even provide his own explanation of events. And DD doesn't > explain them, either. He merely asks for a salute to the murdered > Cedric and another to Harry, who has miraculously escaped Voldemort. > *How?* *What happened?* The students aren't told. And, to repeat, > Harry adamantly refuses to clarify matters for the DADA members: > > "Zacharias said dismissively, 'All Dumbledore told us last year was > that Cedric Diggory got killed by You-Know-Who and that you brought > Diggory's body back to Hogwarts. He didn't give us details, he didn't > tell us exactly how Diggory got murdered, I think we'd all like to know--' > > "'If you've come to hear exactly what it looks like when Voldemort > murders someone I can't help you,' Harry said. His temper. . . was > rising again. . . . "I don't want to talk about Cedric Diggory, all > right? So if that's what you're here for, you might as well clear out" > (OoP Am. ed. 341). > > Harry has hardly strengthened his position with that reaction. > Hermione rescues the situation by reminding the group that they're > meeting to "learn some defense." Had she not spoken up, it's likely > that Zacharias, Marietta, and others would have walked out at that > moment. If Harry had told the full truth, they would have realized > that he could not be making it up. Instead, he aroused their > suspicions by being suspicious himself. > > Carol, hoping for a civil response that does not label her views as > "ridiculous" or "nonsense" *******Only that you and Del forget about the Quibbler interview on Valentine's Day. By then, Harry was able to talk about what happened when Voldemort came back. Perhaps Jo's intent was to show us that Harry was not 'ready' yet to give explanations, and that if they wanted to believe him and DD, it was fine with him, but he also stated that those whom were not satisfied with DD's word were welcomed to leave the Hogs Head meeting. None left. Just trying to put things into perspective here. BTW, Marietta must have had a chance to read the Quibbler interview, since Cho knew about it, she was very proud of Harry's courage to 'open-up' in public. Marcela From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 02:54:10 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 02:54:10 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120899 Marcela wrote: "Only that you and Del forget about the Quibbler interview on Valentine's Day. By then, Harry was able to talk about what happened when Voldemort came back." Del replies: Oh no I don't forget about it! The way many people reacted to this interview is the proof that, if given a chance to understand the whole story, quite a few people were really willing to believe Harry. It's a proof that one major reason nobody wanted to believe Harry at first was because the story as presented by DD didn't make sense to them. Marcela wrote: "but he also stated that those whom were not satisfied with DD's word were welcomed to leave the Hogs Head meeting. None left." Del replies: They had other questions to ask and I guess they hoped that Harry would change his mind if given enough time. Marcela wrote: "Marietta must have had a chance to read the Quibbler interview, since Cho knew about it, she was very proud of Harry's courage to 'open-up' in public. " Del replies: I agree. We're told that everyone at school read the Quibbler article, so this must include Marrietta. As I said in another post, I think JKR didn't give us any logical reason for Marrietta to have acted when she did because Marrietta was never supposed to be anything more than a plot device. I find that quite frustrating though. Del From houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Sat Jan 1 04:05:33 2005 From: houseofbohacek at earthlink.net (klyanthea) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:05:33 -0000 Subject: (FILK) Kingsley Shacklebolt Is On The Case Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120900 First of all, allow me to be among the myriad of others to wish y'all a Happy New Year! And, now, for your filking enjoyment, I present to you a filk: Shacklebolt Is On The Case A filk to the tune of _You Like Me Too Much_ by the Beatles Midi is here: http://www.thebeatleswebsite.com/songs/youlikeme2much.html Kingsley Shacklebolt: As the whole Department's trying, down to every single man, To locate Sirius Black and bring him back to Azkaban They'll never find him, though we try to trace 'Cause Kingsley Shaklebolt is on the case There's a map in my office dotted with little red pins To indicate all the places where we suspect Black has been But actually he's safe at Grimmauld Place 'Cause Kingsley Shacklebolt is on the case It's a disgrace But that's the way that it must be And so, thus we Follow diff'rent leads, that take us all across the land Like Black's really Stubby Boardman, the lead singer in a band Sometimes it's hard to maintain a straight face While Kingsley Shacklebolt is on the case (piano solo) 'Cause Kingsley Shacklebolt is on the case Around we race And it's fortunate they trust me If they'd just see Sirius is innocent, but we don't have the proof And the Minister's a moron who won't listen to the truth, And so they are led on this wild goose chase While Kingsley Shacklebolt is on the case While Kingsley Shacklebolt is on the case With the completion of this filk, I am pleased to announce that the Beatles' Album, Help! has been Potterized. So, to ring in the new year, may I proudly present: Elf! http://home.att.net/~coriolan/elf.htm -Gail B. From juli17 at aol.com Sat Jan 1 04:49:17 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:49:17 EST Subject: Marrieta and Hermoine Message-ID: <53.1e0a9fb8.2f0785cd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 120901 In a message dated 12/31/2004 1:32:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes: > charme again, > > This is just my 2 cents and may be off topic (List Elves, I'm SORRY!!!) as I > > have seen this question posed before in debates on this message board > several times and I'd submit what a friend of mine tells me: everyone is a > "god" in their own heads, so as he says, asking the question is pointless. > :) > Julie says: I agree that everyone has a "god" in their heads, i.e., a personal sense of morality. But no one *is* God, i.e., the repository of Morality (a single code everyone must follow). Those who believe they are that repository and have the power to force it upon others practice something we call tyranny. It's the same problem with anyone saying "what is good is what *I* consider good, and what is evil is what *I* consider evil." There are no black and white definitions of good or evil; they are subjective and can change based on perception and circumstance. (Granted, clearly some things like harming or killing another person unprovoked, human slavery, etc, are generally considered evil by most of humanity. Beyond that, good and evil are usually very relative terms.) Neri replied to another post: You are making a good case about Marietta being just a weak person who was caught between contradicting loyalties, but this is life, and this is war. Hermione had to take precautions, for the good of the whole group, that a single sneak would find it hard to betray them all, and she did just that. NOT doing it would have been failing to protect all the rest of the group. It would have been wrongdoing towards Ernie, Susan, Lavender, Neville, Ron and all the other members. Julie says: I agree. In fact, I do see Marietta as a weak person who was caught between contradicting loyalties. That she would end up suffering for betraying either one side or the other is a likely and perhaps even a just result. I still feel some sympathy for her, being that she was caught in a difficult situation, and being that she is a teenager, still young enough to allow peer pressure to influence her ultimately bad decision to join the DA. She was definitely wrong, (for signing the parchement when she had doubts about whether she would or could honor its oath), but I don't think she is evil. I also agree that Hermoine needed to protect the group in some manner. But I think her method was unnecessarily harsh, and given that it went beyond simply identifying the traitor and delivering a swift punishment to send a message, it contained a deliberate measure of vengeance. And there is where I think Hermoine deserted the higher moral ground just a bit. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Jan 1 04:53:20 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:53:20 -0000 Subject: A question of "essentials" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120902 There has been a lot of talk on the boards about JKR and her statement/belief about "innate" goodness. This has been, for better or worse, transformed into a discussion of "essential" goodness, i.e. are people or particular persons good "in essence" which means others are evil "in essence." Well, I guess there are 4 ways to look at this: 1) People are born essentially evil and any good they do comes from a struggle against that essence. This is the position of certain forms of Calvinism, for instance. 2) People are born essentially good, and if they do evil it's because they have been corrupted by hurtful experience and bad teachings. This is the point of view of some Chinese philosophy. 3) The essence of people is neither good nor evil. Good and evil comes from an exercise of free will. This is favored by many religions and philosophies, but it runs into all sorts of logical contradictions because "free will" is, in its turn, very difficult to define. 4) This leads to the fourth option, that free will is an illusion and some people are good in essence and some evil in essence. For example, the will of person who was molested as a child who in turn molests children is not really free, in that it is conditioned by his/her own experience. A truly free will would be one that isn't conditioned, but that means it would operate purely at random and without regard to reason or influence (which restrict its freedom), which negates all idea of morality as generally understood. This is the famous argument of the Calvinist Jonathan Edwards against free will. Theologians and philosophers have been trying to get out of Edwards' net for nearly three centuries, but if the argument is stated correctly and in full (which I have not done by any means) then it is impossible to refute using strictly logical analysis. You are left with a definition of morality that is purely arbitrary and given, generally things are morally right because God decreed them that way, and people are moral or not because of factors beyond their control. Most religions and philosophies evade this by arguing that strict logical analysis is an incorrect way to approach matters of essence and morality, and thus invoke various degrees of mystical (I don't mean that as a bad word) explanation. To relate this to HP, many people seem to want to make HP as exercise in number 3, the free will definition. JKR herself has given some statements along these lines. Yet, many of the things she has written indicate that JKR leans, probably unconsciously, toward option 4. The saying by DD that actions "reveal" rather than "determine" who and what one is leans this way. So does the very structure of Hogwarts, with four houses based on what seems to be some kind of essentialism with regard to personality and, yes, even morality in terms of Slytherin House. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Jan 1 05:21:12 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 05:21:12 -0000 Subject: When does a war begin? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120903 The discussion about Hermione and Marietta has taken an interesting turn with the question of whether the WW could be legitimately said to be at war during OOTP, and if so whether that changes the way we look at Hermione and Marietta's respective actions. Well, I think it is generally agreed that some actions are appropriate during war that are not during times of peace. For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to stipulate that Hermione's "trick" with the list would be appropriate in a time of war. So, was the WW at war in a way that would legitimate Hermione's action? Well, the problem is that war isn't very easy to define. The idea of "declared war" is a legalism coming from western European diplomatic traditions. It and other so-called "laws of war" evolved largely as pragmatic measures to allow wars to be prosecuted swifly, efficiently, and professionally, and also so that disturbance to commerce could be anticipated and minimized. Humanitarian concerns were certainly a factor, but very far down the list of priorities. In any case, it is accepted in military and diplomatic circles that a declaration of war is a diplomatic maneuver, not anything having to do with whether a state of war does or does not exist and not having anything to do with strategic or tactical planning except in a very secondary sense having to do with how a declaration does on does not work to your diplomatic and poltical advantage. The U.S. has not declared war since 1941, but it would be silly beyond belief to argue that Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq were not wars. Even war as an activity is hard to define. There is a period in European history called The Hundred Years War (I think it actually lasted 130 years). Was conflict constant during this period? No. Yet it is considered historically a war. Trying to determine when the Vietnam War began is notoriously hard. In some ways it went back to the nineteenth century. There are all sorts of states of war - full out war, major war, minor war, world war, theater war, simmering war, guerilla war, cold war, and the list goes on. In terms of HP, what applies is the interesting fact that one party can define themselves as being at war when other parties don't. It can be said in terms of Vietnam that the Viet Minh thought of themselves as being at war long before (in sequence) the Japanese, French, and Americans did. In the American Revolution the Continental Army thought of itself at war before the British or even the Continental Congress came to that conclusion. In the Civil War period, certain Southerners and Abolitionists saw themselves at war long before that understanding became general. And here comes the rub - people at war do, in fact MUST, act is if they are at war, regardless of whether that is a generally perceived state. In the case of Hermione and Marietta, Marietta was not at war BUT HERMIONE WAS. Being at war, Hermione had an interest, indeed she had a DUTY, to ACT like she was at war. Therefore, was Hermione's action legitimate. The answer, IMO, is YES, because Hermione WAS AT WAR. To act in another way would have been a betrayal of her duty as someone who had committed themselves to war. That Marietta had a different understanding was unfortunate, but Hermione's duty in this was relatively clear. It is true that Hermione had a moral duty to observe, as far as possible, the well-being of noncombatants, and IMO she did so. After all, the pustules, embarassing as they were, were not life-threatening. The Sons of Liberty dealt with such situations by tarring and feathering, and the Viet Minh dealt with it by vivisection. Compared to those undeclared, unrealized wars, Marietta's punishment was mild indeed. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Jan 1 05:36:20 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 05:36:20 -0000 Subject: A question of "essentials" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120904 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > 4) This leads to the fourth option, that free will is an illusion > and some people are good in essence and some evil in essence. For > example, the will of person who was molested as a child who in turn > molests children is not really free, in that it is conditioned by > his/her own experience. A truly free will would be one that isn't > conditioned, but that means it would operate purely at random and > without regard to reason or influence (which restrict its freedom), > which negates all idea of morality as generally understood. This is > the famous argument of the Calvinist Jonathan Edwards against free > will. Theologians and philosophers have been trying to get out of > Edwards' net for nearly three centuries, but if the argument is > stated correctly and in full (which I have not done by any means) > then it is impossible to refute using strictly logical analysis. You > are left with a definition of morality that is purely arbitrary and > given, generally things are morally right because God decreed them > that way, and people are moral or not because of factors beyond their > control. Most religions and philosophies evade this by arguing that > strict logical analysis is an incorrect way to approach matters of > essence and morality, and thus invoke various degrees of mystical (I > don't mean that as a bad word) explanation. > Actually, I gave a bad example here. A better one would be a person who molests children due to desires that arise without a clear prior cause. Is that person acting out of free will? In this argument the answer is no. The persons will is not free because it is conditioned by the desires. In the same way a person who does not molest children because they feel disgust and horror at the very thought are not exercising free will. Their will is conditioned by the disgust and horror. Even a person who reasons logically to the conclusion that molesting children is bad for society is not exercising free will, because their will is conditioned by their logical thought process and conclusions. Free will, if the definition is pushed to its logical foundations, becomes an illusion, in that no one's will operates outside of forces that condition, channel, and limit the will. Lupinlore From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 06:04:21 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 06:04:21 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and Hermione was Marrieta and ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120905 "pippin_999" wrote: > Would you agree that the centaurs had become > an evil organization by embracing racism The centaurs are not an organization they are a species, a species as intelligent as humans with a long and illustrious history. To label all of them as evil is racism of the worst sort. > She had a good half an hour, walking into > the forest, to come up with a better plan, > and I could come up with half a dozen better > plans in that time Wow, you must be smart! > trip over a root and pretend to break my ankle How on Earth is that going to stop Umbridge from torturing Harry? > say that the weapon must have been moved to > London and flee up the steps of Grimmauld Place Even if you could convince her to go as far as London (unlikely) it's not clear how that would help, you say flee up the steps but that's easier said than done, she has a wand (equivalent to a gun) on you at all times. Perhaps you could get any member of the Order who happened to be in Grimmauld Place at the time to come out and battle on your behalf, but then you'd be risking their life when there was a much better way. And letting one of your worst enemies find out the location of your super secret headquarters does not sound like a very good idea to me. > Grawp I am certain at the time Hermione thought Grawp was far more dangerous than the Centaurs, and she had a point, certainly the Centaurs were terrified of Grawp. > asking Harry to call Fawkes If Harry has the ability to call Fawkes to him whenever he wants that's news to me. By the way, how could she ask Harry anything without Umbridge hearing her do so? > the merpeople Ok Professor Umbridge listen closely, this is what I want you to do, swim out into the middle of the lake and then dive down to the very bottom then No, that just isn't going to work > Dobby And they communicate to Dobby that they need help by means of > What Hermione did, IMO, was the equivalent > of trying to get the KKK to help her deal > with a corrupt, evil, black person. If a corrupt, evil, black person was holding a gun to my head and was about to pull the trigger and I could figure out a way to get a KKK member (or anybody else) to stop them from doing it I would not hesitate for one heartbeat to do so. Be honest, would you? Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 06:11:00 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 06:11:00 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120907 "delwynmarch" wrote: > I guess you find *everyone* evil then, because > *everyone* I know made a bad moral judgement > one day or the other. No, that doesn't mean everyone is evil, but it does mean nobody is 100% good, or to put it another way, some people are more evil than others. > You mean "the best she could was not nearly > good enough FOR YOU". I was the one talking so you deduced I meant not good enough for me, very good, you are absolutely correct, congratulations. It's just that, well ., who else could I be possibly talking for? I confess to being a bit confused, you don't seem shy about making moral judgments, like what a horrible terrible person Hermione is for not allowing Umbridge to torture Harry to death, but when I also make a moral judgment you object, and in capital letters too. > Basically what you're saying is "what I like > is right and good and what I don't like > is evil and wrong" I plead guilty, I like stuff that is right and dislike stuff that is wrong. From your response I take it that you have very different ideas. > Are you a god? It is my experience that rhetorical questions usually tend to be rather vapid and foolish, don't you agree? > Do you really expect everyone to believe >the word of a single teenage boy? Dumbledore said Harry was telling the truth, Fudge said Harry was a lying brat, if you knew nothing about either of them and were meeting Dumbledore and Fudge for the first time how long would it take you to figure out who was smarter, and more honest, and who just had more gravitas? On a very bad day it would take me about 45 seconds to figure it out, if it takes you significantly longer then you have a serious problem. > If JKR titled the LAST chapter of OoP "The > Second War Begins", then it means that > there was NO LV war going on during >the rest of the book. Are you really sure you want to pursue this line of argument, do you really want to try to make the case that the war in Iraq is not really a war because the silly politicians in Washington have not declare it so, are you ready to say that the Vietnam war was not a war and the Korean war was not a war? If you really and truly want to debate this I am perfectly willing to do so, but as a friend let me whisper something in your ear, I think you would be wise to look elsewhere for your arguments. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 06:29:49 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 06:29:49 -0000 Subject: Punishing Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120911 "delwynmarch" wrote: > I personally believe that Hermione > wouldn't have let her not sign Yes, I can see it all in my mind's eye, Hermione speaking in a thick German accent saying " Resistance is futile, we have ways of making you sign" followed by a series of bloodcurdling screams from Marrietta. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 06:53:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 06:53:26 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120912 Eggplant: I confess to being a bit confused, you don't seem shy about making moral judgments, like what a horrible terrible person Hermione is for not allowing Umbridge to torture Harry to death, but when I also make a moral judgment you object, and in capital letters too. Alla: I think you confused Del and Pippin AND I am not sure that even Pippin's position was exactly as you stated. I can be wrong though. I think it was more something along the lines that Hermione could have come up with a better plan, although I do think that under the stress Hermione acted as good soldier saving the sanity of her friend and fellow soldier. So, NO, I don't fault Hermione for leading Umbridge to centaurs, although if similar circumstances will arise int he future, I would like for her to come up with better plan, IF circumstances will allow that. Eggplant: Dumbledore said Harry was telling the truth, Fudge said Harry was a lying brat, if you knew nothing about either of them and were meeting Dumbledore and Fudge for the first time how long would it take you to figure out who was smarter, and more honest, and who just had more gravitas? On a very bad day it would take me about 45 seconds to figure it out, if it takes you significantly longer then you have a serious problem. Alla: I absolutely agree with substance of your argument, I do object to the form of it. Del earlier: If JKR titled the LAST chapter of OoP "The Second War Begins", then it means that there was NO LV war going on during the rest of the book. Eggplant: Are you really sure you want to pursue this line of argument, do you really want to try to make the case that the war in Iraq is not really a war because the silly politicians in Washington have not declare it so, are you ready to say that the Vietnam war was not a war and the Korean war was not a war? If you really and truly want to debate this I am perfectly willing to do so, but as a friend let me whisper something in your ear, I think you would be wise to look elsewhere for your arguments. Alla: You know, I am somewhere in the middle on this one. As I argued earlier, I think there SIGNS, which pointed out that Harry was telling the truth and there was a war, but more like UNDERGROUND war. Are you really sure that your comparison with war in Iraq, Korea, etc holds water? I absolutely agree that they are wars, with or without formal declaration, but won't you agree that they are MUCH more visible to the general public than the war which was going on in OOP? You know, you can open the newspaper , watch tv news , etc, and see that Irag is at war. What exactly general public saw BEFORE the last chapter of OOP? As I said, I believe that WW OWED to Harry to hear him and Dumbledore out, but how much did they see? Alla From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 08:04:34 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 08:04:34 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120913 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > I would like for her to come up with better plan Better Plan? What more do you want? Her plan prevented Harry from being tortured into insanity or death and nobody except Umbridge got hurt. A perfect outcome. It was a brilliant plan, certainly I can't think of a better one and I doubt you can either. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 08:41:17 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 08:41:17 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120914 Alla: I would like for her to come up with better plan Eggplant: > Better Plan? What more do you want? Her plan prevented Harry from > being tortured into insanity or death and nobody except Umbridge got > hurt. A perfect outcome. It was a brilliant plan, certainly I can't > think of a better one and I doubt you can either. > Alla: Actually I can think of quite a few better plans, but what I am asking if it is not too much to ask - please, do not misstate my arguments. The other part of the sentence, which you snip said "IF circumstances will allow ". I was talking about the future, IF unfortunate need will arise. I UNDERSTAND the stress Hermione had to do her quick thinking under and I do not fault her for that. I am GLAD that she saved Harry. BUT under less stressful circumstances I am not sure I find hate to be the best weapon even in fight against evil. It is a very good thing , IMO, that we keep arguing about Hermione's actions - I myself keep changing my mind on Marietta's thing after reading different arguments. Shades of gray could be a lot of fun to discuss. I think I agree with those who said that Hermione's actions are appropriate at the time of war and not at the time of peace and Hermione WAS at war. I may change my mind tomorrow again though. :o) Alla From greatraven at hotmail.com Sat Jan 1 09:54:45 2005 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 09:54:45 -0000 Subject: HP & LOTR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120915 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Nielsen wrote: > > In my view, there are clear comparisons between Sauron/Voldemort, > Dumbledore/Gandalf, Harry/Frodo, and Sam/Ron. But just because JKR said she > was inspired by LOTR doesn1t mean she lifted every character directly. You > might make the same comparisons with HP and Star Wars: Voldemort/Darth > Vader, Dumbledore/Obi Wan Kanobi, Harry/Luke, Ron/Han Solo, and > Hermione/Leia. > > This is all made easy because these are classic characters: ultimate bad > guy, older mentor, reluctant hero, loyal best friend, et cetera. > > There are several definite similarities between the HP and LOTR books, I > agree. I just don1t think there's an exact match for each and every > character. Sue: I didn't know JKR had said she was influenced by LOTR, how fascinating! Of course, I've always noticed some similarities, such as the scene where DD tells Harry he may one day be glad he spared Wormtail (who,incidentally, reminds me as much of Wormtongue as he does of Gollum - if you think of LV as Saruman rather than Sauron). Anyway, quite right - no reason why the characters should be exact parallels. They all - HP, LOTR and SW -drew from the same sources. This is perhaps one reason why HP appeals so much. There's more to it than just a standard fantasy story. From kewpiebb99 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 10:26:07 2005 From: kewpiebb99 at yahoo.com (dkewpie) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 02:26:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP & LOTR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050101102607.6911.qmail@web40507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 120916 --- sbursztynski wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Nielsen > wrote: > > But just because JKR said she > > was inspired by LOTR doesn1t mean she lifted every character > directly. > > Sue: > > I didn't know JKR had said she was influenced by LOTR, how > fascinating! K: Actually she NEVER said that she was inspired by LOTR ever. Here's exactly what she said about the LOTR books: JKR: I read it when I was about twenty, I think, and I liked it a lot though I've never re-read it, which is revealing (usually with my favourite books I re-read them endlessly) but he created a whole mythology, an incredible achievement. You can read the whole interview here: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2001/0301-comicrelief-staff.htm She had mentioned her favorite books and authors that inspired her a lot in interviews before, such as Jane Austin, A Tale of Two Cities, Lolita, The Little White horse, I capture the castle, Agatha Christie, E. Nesbit...etc. Yet she NEVER cite Tolkien nor LOTR as her insipration or person favorite what so ever. Just to make that clear. K From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 12:40:28 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 12:40:28 -0000 Subject: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120917 Lupinlore wrote: "In the case of Hermione and Marietta, Marietta was not at war BUT HERMIONE WAS." Del replies: Very interesting post, Lupinlore. Thanks! Concerning the discrepancy between Hermione and Marrietta: I don't think I ever argued that Hermione didn't feel she was at war. The Trio, the Order and their associates were very much at war. What I disagree with is the concept that the entire WW was at war, and that as such Marrietta and the rest of the general public should have acted as people in a war. Marrietta possibly did not consider herself either as a combatant or a non-combatant in a war. She considered herself as a civilian in an organised country in times of peace. Expecting her or anyone else in the general public to act and think even remotely anything like the Trio or the Order did is simply unfair IMO. Hermione was a soldier in an army. Marrietta wasn't. They can't be held to the same standards of action and thought. Del From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 1 12:49:48 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 12:49:48 -0000 Subject: HP & LOTR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120918 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jennifer Nielsen wrote: Jen: > In my view, there are clear comparisons between Sauron/Voldemort, > Dumbledore/Gandalf, Harry/Frodo, and Sam/Ron. But just because JKR said she > was inspired by LOTR doesn?t mean she lifted every character directly. You > might make the same comparisons with HP and Star Wars: Voldemort/Darth > Vader, Dumbledore/Obi Wan Kanobi, Harry/Luke, Ron/Han Solo, and > Hermione/Leia. > > This is all made easy because these are classic characters: ultimate bad > guy, older mentor, reluctant hero, loyal best friend, et cetera. > > There are several definite similarities between the HP and LOTR books, I > agree. I just don?t think there's an exact match for each and every > character. Geoff: I expanded on this point in a series of replies to GEO's post in message 120767 a day or so ago and said that I felt that there is no "one size fits all" answer to comparing characters. I see Harry as an amalgam of Frodo and Aragorn for example with certain characteristics which would be applicable to both. And there are major folk in HP who do not equate to LOTR (and vice versa) - Minerva McGanagall springs to mind in this context. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 13:19:51 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:19:51 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120919 Eggplant wrote: " it does mean nobody is 100% good, or to put it another way, some people are more evil than others. " Del replies: If nobody is 100% good then everybody is evil, even if some are more evil than others. It seems I did understand you correctly, even if you deny it. Note : I'm not saying there's anything wrong with believing that everybody is evil. After all, that's also what I believe on a religious plan. But I admit it : I do believe that everyone is more or less evil, which is why I am ready to cut everyone quite a bit of slack. Eggplant wrote: "I confess to being a bit confused, you don't seem shy about making moral judgments, like what a horrible terrible person Hermione is for not allowing Umbridge to torture Harry to death, but when I also make a moral judgment you object, and in capital letters too. " Del replies: Show me where I ever said that about Hermione. Hint : I never said such a thing. Second hint : the moral judgement I most often make is that nobody is perfect and that as a consequence we shouldn't hold anyone to a perfect standard. Third hint : I *am* shy about making moral judgements, in fact I might be one of the shiest people on this board when it comes to making moral judgements, so much so that I often grate on the nerves of other posters. Fourth hint : if I remember well, we started this discussion with you describing Marrietta as a deeply evil person and me arguing that she might have had very good and important excuses, circumstances and most importantly of all motives. Who was making the moral judgement there? Del, then Eggplant: "Basically what you're saying is "what I like is right and good and what I don't like is evil and wrong"" "I plead guilty, I like stuff that is right and dislike stuff that is wrong. From your response I take it that you have very different ideas." Del replies: If you can't see the distinction between "I like what's right and dislike what's wrong", and "What I like is right and what I dislike is wrong", that's scary. Del, then Eggplant: "Are you a god? " "It is my experience that rhetorical questions usually tend to be rather vapid and foolish, don't you agree?" Del replies: It was in no way a rhetorical question. From the way you talk, you imply that your personal preferences are universal standards. If you are a god, then you are right to say so and I would be wrong to argue with you. So if you're a god I'd rather know, so I can repent. Eggplant wrote: "Dumbledore said Harry was telling the truth, Fudge said Harry was a lying brat, if you knew nothing about either of them and were meeting Dumbledore and Fudge for the first time how long would it take you to figure out who was smarter, and more honest, and who just had more gravitas? On a very bad day it would take me about 45 seconds to figure it out, if it takes you significantly longer then you have a serious problem. " Del replies: Let's see. On one hand, we have a wizard who dresses in weird robes even by wizarding standards, has very long hair and beard, is addicted to sweets, starts telling jokes in the middle of his talks, never answers a question straight, appoints highly dangerous or incompetent people as teachers to kids, and usually looks very mild and slightly silly. On the other hand, we have a wizard who dresses sensibly even if old-fashionedly, looks normal, talks like a normal human being, and seems genuinely concerned about the safety and well-being of the WW in general. Well, I guess you're a better instant judge of people than I am. Eggplant wrote: "Are you really sure you want to pursue this line of argument, do you really want to try to make the case that the war in Iraq is not really a war because the silly politicians in Washington have not declare it so," Del replies: President Bush has said he was sending the armies on a war. The American soldiers are all identified. There are images and reports about the war in Iraq. There are pictures of the enemy soldiers. So no, I wouldn't argue that there's no war in Iraq. But I do ask you : does the wizarding community know who are the fighters on either side? And where are the reports about the war? Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 13:22:50 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:22:50 -0000 Subject: Punishing Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120920 Eggplant wrote: "Yes, I can see it all in my mind's eye, Hermione speaking in a thick German accent saying " Resistance is futile, we have ways of making you sign" followed by a series of bloodcurdling screams from Marrietta." Del replies: Sorry, for me "resistance is futile" can only be said in a robotic voice :-) And I don't remember Hermione using such methods on Harry and yet she did convince him to wait and check on Sirius, even though he really *really* didn't want to. Del From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 14:18:55 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 14:18:55 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120921 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Actually I can think of quite a few better plans So you say. I keep hearing you and several other people say that, but I've not actually heard of one plan that was better, let alone "quite a few". Not one. Eggplant From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 15:40:50 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:40:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) References: Message-ID: <008501c4f018$45bc82c0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 120922 > Eggplant wrote: > "I confess to being a bit confused, you don't seem shy about making > moral judgments, like what a horrible terrible person Hermione is for > not allowing Umbridge to torture Harry to death, but when I also make > a moral judgment you object, and in capital letters too. " > > Del replies: > Show me where I ever said that about Hermione. > Hint : I never said such a thing. > Second hint : the moral judgement I most often make is that nobody is > perfect and that as a consequence we shouldn't hold anyone to a > perfect standard. > Third hint : I *am* shy about making moral judgements, in fact I might > be one of the shiest people on this board when it comes to making > moral judgements, so much so that I often grate on the nerves of other > posters. > Fourth hint : if I remember well, we started this discussion with you > describing Marrietta as a deeply evil person and me arguing that she > might have had very good and important excuses, circumstances and most > importantly of all motives. Who was making the moral judgement there? charme, reluctantly: There's an old phrase which may suit here: "perception is 9/10th of the law." Interpretation of posts like these are individual to the reader, and what you mean to say and what actually comes through *about you* via your writing can be 2 entirely different things. > Eggplant wrote: > "Are you really sure you want to pursue this line of argument, do you > really want to try to make the case that the war in Iraq is not > really a war because the silly politicians in Washington have not > declare it so," > > Del replies: > President Bush has said he was sending the armies on a war. The > American soldiers are all identified. There are images and reports > about the war in Iraq. There are pictures of the enemy soldiers. So > no, I wouldn't argue that there's no war in Iraq. > > But I do ask you : does the wizarding community know who are the > fighters on either side? And where are the reports about the war? charme: For some odd reason I'm reminded of the police handing you a ticket when your vehicle registration expired and you didn't realize it, and lo and behold, it's your responsibility to *know* about it, not the state's. War always "starts" before actual physical confrontation is officially declared by the government - is ignorance of the situation or outright denial the responsibility of the government or of the individual? (I don't know - I can see it both ways and make it personal responsibility in RL to inform myself as much as possible, so I wouldn't limit myself to just the Prophet if I was a wizard :)) Remember, Harry and DD were portrayed as off their rockers, ridiculed, etc in The Daily Prophet. In DD's case, he is a wizard who was lauded for the defeat of a dark wizard some years back and was stripped of some of his *position* in the community. It'd make me wonder what the hell was going on, especially if I had a kid at Hogwarts who informed me at end of term a young man had been killed by LV's rebirth at the end of the Tri Wizard Tournament as DD had told the students. Interesting scenario, indeed. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 15:48:47 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:48:47 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120923 "delwynmarch" wrote: > we started this discussion with you > describing Marietta as a deeply evil > person and me arguing that she might > have had very good and important excuses, > circumstances and most importantly of all motives. You talk a lot about motives and I don't doubt Marietta had a motive of some sort for her treachery, I'm sure she had a reason but I'm not very interested in finding out what it is. You may be able to explain exactly why a person becomes a monster, but that doesn't make them one bit less of a monster. If a man is chasing me with a bloody ax I really don't care what his motivation is, beautiful thoughts may be going on in his head for all I know, I don't care, I just want him to stop. > Who was making the moral judgement there? Obviously we both are, saying something is not evil is as much a judgment as saying that it is. And what's so wrong about making moral judgments anyway? > If you can't see the distinction between > "I like what's right and dislike what's wrong", > and "What I like is right and what I dislike is > wrong", that's scary. This must be the first time in human history when saying I like to do good stuff and don't like to do bad stuff has scared someone. You must scare real easy. > It [Are you a God?] was in no way a rhetorical question. It Wasn't?! So you really didn't know the answer to that question, you really wanted an answer, you really thought there was a possibility you were communicating with a God. I'm flattered. > I guess you're a better instant judge of people than I am. Apparently so, probably it has something to do with me being a God and all. > we have a wizard [Fudge] who dresses sensibly > even if old-fashionedly, Right, lots of conservative men have lime green bowler hats. > does the wizarding community know who are > the fighters on either side? If they don't they certainly should. > And where are the reports about the war? Harry doesn't need to read reports to know a war is going on, he experienced it first hand. This entire war debate started because I said extreme measures are necessary in war so the punishment of Marietta was not excessive, you responded that there was no war. Seeing Voldemort in the flesh and being tied to a tombstone and tortured so horribly he wanted to die has convinced Harry that there is a war going on. It would convince me too. As I said before if Marietta does not believe this then she is WRONG, and when you make an error there are consequences. Eggplant From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 16:12:25 2005 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 08:12:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peter Pettigrew's House In-Reply-To: <20041230235031.1356.qmail@web52204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050101161225.45075.qmail@web52708.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 120924 Lucy Wooten wrote: Does anyone have an opinion on which house Peter Pettigrew belonged to? McGonagall refers to him as "that fat little boy who was always tagging them [the Marauders] at Hogwarts". She doesn't seem to know him very well. -Lucy Griffin782002 now: I think Pettigrew was in Gryffindor(sp?). If I am not wrong JKR has said that. And sorry for the short reply.... Griffin782002 who visited Kings Cross and who thanks to her nervousness for the January exams nearly forgot that this Friday was New Year's Eve!!!!!! 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. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! ? Try it today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Jan 1 16:18:14 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:18:14 -0000 Subject: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120925 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Lupinlore wrote: > "In the case of Hermione and Marietta, Marietta was not at war BUT > HERMIONE WAS." > > Del replies: > Very interesting post, Lupinlore. Thanks! > > Concerning the discrepancy between Hermione and Marrietta: I don't > think I ever argued that Hermione didn't feel she was at war. The > Trio, the Order and their associates were very much at war. What I > disagree with is the concept that the entire WW was at war, and that > as such Marrietta and the rest of the general public should have acted > as people in a war. Marrietta possibly did not consider herself either > as a combatant or a non-combatant in a war. She considered herself as > a civilian in an organised country in times of peace. Expecting her or > anyone else in the general public to act and think even remotely > anything like the Trio or the Order did is simply unfair IMO. > > Hermione was a soldier in an army. Marrietta wasn't. They can't be > held to the same standards of action and thought. > Renee: Marietta got the same information from DD as the other students did about what happened at the end of the Triwizard Tournament. True, she did face a dilemma: to believe her own mother, working for the Ministry that denied Voldemorts return, or to believe DD. In the end, loyalty to her mother apparently overrode loyalty to the Headmaster. Yet loyalty to DD *is* a standard of action and thought in the HP series. According to the Headmaster himself, at the end of COS Fawkes the Phoenix saves Harry because of his (Harry's) loyalty to DD. So, from a story-internal point of view, the message does seem to be that Marietta is in the wrong - unless you think DD has been set(ting himself) up as a false god, and that his words at the end of COS are invalid. It's doubtful whether this is JKR's intention, though. Personally, I'm not 100% happy with this loyalty to DD as a standard for behaviour, but I see no possibility to argue it away. To me, the conclusion that we're meant to consider Marietta a sneak seems inevitable, however much I'd prefer to see the situation as one in which right and wrong are distributed on both sides. Renee From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Jan 1 16:23:35 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:23:35 -0000 Subject: Peter Pettigrew's House In-Reply-To: <20041230235031.1356.qmail@web52204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120926 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lucy Wooten wrote: > > Does anyone have an opinion on which house Peter Pettigrew belonged to? McGonagall refers to him as "that fat little boy who was always tagging them [the Marauders] at Hogwarts". She doesn't seem to know him very well. > > -Lucy >From World Book Day chat in March 2004: Q: What houses were Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, James Potter and Remus Lupin in? Everyone tells me they were all Gryffindor, but I won't believe it unless I hear it from Ms. Rowling herself! A: This is JK herself saying that they were indeed in Gryffindor. ****** So, we don't know exactly which house Peter was in given the error in the question, but it certainly seems logical Peter was in Gryffindor. It would be hard for Peter to 'tag-along' behind James and Sirius if he wasn't in their house (and presumably their dorm). Jen From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 1 16:35:25 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:35:25 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and Hermione was Marrieta and ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120927 Pippin: > > Would you agree that the centaurs had become > > an evil organization by embracing racism Eggplant: > The centaurs are not an organization they are a species, a species as intelligent as humans with a long and illustrious history. To label all of them as evil is racism of the worst sort.< Pippin: Indeed. I was referring to the specific herd in question, which had attempted to lynch one of its own members for the "crime" of co-operating with humans. That was a species-ist act committed as a matter of policy. The herd had become evil, yes, and Hermione should have thought twice about trying to get them to help her. Pippin: > > trip over a root and pretend to break my ankle Eggplant: > How on Earth is that going to stop Umbridge from torturing Harry? Pippin: You misunderstood me, I think. The first part of Hermione's plan *was* brilliant: lead Umbridge away from her supporters and into an ambush. It was the nature of the ambush that needed a little more thought. I was describing different ways in which Umbridge could have been ambushed. That one is classic. I didn't think I needed to go into detail. You know, Hermione grabs her ankle, screams in pain, says she can't go any further. Umbridge bends down to take a look and Harry hits her with a rock. Pippin: > > say that the weapon must have been moved to > > London and flee up the steps of Grimmauld Place Eggplant: > Even if you could convince her to go as far as London (unlikely) it's not clear how that would help, you say flee up the steps but that's easier said than done, she has a wand (equivalent to a gun) on you at all times. < Perhaps you could get any member of the Order who happened to be in Grimmauld Place at the time to come out and battle on your behalf, but then you'd be risking their life when there was a much better way. And letting one of your worst enemies find out the location of your super secret headquarters does not sound like a very good idea to me. < Pippin: Once Harry and Hermione on on the steps, they're invisible, except to other members of the Order. All they had to do is calmly walk ahead of her onto the steps and they'd disappear instantly. Umbridge wouldn't be able to see them, she wouldn't be able to curse them, she wouldn't know what had happened to them, and she wouldn't know she was on the doorstep of Order headquarters, either. I don't think Harry and Hermione *could* betray the location of the Order to her even accidentally -- that's what the Secret Keeper charm is for. Pippin: > > Grawp Eggplant: > I am certain at the time Hermione thought Grawp was far more dangerous than the Centaurs, and she had a point, certainly the Centaurs were terrified of Grawp.< Pippin: Only true because Hermione underestimated the danger of the centaurs. Pippin: > > asking Harry to call Fawkes Eggplant: > If Harry has the ability to call Fawkes to him whenever he wants > that's news to me. By the way, how could she ask Harry anything without Umbridge hearing her do so?< Pippin: (quoting from memory) "You must have shown true loyalty to me. Only that could have called Fawkes to you." --CoS Hermione could have said, "I hope our golden friend isn't there, he might cause trouble." Harry's quick on the uptake, he'd have figured it out. Pippin: > > the merpeople Eggplant: > Ok Professor Umbridge listen closely, this is what I want you to do, swim out into the middle of the lake and then dive down to the very bottom then No, that just isn't going to work< Pippin: Why not -- "He's hidden it at the bottom of the lake --we'll need a bubblehead charm, of course or gillyweed to go get it-- I think Professor Snape has some." Pippin: > > Dobby Eggplant: > And they communicate to Dobby that they need help by means of < Pippin: "Dobby knows where it is -- bring him here and he'll tell you." Eggplant: > If a corrupt, evil, black person was holding a gun to my head and was about to pull the trigger and I could figure out a way to get a KKK member (or anybody else) to stop them from doing it I would not hesitate for one heartbeat to do so. Be honest, would you? > Pippin: If I had bought myself half an hour to think of another plan, I would have tried to. Hermione's vindictiveness got in her way, IMO. She didn't just want to interfere with Umbridge, she wanted to punish her, so she didn't think she needed a better plan. We won't know the full cost of Hermione's misjudgment until we find out what it cost Dumbledore to rescue Umbridge from the centaurs. Who knows what risks he took or what price he had to pay to do that? Pippin From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 16:59:20 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:59:20 -0000 Subject: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120928 Renee wrote: "Marietta got the same information from DD as the other students did about what happened at the end of the Triwizard Tournament." Del replies: Yes, and how many students believed Harry or DD at that time? Del From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 1 17:00:19 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 17:00:19 -0000 Subject: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120929 > > Renee: > Marietta got the same information from DD as the other students did about what happened at the end of the Triwizard Tournament. < Pippin: Even Harry could not tell that Voldemort was back from public information. Fudge and Dumbledore had been allies up to the end of Year Four, then each accused the other of having deteriorated. Given that people can deteriorate, how was anyone to know who was right? Harry himself didn't give absolute trust to Dumbledore in OOP, so why should anyone else? It's interesting to consider how Dumbledore himself handled the issue of being in a war himself when the wizarding world at large wasn't. Consider the protections around the stone: Fluffy's potential to maim is considerable. But Dumbledore warns everyone IIRC, "The third floor corridor is off-limits to everyone who does not wish to suffer a sudden and painful death." Hermione could have warned people that anyone who talked would suffer a sudden and painful hex. She wouldn't have had to go into details to avoid being devious. And I really, really doubt a hex like Hermione's would have protected the Order from the traitor within -- Voldemort, unlike Umbridge, takes a practical interest in jinxes. He would have been able to break such a spell. Pippin From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 17:27:59 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 17:27:59 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120930 Eggplant wrote: "You may be able to explain exactly why a person becomes a monster, but that doesn't make them one bit less of a monster. If a man is chasing me with a bloody ax I really don't care what his motivation is, beautiful thoughts may be going on in his head for all I know, I don't care, I just want him to stop. " Del replies: Let me use examples of why such a simple reasoning can be deeply flawed. Let's say you see Man A chasing Man B with a bloody axe. If I understand you well, you will automatically classify Man A as an evil monster, right? Will it make any difference to you to learn that Man B just raped and killed Man A's wife and kids, and that it is the blood of that family which is on the axe? On a more day-to-day level : your little daughter comes to my door and asks me if my son can come out to play with her. I tell her no, that my son is not authorised to go out today. Are you automatically going to qualify me as a child abuser, or are you going to wonder if I'm not rightfully punishing my kid for something he did ? Del, then Eggplant: "If you can't see the distinction between "I like what's right and dislike what's wrong", and "What I like is right and what I dislike is wrong", that's scary." "This must be the first time in human history when saying I like to do good stuff and don't like to do bad stuff has scared someone. You must scare real easy." Del replies: It gets better all the time! Honestly, English is not my first language, but even I know the difference between "I like what's right" and "what I like is right". And I also know that good isn't necessarily a synonym for right, nor bad for wrong. Del, then Eggplant: "does the wizarding community know who are the fighters on either side?" "If they don't they certainly should." Del replies: Based on what? Both the Order and the DEs are *secret* organisations, which by definition means that their very existence, along with the identity of their members, are NOT known of the general public, and are not supposed to be. So why "should" the general public know about them? How *could* they? Eggplant wrote: "Harry doesn't need to read reports to know a war is going on, he experienced it first hand." Del replies: Yes, but he is the only one. Nobody else has reported seeing even the smallest bit of Reborn!LV. One person reporting unsupported events can hardly be called "reportS". The war in Iraq, for example, wasn't started because one single teenage Iraqi said that there was a tyrant in Iraq. It was started after this tyrant and his actions were well-documented by a large number of people. Eggplant wrote: "Seeing Voldemort in the flesh and being tied to a tombstone and tortured so horribly he wanted to die has convinced Harry that there is a war going on. It would convince me too." Del replies: Yes, but would a single teenager living on the other side of the country reporting having seen Hitler reborn and some of his new Nazi leaders, convince you that Reborn!Hitler is about to start WWIII? Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 17:58:02 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 17:58:02 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: <008501c4f018$45bc82c0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120931 Charme wrote: " There's an old phrase which may suit here: "perception is 9/10th of the law." Interpretation of posts like these are individual to the reader, and what you mean to say and what actually comes through *about you* via your writing can be 2 entirely different things." Del replies: I completely agree, but accusing me of having said something I never even came close of saying is going way beyond interpretation. Interpretation is extrapolation based on the facts, it's not invention of new facts. Charme wrote: "is ignorance of the situation or outright denial the responsibility of the government or of the individual? (I don't know - I can see it both ways and make it personal responsibility in RL to inform myself as much as possible, so I wouldn't limit myself to just the Prophet if I was a wizard :))" Del replies: I kind of agree, but I doubt any other newspaper or magazine reported anything better. We don't know what the Quibbler (a magazine to read with a very high dose of skepticism apparently) said about the war that DD was warning about. But even if it talked about it, it would most probably have been coated with such ridiculous accusations (like Fudge eating goblins, though I must admit I still wonder if maybe it couldn't be true...) that the real info would have been pretty much impossible to discern. Witch Weekly doesn't seem to be the kind of magazine that concerns itself with political issues, and even if it does, I would think it would very obediently repeat the official version of things. And so would most probably most of the other publications, if there are any. The Order did seem to imply that the MoM had a very tight control on the press. I guess this also includes the wireless network. So I agree that ideally people could have tried to find other sources of information, but I don't think they could have found anything of worth, short of writing to Harry and DD straight. And honestly, how many would even think of writing to someone who makes such weird claims as Harry and DD were making (except to insult them of course)? Charme wrote: " Remember, Harry and DD were portrayed as off their rockers, ridiculed, etc in The Daily Prophet. In DD's case, he is a wizard who was lauded for the defeat of a dark wizard some years back and was stripped of some of his *position* in the community." Del replies: Hum, some years ago was about 50 years (I'm assuming you're talking about Grindelwald?). That's a *long* while. No hero of the past is insured against falling from their pedestal. To me as I grew up, Petain was always associated with weakness and betrayal (he was the general who ruled France under the German authority during WWII), and I was amazed to learn that he had been one of the major heroes of WWI in France. He was held by the French in extremely high esteem for more than 20 years, which is actually why people followed his lead when he suggested submitting to the Germans. So there's no saying that DD couldn't have fallen off his rocker for good, no matter how great he had been in the past. Charme wrote: "It'd make me wonder what the hell was going on, especially if I had a kid at Hogwarts who informed me at end of term a young man had been killed by LV's rebirth at the end of the Tri Wizard Tournament as DD had told the students. " Del replies: As I see it, the problem is that DD was alone in proclaiming that LV had killed Cedric, and he was faced with the entire government and press who all had another apparently-acceptable explanation for what happened to Cedric (Umbridge called it an accident, but I must admit I'd love to see how they explained being killed by *nothing* -not an AK obviously- to be an accident! Maybe they said it was a cardiac arrest, or an aneurism, or something?). As I already said in another post, if a kid proclaimed that another kid had been killed by the aliens (or by Hitler ressucitated for that matter), I would be suspicious of the kid, not of the aliens or Hitler. Moreover, there's the simple matter that the TWT is well-known for being mortally dangerous. No matter what the Headmasters said at the beginning of the year about ensuring higher levels of security, I'm sure that in the mind of people, TWT still equals with deaths of students. Who knows, maybe some even suggested that DD had dragged LV into the story just because he couldn't face his own responsibility in Cedric's death? Del From inkling108 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 18:04:56 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:04:56 -0000 Subject: The Veil, HP & LOTR ?] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120932 > vmonte writes: (snip) (The contempt that Snape has for Harry is laughable > considering that he himself is ruled by his emotions; and that nasty > jab he gives Harry in the first Potions class when he talks > about 'our new celebrity,'etc. From what I can tell, Harry doesn't > want the celebrity, it's Snape who craves recognition. Just look at > the way he behaved at the end of PoA when he found out that he was > going to lose his chance for an award.) > > I've always secretly felt that Trelawny's 2nd prophecy was about > Snape. I think that if Snape were to join Voldemort the consequences > for the Order would be devastating. Wormtail helping Voldemort rise > to power--that's laughable. Wormtail's help may have actually caused > Voldemort harm. Now Voldemort has Harry's blood inside him, which is > probably going to be fatal for Voldemort (DD's gleam, etc). Also, > Wormtail now owes Harry a life debt, which I feel he will repay in > the end. > > So I think that Wormtail, although a bad guy, hasn't really helped > Voldemort at all. Snape on the other hand would completely devestate > the Order, especially since Dumbledore seems to completely trust the man. Inkling now: Happy New Year! Yes, Snape does project like mad onto Harry, classic denial behavior, and his potential to devastate the order is very great because of his double agent role. But could you explain what you mean about the prophecy being about Snape? > I also agree with you about Neville. It will be beause of the two > boys that Voldemort's downfall will occur. The prophecy is about both > boys. If you mean that Neville will help Harry in some crucial way when it comes time to vanquish Voldything, I agree. I picture something like the moment in the Return of the King when Sam says, "I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you." Similarly, Neville cannot do the deed -- only Harry can, but he will get an assist at a critical time from Neville, an assist that may come at the very climax. Inkling From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 18:21:41 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:21:41 -0000 Subject: A question of "essentials" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120933 Lupinlore wrote: "Free will, if the definition is pushed to its logical foundations, becomes an illusion, in that no one's will operates outside of forces that condition, channel, and limit the will." Del replies: Another interesting post for me :-) I quite agree with you Lupinlore, though I wouldn't go as far as saying that free will is an illusion. My own idea of free will would probably be more accurately called restricted free will. In my idea, people are free to choose within the limits of completely personal parameters that nobody (but God) can figure (nobody including themselves quite often). So for me problems arise when someone starts arguing that a RL person or a character in a book was free to choose to do or not do something, because we don't know what that person's parameters are, we don't know where their limits are, and this matters enormously to me. It seems to me that many people believe in some form of such restricted free will for the Potterverse characters. But it also seems quite obvious to me that we tend to be more or less generous with the limits we grant characters depending on how much we like those characters or not. For example, I often tend to give larger parameters to Harry than many other people, because I don't like him as much. This means that I tend to argue that he was able to make choices very different from some of those he took, when many other people argue that his free will was much more restricted by his nature/nurture/environment than I pretend. Another example is Kneasy's theory that Harry's choices are not really choices because DD is making sure that Harry makes those choices by manipulating his environment. This translates into : DD does his best to restrict as much as possible the limits within which Harry can exercise his free will. It doesn't mean that Harry doesn't have any free will anymore, just that the extent to which he can exercise it is quite small. A third example is the war/not war problem that is being discussed in another thread. Whether one is at war or not is a major influence on one's parameters. For example, killing another human being is generally wrong in times of peace, but it can be the only right thing to do in times of war. And last but not least, my most problematic example of restricted free will is Tom Riddle. If he was a child psychopath, then his parameters were widely different from those of other kids. He still had his free will, but he wasn't able to exercise it within any normal kind of limits : whatever he did, he would never be normal. And if JKR meant it when she said he never loved, one could even argue that Tom could never be good, because his parameters didn't include love and compassion. He could be right by deciding to comply to society's morality just for the sake of avoiding problems, but he would never be good. And this takes us back to the issue of innate goodness and innate evilness. Del From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 1 18:33:04 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:33:04 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120934 SSSusan: > What really surprises me in this whole situation *isn't* that > Hermione placed the hex that would identify any snitch. What > surprises me is that someone ? Hermione, especially ? didn't > *notice* Marietta's reluctance at the HH and really WANT to check > out her interest in the group. "Are you sure you want to be > here? We only want people who are REALLY interested and TRULY > committed to this group & its purpose." > If I were Harry or Hermione, I think I would've been frightened of > the signs she was showing. I mean, if she didn't want to be > there, then why LET her join? Alla: > Oh, Susan if you put the question this way, then YES, I agree > absolutely - Hermione should have been smarter and checking people > with wierd reactions like Marietta's was. > > I do think that Hermione especially should have done it, because > it was her idea, not Harry's and she had to convince him to. > > In short, I agree that WAS stupid on Hermione's post. > > Am, I understand you correctly that you don't fault Hermione for > placing the jinx? > > I don't blame Hermione for placing the jinx, I just think that she > should have thought about it better. I even keep going back and > forth on whether she should have discussed it with the group. SSSusan again: I have mixed feelings about the jinx. I think that, as some have pointed out, wartime *does* lead to more drastic measures. And I know that Del is arguing it wasn't war, but I don't tend to agree. For *THESE* kids, there was knowledge of Voldy's return, and Cedric had been killed. THESE kids were recruiting other kids, sharing the information & knowledge they possessed, and they were calling themselves Dumbledore's *ARMY*. To me, the implication is clear that they believed they were preparing for their role in war. Most of the kids being recruited needed more information to be sure of that, but it really is what the group was about, and that should have been clear by the end of the Hog's Head meeting. So in that way I understand what Hermione did and why. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, I'm not sure that this particular jinx/hex set-up was especially effective *if* the goal was to stop someone from snitching. First, nobody knew it was in place. Second, it came into effect *after* any member went to the authorities to tell on the group. It wasn't preventative in anyway. Now, I'm not sure whether there is magic capable of analyzing someone's intentions and therefore going into effect prior to his/her taking action. I seriously doubt it. So maybe this was the best Hermione could think up? It's a tough call. Siriusly Snapey Susan From inkling108 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 18:37:01 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:37:01 -0000 Subject: The Veil, HP & LOTR ?] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120935 Inkling wrote> > --> Ron is preoccupied with money. He "hates being poor." JKR > has > > made such a point of this so often that I feel sure he will face a > > major temptation to do with money, and how he handles it will be > > crucial to the fate of the good guys. GEO responded: > GEO: He may be tempted, but I think Ron has shown that he will > always be loyal to Harry and his own family. > Inkling again: Let me clarify. I really like Ron. He's a true stalwart and I don't think he would ever consciously betray his friends for money. However JKR has made continuous references to the money issue, which to me means something will be up with that in Book 6/7. Maybe one of the bad guys, aware of Ron's money issue, will use it to lure him into a trap or a compromised position. On Snape: > > GEO: I think he definitely has thrown his fate in with the Order. > Right now he can't return to their ranks and even if he did he'd be > tortured/punished by Voldemort if he admitted to it. Inkling again: Well, that depends on what Voldemort believes about Snape. Many, on this site and elsewhere, have theorized that he is a true double agent who has both sides convinced that he's with them. After all, he remains on good terms with the Malfoys and is managing to find out what Voldemort is saying to his followers. The theory is that he is able to bring this off because his occulmency skills prevent both Voldy and Dumbledore from legilimensing (if that's the word) him to find out the truth. My point was that because his emotions are so powerful and volatile, and because he has convinced himself (wrongly) that he is in control of them, he himself may not really know where he stands until a moment of intense emotion tips the balance one way or another. > > --> Lupin cares too much about approval and being liked. This is > > what prevented him from telling Dumbledore about Sirius being an > > animagus in book 3 and from reining in James and Sirius when he > was > > a prefect. If he once again keeps silent on some crucial > > information because of this fear, the good guys are in trouble. > > GEO: I don't think he has any crucial information right now to sit > on. Inkling: No, but he may get some. Or this may play out in some other way. > > > Neville, by contrast, may prove the most trustworthy of all > because > > he has faced his weakness -- fear of power -- and is mastering > it. > > It may be significant that Neville was the last man standing with > > Harry during the battle at the Ministry at the end of OOtP. > Neville > > may turn out to be Harry's Sam. GEO wrote: > I disagree. Neville is another character that JKR used to > contrast Harry with just like Voldemort. In short he was a potential > prophecy child just as Harry was the one that was chosen though he > still lost his parents and he carries his father's wand just as > Harry carries his father's cloak. Inkling: I don't think JKR would have developed Neville over the books like she has if he was simply meant to be a contrast to Harry. He has only now begun to discover his strength (in OOtP)and I think he will use it when it counts the most. Happy 2005, Inkling From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 1 18:45:40 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:45:40 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120936 SSSusan again: > I have mixed feelings about the jinx. I think that, as some have > pointed out, wartime *does* lead to more drastic measures. And I > know that Del is arguing it wasn't war, but I don't tend to > agree. > > For *THESE* kids, there was knowledge of Voldy's return, and > Cedric had been killed. THESE kids were recruiting other kids, > sharing the information & knowledge they possessed, and they were > calling themselves Dumbledore's *ARMY*. To me, the implication is > clear that they believed they were preparing for their role in > war. Most of the kids being recruited needed more information to > be sure of that, but it really is what the group was about, and > that should have been clear by the end of the Hog's Head meeting. SSSusan, amending her own post. :-| Okay, proving once again that it's a pain in the butt when a thread goes off under several subthreads (you *think* you've followed things through only to find you haven't), I've now seen Carol's post #120885, which has convinced me that it wouldn't necessarily be nearly as obvious as I implied it would have been to the not-close- to-Harry crowd of kids at HH just how serious things were. I still have mixed feelings about the whole thing, and I still believe that a core group of the Gyrffindors present *did* believe it was really war they were preparing for, but I do allow that for fence-sitters and "outsiders," things wouldn't exactly have been crystal clear. So they should've walked if they weren't sure. And maybe, just maybe, Hermione should've explained that there were some "unpleasant consequences" in store for anyone who signed and then broke the contract. She did say they would be agreeing not to tell, but she didn't hint at any kind of consequence. Having done so, even without specifics, might have helped to ensure that that DA didn't end up with people who were only half-heartedly there, something desperately important in war-time. Siriusly Snapey Susan From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 19:17:01 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:17:01 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120937 SSSusan wrote: "For *THESE* kids, there was knowledge of Voldy's return, and Cedric had been killed." Del replies: I'm not sure what kids you're referring about, but if you mean the whole of the DA, then I have to argue that it wasn't so much knowledge as information. Some of them may have *believed* Harry, but belief isn't knowledge. SSSusan wrote: "THESE kids were recruiting other kids, sharing the information & knowledge they possessed," Del replies: I disagree. Once the group was formed, they didn't recruit anyone except Seamus. In fact, they had promised not to tell about the group to *anyone*, which by definition meant that they were *not* recruiting. I even remember someone asking some time ago how they managed to recruit Seamus without activating the jinx. SSSusan wrote: "and they were calling themselves Dumbledore's *ARMY*. To me, the implication is clear that they believed they were preparing for their role in war." Del replies: I disagree. They called themselves the DA as a joke, because the existence of such an army was the Ministry's worst fear, not because they thought they *were* such an army. Some of them did think they were preparing to fight against the DEs, but the original intent of the group was just to practice DADA because they couldn't do it in class. And they stuck to that intent throughout the existence of the DA : they never discussed the ongoing war again after the first meeting. Whenever Harry mentioned LV in his lessons, it was to say that this or that spell had helped him against LV. If Umbridge had allowed the kids to practice DADA, there would never have been any DA. It wasn't formed as a political entity, it was formed as a practice group and the members were recruited *only* on this basis, not on whether or not they believed Harry or whether or not they wanted to fight against LV. Hermione was never clear as to what the group was supposed to be. She wasn't clear about what the requirements for membership were : the only official requirement was that people wanted to practice DADA, but then other requirements got added on to it, like believing Harry's story and wanting to fight the MoM and LV, even though I think several DA didn't fulfill those requirements. She wasn't clear about what the parchment they signed was : at first she said it was just a list of participants to the first meeting, and then she added it was also an oath to keep the DA secret. In a way, it's no wonder they got betrayed : they didn't even know themselves what they really were. Del From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 19:33:37 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:33:37 -0000 Subject: JKR's Messages (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120938 > SSSusan: > I do think I get the distinction you're making, Neri, but I'm not > sure it's going to show in what I say here. :-| > > What do you make of the fact that it was JKR who was identifying the > trio as persons she tends to see as "innately good"? Do you think > she's simply saying, that because of the choices she's going to > *make* them make as their creator, she CAN see them that way? Or is > she saying that within the book, as characters, she sees them that > way? > > Because I didn't see this comment as authorial intention when I read > it. It seems to me that, having this phrase come from the horse's > mouth as it were, that if it's discrediting their personhood, then > JKR herself did that. I mean, is it problematic to you that *she's* > the one who said it, or do you see it differently? > Neri: Well, according to my own distinction I have a bit of a problem with the logic of this discussion. If I consider the trio to be innately good because JKR says so, then I'm obviously arguing from outside the story. If OTOH I want to argue only from within the story, then I have to pretend that the author doesn't exist, so how do I know that the trio are "innately good"? OK, I wouldn't want you to think that I'm avoiding the question. So lets pretend that we are within the story, we know the trio personally and very closely, and someone told us that they are "innately good". We are now considering if it is possible to accommodate this statement with what we know about them. Are the trio little saints? Do they always choose good? Do they have some magical power that prevents them from wrongdoing? Nope, from my personal acquaintance with them this interpretation is incorrect. And if some funny muggle woman would have told me that she's "the author" and therefore she knows for sure that they are "innately good", I would have told her that 1) she's crazy and 2) she's not consistent with the way she wrote them. A more realistic interpretation is that the trio follow good principles and values. Principles and values are just a practical way of making choices. Instead of weighting the pros and cons and having the whole moral discussion each time, you decide once about a set of principles and then most of the time you just have to follow them. It's much more efficient and it enables you to make decisions much faster, which is a distinctive advantage with choices that might only be available for a second or two. It also makes being "good" and "bad" look more like a description of an inner state than a matter of choice. People who follow their principles faithfully might appear as if they are pre-programmed, as if they are innately good (or innately bad). But we shouldn't forget that they chose which principles to follow and they chose to follow them faithfully. If this is what the crazy muggle woman had meant, then from my personal acquaintance with the trio I fully agree. Neri From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 19:36:38 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:36:38 -0000 Subject: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120939 > Pippin: > > > It's interesting to consider how Dumbledore himself handled the > issue of being in a war himself when the wizarding world at large > wasn't. Consider the protections around the stone: Fluffy's > potential to maim is considerable. But Dumbledore warns > everyone IIRC, "The third floor corridor is off-limits to everyone > who does not wish to suffer a sudden and painful death." > Hermione could have warned people that anyone who talked > would suffer a sudden and painful hex. She wouldn't have had to > go into details to avoid being devious. > > And I really, really doubt a hex like Hermione's would have > protected the Order from the traitor within -- Voldemort, unlike > Umbridge, takes a practical interest in jinxes. He would have > been able to break such a spell. > Neri: According to the Lexicon's timeline, the year ends about two weeks after DD is back at Hogwarts, and yet in the Hogwarts Express back to London Marietta is still jinxed. So it seems that either DD couldn't unjinx her (even with Hermione's help, which she surely would have given if asked by him) or he couldn't be bothered. The first option suggests that the jinx is VERY difficult to break. The second option suggests that DD doesn't think Marietta's condition is all that unjustified. Perhaps he knows about the case and her motives more than we do. Neri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 19:42:23 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:42:23 -0000 Subject: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120940 > Neri: snip. According to the Lexicon's timeline, the year ends about two weeks after DD is back at Hogwarts, and yet in the Hogwarts Express back to London Marietta is still jinxed. So it seems that either DD couldn't unjinx her (even with Hermione's help, which she surely would have given if asked by him) or he couldn't be bothered. The first option suggests that the jinx is VERY difficult to break. The second option suggests that DD doesn't think Marietta's condition is all that unjustified. Perhaps he knows about the case and her motives more than we do. Alla: Good point, Neri. It is hard for me to imagine that Hermione is better at casting jinxes than Dumbledore is. (she is good but not that good yet, IMO ;o)) If as you suggested in your earlier post Dumbledore is able to determine the very "essense" of the person, do you think that he saw in Marietta the potential to go "really bad" and allowed jinx to stay "to nip it in the bud" so to speak? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 19:50:09 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:50:09 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120941 Eggplant: So you say. I keep hearing you and several other people say that, but I've not actually heard of one plan that was better, let alone "quite a few". Not one. Alla: Eggplant, I give up. Have you read my whole post or you just pick out one part to change the substance completely? I AGREE with you in a sense that Hermione should not be faulted this time, because she was under tremendous stress, but if she was not, for whole list of better people to lead Umbrdige to, I refer you to Pippin's post. Am I being THAT confusing? I hardly think that half an hour in the Forbidden Forest WITH Umbridge breathing down their necks is enough time to think about those people, Hermione demonstrated remarkably quick thinking as it is already, BUT on general theoretical principle, I think it is possible. Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 1 19:56:10 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:56:10 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120942 SSSusan wrote: > "For *THESE* kids, there was knowledge of Voldy's return, and > Cedric had been killed." Del replied: > I'm not sure what kids you're referring about, but if you mean the > whole of the DA, then I have to argue that it wasn't so much > knowledge as information. Some of them may have *believed* Harry, > but belief isn't knowledge. SSSusan wrote: > "THESE kids were recruiting other kids, sharing the information & > knowledge they possessed," Del replied: > I disagree. Once the group was formed, they didn't recruit anyone > except Seamus. In fact, they had promised not to tell about the > group to *anyone*, which by definition meant that they were *not* > recruiting. I even remember someone asking some time ago how they > managed to recruit Seamus without activating the jinx. SSSusan: I sent out a clarifying post right after I first posted the one you're responding to, Del, so I've backed off on some of my own argument. But let me explain who I meant by THESE kids. I meant Harry/Hermione/Ron/F&G/Ginny -- anyone in Harry's inner circle who understood/believed that Voldy was back, that Cedric was killed because he was back, that war was on its way. As for recruiting others, I meant those other kids outside this small core group who ended up at the Hog's Head that first day. I wasn't talking about any later recruiting, but those who came along to the HH without being a part of Harry's core group, those who were lacking as much info as they had. SSSusan wrote: > "and they were calling themselves Dumbledore's *ARMY*. To me, the > implication is clear that they believed they were preparing for > their role in war." Del replied: > I disagree. > They called themselves the DA as a joke, because the existence of > such an army was the Ministry's worst fear, not because they > thought they *were* such an army. Some of them did think they were > preparing to fight against the DEs, but the original intent of the > group was just to practice DADA because they couldn't do it in > class. And they stuck to that intent throughout the existence of > the DA : they never discussed the ongoing war again after the > first meeting. Whenever Harry mentioned LV in his lessons, it was > to say that this or that spell had helped him against LV. > > If Umbridge had allowed the kids to practice DADA, there would > never have been any DA. It wasn't formed as a political entity, it > was formed as a practice group and the members were recruited > *only* on this basis, not on whether or not they believed Harry or > whether or not they wanted to fight against LV. SSSusan: Yes, I see this now. I was mistaken previously. Del: > Hermione was never clear as to what the group was supposed to be. > She wasn't clear about what the requirements for membership were : > the only official requirement was that people wanted to practice > DADA, but then other requirements got added on to it, like > believing Harry's story and wanting to fight the MoM and LV, even > though I think several DA didn't fulfill those requirements. She > wasn't clear about what the parchment they signed was : at first > she said it was just a list of participants to the first meeting, > and then she added it was also an oath to keep the DA secret. In a > way, it's no wonder they got betrayed : they didn't even know > themselves what they really were. SSSusan: Yes, you've got a good point here. Was the DA just about practicing defensive skills? Or was it about preparing to face Voldy and his henchpeople later? That should've been known & stated. Was it a requirement that everyone believe Harry? That should have been known & clearly stated. And Hermione was in a bit of a spot because Harry wasn't ready to talk details for those who didn't know them. Maybe Hermione should have insisted that they keep it small at first, then. If she knew clearly what they were all about, if she understood what was at stake and wanted only others who understood, too, then why did she "okay" all those folks coming who the core group didn't really know all that well? Why didn't they scoot Marietta and others who seemed hesitant or reluctant right out the door? Why try to *convince* them to join at this point? I'm starting to see more of the "Good Intentions/Misguided Efforts Hermione" that we see with SPEW in this initial HH meeting, too. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 1 20:20:47 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 20:20:47 -0000 Subject: JKR's Messages (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120943 SSSusan: > > What do you make of the fact that it was JKR who was identifying > > the trio as persons she tends to see as "innately good"? Do you > > think she's simply saying, that because of the choices she's > > going to *make* them make as their creator, she CAN see them > > that way? Or is she saying that within the book, as characters, > > she sees them that way? Neri: > Well, according to my own distinction I have a bit of a problem > with the logic of this discussion. If I consider the trio to be > innately good because JKR says so, then I'm obviously arguing from > outside the story. If OTOH I want to argue only from within the > story, then I have to pretend that the author doesn't exist, so > how do I know that the trio are "innately good"? > > OK, I wouldn't want you to think that I'm avoiding the question. SSSusan: LOL. Not at all. I think I've got you now. Onward! Neri: > So lets pretend that we are within the story, we know the trio > personally and very closely, and someone told us that they > are "innately good". We are now considering if it is possible to > accommodate this statement with what we know about them. > > Are the trio little saints? Do they always choose good? Do they > have some magical power that prevents them from wrongdoing? Nope, > from my personal acquaintance with them this interpretation is > incorrect. And if some funny muggle woman would have told me that > she's "the author" and therefore she knows for sure that they > are "innately good", I would have told her that 1) she's crazy and > 2) she's not consistent with the way she wrote them. SSSusan: What if that crazy muggle woman also mentioned that by calling them "innately good" she wasn't trying to say that they're little saints who never break rules or never do anything wrong? What if she said she meant that most of the time they follow their hearts, which is where they're finding the goodness, even in the face of being labeled "bad" for doing so? For me the phrase "innately good" doesn't mean so much that they can't do wrong but that their hearts are aligned with rightness and their tendency is to try to follow that, even if it means breaking official (external) rules which might tell them they're "bad". Neri: > A more realistic interpretation is that the trio follow good > principles and values. Principles and values are just a practical > way of making choices. Instead of weighting the pros and cons and > having the whole moral discussion each time, you decide once about > a set of principles and then most of the time you just have to > follow them. > It's much more efficient and it enables you to make decisions much > faster, which is a distinctive advantage with choices that might > only be available for a second or two. It also makes being "good" > and "bad" look more like a description of an inner state than a > matter of choice. People who follow their principles faithfully > might appear as if they are pre-programmed, as if they are > innately good (or innately bad). But we shouldn't forget that they > chose which principles to follow and they chose to follow them > faithfully. If this is what the crazy muggle woman had meant, then > from my personal acquaintance with the trio I fully agree. SSSusan: So you think perhaps they're not choosing A or B so much *each* time they're facing a dilemma or situation so much as are consistently following a set of principles & values they have previously chosen? I think I agree. I think it's possible there is an inner set of principles and values [a moral compass?] which they attempt to & do follow consistently. So the question is *did* they choose this system? Or is that what's innate [an inner light?]? And is that distinction the problem we're having w/ JKR's comment? If it was something they chose, then why call it *innate* goodness? Isn't it more like you say, that they give the *impression* of its being innate because they're so consistent to the principles held inside? Hmmm. What does this do to a Percy? He's certainly following a set of principles & values, *extremely* consistently, but he's not likely to be labeled "innately good" by either JKR or a reader or a character w/in the story who knows him well. He's chosen the not- quite-right set of principles & values, then? Siriusly Snapey Susan, knowing she's spinning her wheels somewhat From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Jan 1 20:22:54 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 20:22:54 -0000 Subject: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120944 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Renee wrote: > "Marietta got the same information from DD as the other students did > about what happened at the end of the Triwizard Tournament." > > Del replies: > Yes, and how many students believed Harry or DD at that time? > > Del Renee: Irrelevant. Ernie Mcmillan and Zacharias Smith, to name a few, had the same information Marietta had, yet they didn't betray the DA. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 20:43:34 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 20:43:34 -0000 Subject: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120945 Renee wrote earlier: "Marietta got the same information from DD as the other students did about what happened at the end of the Triwizard Tournament." I, Del, replied: "Yes, and how many students believed Harry or DD at that time?" Renee answered: "Irrelevant. Ernie Mcmillan and Zacharias Smith, to name a few, had the same information Marietta had, yet they didn't betray the DA." Del replies: That wasn't what we were discussing. Your original argument that prompted my question was : "Marietta got the same information from DD as the other students did about what happened at the end of the Triwizard Tournament. True, she did face a dilemma: to believe her own mother, working for the Ministry that denied Voldemorts return, or to believe DD. In the end, loyalty to her mother apparently overrode loyalty to the Headmaster." You were implying that Marrietta was wrong for not believing Harry and as a consequence for not believing there was a war going on (this thread is about the war, remember). It wasn't about her betrayal months later, it was about not believing Harry and DD when DD told Harry's story at the end of GoF. So I'm asking you again : how many students believed Harry and DD then? Del From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 20:47:18 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:47:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) References: Message-ID: <004801c4f043$1639ac50$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 120946 > Charme wrote: > " There's an old phrase which may suit here: "perception is 9/10th of > the law." Interpretation of posts like these are individual to the > reader, and what you mean to say and what actually comes through > *about you* via your writing can be 2 entirely different things." > > Del replies: > I completely agree, but accusing me of having said something I never > even came close of saying is going way beyond interpretation. > Interpretation is extrapolation based on the facts, it's not invention > of new facts. charme: I'm sorry, did I actually accuse you of anything? I don't believe I did, so let me be clear I'm not although I can understand how your comments could have been interpreted the way they were by the other party. And I do disagree with your definition of interpretation, as what I perceive you've stated is fact (perhaps you don't mean for me to perceive or interpret it that way, but there it it is) and IMO, it's not. To each his/her own, aye? BTW, please don't ask me if I'm a god, I've already inferred in prior posts how I feel. I'd like to think my brilliance and unadulterated genius speaks for itself (not) ;) > > Charme wrote: > "is ignorance of the situation or outright denial the responsibility > of the government or of the individual? (I don't know - I can see it > both ways and make it personal responsibility in RL to inform myself > as much as possible, so I wouldn't limit myself to just the Prophet if > I was a wizard :))" > > Del replies: > I kind of agree, but I doubt any other newspaper or magazine reported > anything better. > We don't know what the Quibbler (a magazine to read with a very high > dose of skepticism apparently) said about the war that DD was warning > about. But even if it talked about it, it would most probably have > been coated with such ridiculous accusations (like Fudge eating > goblins, though I must admit I still wonder if maybe it couldn't be > true...) that the real info would have been pretty much impossible to > discern. > Witch Weekly doesn't seem to be the kind of magazine that concerns > itself with political issues, and even if it does, I would think it > would very obediently repeat the official version of things. And so > would most probably most of the other publications, if there are any. > The Order did seem to imply that the MoM had a very tight control on > the press. I guess this also includes the wireless network. > So I agree that ideally people could have tried to find other sources > of information, but I don't think they could have found anything of > worth, short of writing to Harry and DD straight. And honestly, how > many would even think of writing to someone who makes such weird > claims as Harry and DD were making (except to insult them of course)? charme: I think explaining this as listening or questioning to what people *talk* about might be more prudent to the discussion. I have a different view in that LV, per the Order members in OoP, likes to operate in secrecy and that's strikingly similiar to what happened with the Nazis in WW2. Here's one way I can explain what I'm trying to say: during the Holocaust, people *talked* about the rumors they heard WRT what was really happening to their neighboring Jews after being taken by the Nazis. The *truth* came to light after all the talk, didn't it? The Quibbler, while not taken seriously about Fudge's goblin dinners (wooo, yummy), was taken more seriously by some wizards and sold copious copies when Harry told his story much the same way rumors about Holocaust came to print. Maybe that's more the point I was trying portray, whether I'm right or wrong really doesn't matter to me. I firmly believe (and this is my opinion) there is a way to the truth if you seek it out. > > Charme wrote: > " Remember, Harry and DD were portrayed as off their rockers, > ridiculed, etc in The Daily Prophet. In DD's case, he is a wizard who > was lauded for the defeat of a dark wizard some years back and was > stripped of some of his *position* in the community." From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 20:58:46 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 20:58:46 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: <004801c4f043$1639ac50$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120947 > charme: snip. I think explaining this as listening or questioning to what people *talk* about might be more prudent to the discussion. I have a different view in that LV, per the Order members in OoP, likes to operate in secrecy and that's strikingly similiar to what happened with the Nazis in WW2. Here's one way I can explain what I'm trying to say: during the Holocaust, people *talked* about the rumors they heard WRT what was really happening to their neighboring Jews after being taken by the Nazis. The *truth* came to light after all the talk, didn't it? The Quibbler, while not taken seriously about Fudge's goblin dinners (wooo, yummy), was taken more seriously by some wizards and sold copious copies when Harry told his story much the same way rumors about Holocaust came to print. Maybe that's more the point I was trying portray, whether I'm right or wrong really doesn't matter to me. I firmly believe (and this is my opinion) there is a way to the truth if you seek it out. Alla: Great example, Charme. That is why probably even though I think Fudge is significantly more at fault that general public of WW, I am NOT getting general public off the hook. They heard Harry's story, albeit not detailed one. They were given some hints to believe that Voldemort maybe back. They KNOW who Voldemort was. Hmmm, maybe now it is time for them to at least try and search for the truth? But, who knows, maybe I have to high opinion of the intelligence of genral public of WW. :o) From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Jan 1 21:08:02 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 21:08:02 -0000 Subject: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120948 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > > Renee: > > Marietta got the same information from DD as the other > students did about what happened at the end of the Triwizard > Tournament. < > > Pippin: > Even Harry could not tell that Voldemort was back from public > information. Fudge and Dumbledore had been allies up to the > end of Year Four, then each accused the other of having > deteriorated. Given that people can deteriorate, how was anyone > to know who was right? Harry himself didn't give absolute trust to > Dumbledore in OOP, so why should anyone else? Renee: I wasn't referring to public information, I was referring to what DD told the students. That's not the same. As for having absolute trust in Dumbledore: what I've read so far makes me doubt he's worth anyone's absolute trust, regardless of the intentions of the author. But what I was arguing in my previous post was that according to DD himself (COS), it was his loyalty to DD that saved Harry, through the intervention of Fawkes. To me, this suggests that JKR presents loyalty to DD as some kind of standard by which to judge the various characters' actions, a kind of moral compass. If this is the case, it can't be disproved by the fact that characters don't give him their absolute trust. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 21:15:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 21:15:59 -0000 Subject: Loyalty to Dumbledore Was: Re: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120949 > Renee: snip. But what I was arguing in my previous post was that according to DD himself (COS), it was his loyalty to DD that saved Harry, through the intervention of Fawkes. To me, this suggests that JKR presents loyalty to DD as some kind of standard by which to judge the various characters' actions, a kind of moral compass. If this is the case, it can't be disproved by the fact that characters don't give him their absolute trust. Alla: Yes, I agree 100%. I also think that we are supposed to judge characters being good or bad depending on whether they are loyal to Dumbledore or to Voldemort. I do think that division between Black side and Light side is painted VERY clearly. The fun part begins when we take a look at those who fight for the light - at least they are portrayed with grey colours too. Oh, yes, back to Dumbledore. Do you think his infamous "I trust Severus Snape" will have some fun implications eventually? :o) Like with his dying breath Dumbledore will tell Harry : "I was wrong to trust Severus Snape. I am a very bad judge of character. Watch out, Harry!" :o) Alla From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 21:21:25 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 21:21:25 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120950 SSSusan wrote: "I sent out a clarifying post right after I first posted the one you're responding to, Del," Del replies: Yes, I know, but I saw it only after I posted that reply. Sorry SSSusan, I didn't mean to look like I was kicking you even after you admitted to changing your mind somewhat. Really sorry. SSSusan wrote: "But let me explain who I meant by THESE kids. I meant Harry/Hermione/Ron/F&G/Ginny -- anyone in Harry's inner circle who understood/believed that Voldy was back, that Cedric was killed because he was back, that war was on its way. As for recruiting others, I meant those other kids outside this small core group who ended up at the Hog's Head that first day. I wasn't talking about any later recruiting, but those who came along to the HH without being a part of Harry's core group, those who were lacking as much info as they had. " Del replies: Ah, OK! I wasn't sure what you meant, and it turns out I did understand you slightly wrong. Harry's inner circle obviously had a different understanding of the DA than the other recruits. That much is apparent in the scene where they choose their name. Angelina, who is a Gryffindor, has some personal reasons to dislike Umbridge (she keeps putting her Seeker in detention), and might be in a fix if she intends to take a NEWT in DADA, proposes the Anti-Umbridge League. Fred, who knows about the war, proposes the Ministry of Magic are Morons Group. Cho, going back to the stated motive for the formation of the group, proposes the Defence Association. And Ginny, who knows about the war and has a wicked sense of humour, is the one who proposes Dumbledore's Army, which makes people laugh. The gap seems quite obvious to me between those who know about the war and want to fight the MoM and LV, and those who think that the DA is only about learning practical DADA and defying the Hogwarts High Inquisitor. SSSusan wrote: "I'm starting to see more of the "Good Intentions/Misguided Efforts Hermione" that we see with SPEW in this initial HH meeting, too." Del replies: I agree. Hermione had good intentions, she wanted to do something to fight Umbridge's growing power at Hogwarts. And she also wanted to practice DADA. But mixing up the two wasn't a good idea. In her defence though, I guess I understand why she did it : because she knew of the reason why Umbridge was preventing them from learning practical DADA, and she reacted to that reason, while the DA recruits reacted only to the results of Umbridge's actions. DJU was trying to discredit DD and to take all power away from him. So in Hermione's eyes, DJU's maneouvers were obviously political, and any counter-action would similarly be political. What she failed to realise is that some of the DA were blind to that political aspect and were only concerned with the results of DJU's decision of stopping them from practicing DADA. Michael Corner, for example, interrupted Hermione while she was explaining the importance of learning to defend themselves in general, to point out that she wanted to pass her OWL. To him, at that point, the only reason Hermione was putting up that group seems to have been what she had officially told them while recruiting them : to do some practical DADA. He was completely unaware of anything political. Moreover, that situation wasn't likely to change. Only the kids in Harry's inner circle knew about the Order, for example. Only they were able to follow the unfolding of the war in the news. The other kids had no way of reading the signs, and the Order kids never seemed to have explained to them anything more than what was said during the first meeting. The only additional piece of information that the DA members ever received was the Quibbler's interview. And when they read it, I guess they reacted just like the WW in general did : some believed Harry's testimony, and some didn't, because they didn't have any additional info to help them judge better. Del From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Jan 1 21:25:16 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 21:25:16 -0000 Subject: Loyalty to DD (Was Re: When does a war begin?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120951 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Renee wrote earlier: > "Marietta got the same information from DD as the other students did > about what happened at the end of the Triwizard Tournament." > > I, Del, replied: > "Yes, and how many students believed Harry or DD at that time?" > > Renee answered: > "Irrelevant. Ernie Mcmillan and Zacharias Smith, to name a few, had > the same information Marietta had, yet they didn't betray the DA." > > Del replies: > That wasn't what we were discussing. Your original argument that > prompted my question was : > > "Marietta got the same information from DD as the other students did > about what happened at the end of the Triwizard Tournament. True, > she did face a dilemma: to believe her own mother, working for the > Ministry that denied Voldemorts return, or to believe DD. In the > end, loyalty to her mother apparently overrode loyalty to the > Headmaster." > > You were implying that Marrietta was wrong for not believing Harry and > as a consequence for not believing there was a war going on (this > thread is about the war, remember). It wasn't about her betrayal > months later, it was about not believing Harry and DD when DD told > Harry's story at the end of GoF. So I'm asking you again : how many > students believed Harry and DD then? > Renee: As you see I've renamed the thread now, as I should have done the first time, because I wasn't discussing the matter with regard to the war at all - sorry for causing confusion. What I was trying to say was, that Marietta would be wrong for being more loyal to her mother and the Ministry than to Dumbledore *if* loyalty to Dumbledore is a standard by which to judge the various characters' actions, as the end of COS seems to imply. I seem to recall that I also said I wasn't particularly happy with such an idea, but I can't stop reading the passage in COS that way. I hope I've made myself more clear this time... From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 21:48:26 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 21:48:26 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: <004801c4f043$1639ac50$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120952 Charme wrote: "I'm sorry, did I actually accuse you of anything? " Del replies: No no no no! I wasn't talking about you Charme! I'm sorry I gave you that impression. It was obvious in my head that my comment was not about you at all, so I wasn't cautious enough in my wording. Sorry! Charme wrote: "I think explaining this as listening or questioning to what people *talk* about might be more prudent to the discussion. I have a different view in that LV, per the Order members in OoP, likes to operate in secrecy and that's strikingly similiar to what happened with the Nazis in WW2. Here's one way I can explain what I'm trying to say: during the Holocaust, people *talked* about the rumors they heard WRT what was really happening to their neighboring Jews after being taken by the Nazis. The *truth* came to light after all the talk, didn't it? The Quibbler, while not taken seriously about Fudge's goblin dinners (wooo, yummy), was taken more seriously by some wizards and sold copious copies when Harry told his story much the same way rumors about Holocaust came to print." Del replies: I understand what you mean. I would just like to point out a couple of points that bother me about your analogy: 1. The Nazis and their doctrine were very visible during WWII. Their anti-Jew laws were all over the place. So when people started spreading the Holocaust rumours, they had real solid facts to base those rumours on. On the other hand, both LV and the DEs are completely hidden. The pureblood superiority doctrine is outlawed and nobody dares preaching it out loud. So the rumours of VWII have very little facts to support them. 2. The Jews were disappearing in great numbers. They were openly arrested by the Nazis and deported. It wasn't in any way secret. What was secret was what happened to them once they were deported. In the WW, there aren't any such disappearances taking place. A few isolated wizards and witches disappeared here and there, but nobody saw any DEs taking them away, and their disappearances could often be explained in another way. 3. It took years for the public to start believing the rumours about the Holocaust, even though the Jews were being killed by thousands every month. The WW only has a handful of disappearances and a single witness to convince them of LV's return. 4. The Holocaust was about massive killings, and that was already hard enough to believe. The VWII is about the *resurrection* of LV, which is infinitely harder to believe. And finally people in the WW *were* willing to listen. As you pointed out, they *did* listen to the Quibbler when it printed Harry's interview. This to me indicates that what those people were missing was not the will to listen, but the sources to listen to. They couldn't listen to what people were talking about because nobody was talking about LV being reborn. What people did keep talking about was how Harry was an attention-seeker brat, and how DD had lost his marbles. And the only magazine who dared bashing Fudge was the one with the least credibility. DD was a lone voice in a loud cacophony. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 21:54:19 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 21:54:19 -0000 Subject: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120953 Renee wrote: "But what I was arguing in my previous post was that according to DD himself (COS), it was his loyalty to DD that saved Harry, through the intervention of Fawkes. To me, this suggests that JKR presents loyalty to DD as some kind of standard by which to judge the various characters' actions, a kind of moral compass. If this is the case, it can't be disproved by the fact that characters don't give him their absolute trust." Del replies: Hm, interesting concept! With interesting consequences too : considering Snape's apparent loyalty to DD, does this moral compass make Snape at least as good morally as Harry ;-) ? But unfortunately, JKR has in no way convinced me to swap this moral compass for the one I use habitually, so I won't do it :-) Del From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 22:02:27 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:02:27 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120954 "delwynmarch" wrote: > Let's say you see Man A chasing Man B > with a bloody axe. If I understand you > well, you will automatically classify > Man A as an evil monster, right? Wrong. In my example I was man B, and that changes things. > I know the difference between "I like > what's right" and "what I like is right". I do too, one has the word "what's" in it and the other has the word "what" in it. It's called logic, if I like what's right then what I like is right AND if what I like is right then I like what's right. Therefore, according to good old Aristotelian logic the two terms are equivalent, that is, there is no test that can differentiate between them. ou are making a distinction without a difference. > So why "should" the general public > know about them [Death Eaters]? Because the two most important Wizards of the age, Harry and Dumbledore, told them about it, not to mention the entire faculty of Hogwarts, even Snape. And if people don't believe them then they are WRONG. > Nobody else has reported seeing even the > smallest bit of Reborn!LV Barty Crouch jr saw him and told what he saw, and we know for a fact he could not be lying. And if people don't believe him then they are WRONG. Wrong is not good. Eggplant From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 22:42:05 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 17:42:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) References: Message-ID: <00a601c4f053$1e98aad0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 120955 > Del replies: > I understand what you mean. I would just like to point out a couple of > points that bother me about your analogy: > 1. The Nazis and their doctrine were very visible during WWII. Their > anti-Jew laws were all over the place. So when people started > spreading the Holocaust rumours, they had real solid facts to base > those rumours on. On the other hand, both LV and the DEs are > completely hidden. The pureblood superiority doctrine is outlawed and > nobody dares preaching it out loud. So the rumours of VWII have very > little facts to support them. > 2. The Jews were disappearing in great numbers. They were openly > arrested by the Nazis and deported. It wasn't in any way secret. What > was secret was what happened to them once they were deported. In the > WW, there aren't any such disappearances taking place. A few isolated > wizards and witches disappeared here and there, but nobody saw any DEs > taking them away, and their disappearances could often be explained in > another way. > 3. It took years for the public to start believing the rumours about > the Holocaust, even though the Jews were being killed by thousands > every month. The WW only has a handful of disappearances and a single > witness to convince them of LV's return. > 4. The Holocaust was about massive killings, and that was already hard > enough to believe. The VWII is about the *resurrection* of LV, which > is infinitely harder to believe. > charme: My post was meant more to convey the information flow, sociology, psychology and conditions surrounding how *hidden* agendas finally reach public knowledge. While the Nazis and their doctrine were probably more visible to those of you in Europe, they were not to everybody else in the world until much later on. Furthermore, like LV and the DE's, WW2 was declared after Jews in Germany under their own government had begun being victimized - and early accounts collected from Germans and Jews by the Holocaust Memorial Museum support the confusion, denial, and rumors which ran rampant as the Nazis began to formulate their doctrine and preach it. Let me be clear: I'm talking before Jews neighborhood by neighbord were deported to concentration camps month after month. It's that "war declared before the government openly declares it" concept we discussed earlier. The same could be said of Kosovo, where racial and ethic cleansing began on a much smaller scale before becoming the outright norm. It builds and gains momentum and doesn't just start right out with a thousand people. It's totally true the WW has only a handful of disappearances and a single witness. And it's true the resurrection of LV is harder to believe than some things. However we've already seen via comments from the Weasley twins (if I recall correctly) that Arthur Weasley's fondness for Muggles is one of the reason Fudge doesn't support Arthur getting ahead at the Ministry - a clue to a dangerous undercurrent belief of racial superiority similiar to what occurred when Hitler took office. Law or no law, it's ok to have the belief as long as you don't act on it perhaps? It's what I interpret when I read the books. From grace701 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 22:48:00 2005 From: grace701 at yahoo.com (Greicy de los Santos) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 14:48:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Punishing Marietta In-Reply-To: <1104528620.13300.92976.m18@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050101224800.76582.qmail@web51803.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 120956 >Del wrote: > Now let's say that I'm completely enthusiastic about the group, but I > really really don't want to risk, say, my parents discovering about > it. Ernie might think that Hermione's word of keeping the list secret > is enough, but I don't agree with him. What should I do? If I don't > sign it, then I automatically become suspect by not wanting to admit I > was even there, even if in fact I'm enthusiastic about the group and > all I want is to avoid any risk of anyone ever discovering what I'm up to. Neri: Aren't you are asking too much? The group is obviously something that the Ministry won't like. You can't be enthusiastic about it, or even just be in it, and also avoid any risk. This is why choices like this are difficult. Because they involve risk. Hermione made it very plain that by signing they agree not to tell (the magic probably wouldn't have worked if she didn't). Not only Ernie, but also Smith had qualms about it, so it is obvious that signing wasn't mandatory. If Marietta were honest, she would have refused to sign it. Yes, it would have automatically made her become suspect, but rightly so. If you are not ready to commit yourself to secrecy, you make yourself suspect for breaking it. Grace: It was a tremendous risk knowing that Umbridge would have had a fit had she found out, as a matter of fact she have a fit because she find out. So much is the threat that she gets Fudge. I've been following this thread somewhat and noticed that no one has shown that Hermione was hesitant in even bringing up the matter of having everyone sign the parchment. It's as if she didn't want to do it, but had no choice, that is of course my own interpretation of the text, which is as follows: "She [Hermione] rummaged in her bag and produced parchment and a quill, then , rather as though she was steeling herself to say something." OoP Hardcover Scholastic Edition Chapter 16: In The Hog's Head, P. 346 Greicy, who adores Hermiones __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com From PenapartElf at aol.com Sat Jan 1 22:56:27 2005 From: PenapartElf at aol.com (penapart_elf) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:56:27 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: New Year's Resolutions for HPfGU Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120957 The Year of 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince' is finally making its royal entrance; there is new canon in the offing at long last! (And none too soon since there's been about 60,000 posts since the last time we've had a new book to discuss. It may be hefty, but stretched over that many posts, even OotP was wearing a bit thin, no? ) There are times when it's appropriate to shift your gears; posting at HPfGU is one of them. Remember: posting conventions here are different than that of many other websites. Please join the other members of the HPfGU community in making these New Year's Resolutions: I solemnly swear that I will ~ check the email accounts associated with my HPfGU memberships even when I am on "webview only" (see *) ~ be courteous: challenge ideas without insulting people ~ use the right list and be on topic (when posting to the main list, I will support my points about canon using canon) ~ use standard spelling, grammar and punctuation; will proofread and spell check ~ attribute accurately ~ sign my posts so *others* can attribute accurately ~ snip responsibly by deleting everything that does not contribute to making my point ~ update subject headings and make them accurate; add prefix if called for ~ put my comments after quoted materials ~ read a thread in its entirety before responding, yield not to the temptation to repeat anything unnecessarily, and check webview one last time before hitting "send" ~ send introductory or off-topic posts to OTChatter at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter ~ send one-liners and 'me too!' posts to the individual(s) concerned off-list ~ combine short posts, especially if in the same thread, and remember to update the subject heading if necessary ~ refrain from dominating the list at any given time by posting more than my fair share ~ check the FAQs or ask my List Elf if I've factual questions ( see HPfGU_FAQ.htm at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files ) ~ check OTChatter if I've questions about JKR's site that don't concern canon ~ provide links to as opposed to reprinting copyrighted materials such as articles and books unless I've gotten permission from the copyright holder to reprint The guilty shall remain unnamed here but please note that the above check list should be used not just by the "newcomers" but also by the "old hands" whose posts are no longer being moderated. Be advised: Owls and Howlers are standing by. As always, "The Humongous Bigfile, Posting Rules You Never Knew You Had to Follow and How to Conform to Them Now That You've Signed Up" is available for reference at http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/hbfile.html and explains the various points above in greater details. To 2005! :) Penapart Elf for the HPfGU List Admin Team * If the elves do not receive a reply to messages we send to list members, we will assume the messages aren't being seen and reserve the right to return listees to moderated status or to revoke posting privileges when necessary. Should you find yourself in either situation, please answer this last ditch attempt to get your attention. Thanks! REMINDER: replies to this admin onlist are off-topic but responses or questions sent to HPforGrownups-Owner @yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space) would be most welcomed. You are also welcome to join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Feedback if you feel that discussion is called for. Be sure to read the home page there for instructions on joining. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 23:01:40 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 23:01:40 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120958 Eggplant wrote: " Wrong. In my example I was man B, and that changes things. " Del replies: In your example, yes, but not in mine. I did not use your example. If I had meant to do so, I would have said so. You're just trying to weasel out of the pit you put yourself into. I, Del, wrote earlier: "I know the difference between "I like what's right" and "what I like is right"." Eggplant wrote: "I do too, one has the word "what's" in it and the other has the word "what" in it. It's called logic, if I like what's right then what I like is right AND if what I like is right then I like what's right. Therefore, according to good old Aristotelian logic the two terms are equivalent, that is, there is no test that can differentiate between them. You are making a distinction without a difference." Del replies: No. You're making an equivalence between two things that are not equal. You pretend to be logical, and yet you ignore the most basic rules of logic. You said for example that you dislike very very sweet people. Does that make very very sweet people wrong? No it doesn't in my book. Hence I have demonstrated that you dislike something that isn't wrong IMO. I believe that systematically ignoring or weaseling out of uncomfortable questions on a discussion board is wrong, and yet you don't seem to mind doing that. Hence I have demonstrated that you don't dislike something I believe to be wrong. I could do the same with what you do like if I knew you better. So I'm afraid you have absolutely not made your point that what you like and what is right are one and the same. This might be so in your head, but it's not a fact of life, it's not a basic rule of discussion on this board, and you can't use it as a factual argument while debating with me. Eggplant wrote: "Because the two most important Wizards of the age, Harry and Dumbledore, told them about it, not to mention the entire faculty of Hogwarts, even Snape. And if people don't believe them then they are WRONG." Del replies: You've got your facts dreadfully wrong. 1. Harry never publicly testified of anything before the Quibbler interview. 2. DD is merely reporting what Harry allegedly told him, he's not testifying of what he personally witnessed. 3. But Harry never confirmed DD's story before the Quibbler's interview, so DD could have made it all up. 4. I don't remember reading about any other member of the faculty of Hogwarts ever saying anything publicly about LV being ressucitated. Least of all Snape. So in the end we're still in the same place : all DD has to present is his own unsupported and undetailed second-hand testimony. Eggplant wrote: "Barty Crouch jr saw him and told what he saw, and we know for a fact he could not be lying. And if people don't believe him then they are WRONG. Wrong is not good." Del replies: People never had a chance to believe Barty Crouch Jr because they never had a chance to hear his witness. Only 4 people heard Barty's confession : Harry, DD, McGonagall and Snape. Not the WW. Moreover, I don't remember DD or anyone else mentioning publicly Barty Crouch Jr's testimony. They'd better not, mind you : the testimony of a man who supposedly died years ago, about how another man who died ever earlier came to free him from the Imperius Curse under which his notably respectable father had put him. Actually, that story would go very well with that other story about how a man who was killed in front of dozens of witnesses ressucitated another man, but those two powerful wizards then proved unable to control a 14-year-old boy, even with the help of a dozen additional wizards. I mean, how could anyone doubt the obvious truthfulness and plausabilitiy of such stories? Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 23:11:43 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 23:11:43 -0000 Subject: VWII and WWII (was Marietta and Hermione) In-Reply-To: <00a601c4f053$1e98aad0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120959 Charme wrote: " However we've already seen via comments from the Weasley twins (if I recall correctly) that Arthur Weasley's fondness for Muggles is one of the reason Fudge doesn't support Arthur getting ahead at the Ministry - a clue to a dangerous undercurrent belief of racial superiority similiar to what occurred when Hitler took office. Law or no law, it's ok to have the belief as long as you don't act on it perhaps? It's what I interpret when I read the books." Del replies: The issue is getting muddied again. It doesn't look like Fudge is a DE, so his holding back Arthur because of the pureblood superiority could in no way be a clue as to LV's return. It is indeed a clue (apparently only known to insiders, btw) about the rampant feeling about Muggleborns among some wizards, but that's no clue as to VWII. There were many people who disliked the Jews before and during WWII but who weren't Nazis in any way. And today, many people who hate the Jews are not neo-nazis at all. Del From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Jan 1 23:14:01 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 23:14:01 -0000 Subject: Loyalty to Dumbledore Was: Re: When does a war begin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Renee: > > snip. > > But what I was arguing in my previous post was that according to DD > himself (COS), it was his loyalty to DD that saved Harry, through > the intervention of Fawkes. To me, this suggests that JKR presents > loyalty to DD as some kind of standard by which to judge the various > characters' actions, a kind of moral compass. If this is the case, > it can't be disproved by the fact that characters don't give him > their absolute trust. > > > Alla: > > Yes, I agree 100%. I also think that we are supposed to judge > characters being good or bad depending on whether they are loyal to > Dumbledore or to Voldemort. I do think that division between Black > side and Light side is painted VERY clearly. The fun part begins > when we take a look at those who fight for the light - at least they > are portrayed with grey colours too. > > Oh, yes, back to Dumbledore. Do you think his infamous "I trust > Severus Snape" will have some fun implications eventually? :o) > > Like with his dying breath Dumbledore will tell Harry : "I was wrong > to trust Severus Snape. I am a very bad judge of character. Watch > out, Harry!" :o) Renee: LOL! But as I believe Snape will keep fighting against Voldemort I don't see this happening. Though it would be fun if it turned out DD trusted Snape for the wrong reasons. Del: considering Snape's apparent loyalty to DD, does this moral compass make Snape at least as good morally as Harry ;-) ? Renee: Why not? :) Being a greasy git doesn't mean you won't make the right moral choices. But we don't know why DD trusts Snape; maybe it has nothing to do with Snape being loyal to him. I do hope we'll find out in Book 6! From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 23:21:09 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 23:21:09 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120961 SSSusan wrote: "I meant Harry/Hermione/Ron/F&G/Ginny -- anyone in Harry's inner circle who understood/believed that Voldy was back, that Cedric was killed because he was back, that war was on its way." Del comments: OK, this is something that has been bothering me lately. Let me start with some examples. Ernie's parents believe DD so Ernie believes Harry : good. Seamus' mother believes Fudge so Seamus believes Fudge : bad. Cho learns to think by herself and doesn't do as her parents wish : good. Percy learns to think by himself and decides not to follow in his family's decisions : bad. Draco doesn't question his family's traditions : bad. Most of the Weasley children don't question their friend and family : good. People don't believe in LV's resurrection : bad. Hermione doesn't believe in heliopaths : good. Luna believes in crumpled-horned snorkacks : bad. Luna believes in resurrection and life after death : good. See where I'm going ? There are way too many double-standards being applied sometimes on this list IMO. I wish someone could explain to me what exactly is expected of people in the Potterverse, short of being Legilimens or knowing instinctively what is right or not. I've read that people should learn to think by themselves no matter what their parents and friends think. But when Percy does it, he's evil, and when his siblings don't do it, they're good. I've read that people shouldn't trust in other people blindly, like in Fudge for example. And yet this is exactly what Harry's friends do, and what is expected of everyone : trust in Harry blindly. I've read that people should check their sources and facts before making their decisions. And yet they are expected to believe in the resurrection of a dead wizard. They are also expected to believe in a single undetailed second-hand testimony. I've read that people shouldn't be influenced by the popularity or glory of someone (Lockhart, Crouch, Fudge...). And yet everyone should remember how great a wizard DD was, and that Harry saved the WW as a baby. I've read that people should take every fact into consideration when judging someone. And yet the facts that Harry is a Parselmouth, that Cedric was a rival in more than one way, and that Harry was gone somewhere with just Cedric when Cedric died, should most definitely be overlooked. Luna is a loony when she believes in crumple-horned snorkacks, but she's highly intuitive when she believes in Sirius being just behind the Veil. A load of double-standards. That's what's used to judge the characters of the Potterverse. No wonder we never get anywhere. As a conclusion, I would just like to point to a little ironic thing I noticed while re-reading the Hog's Head scene. The Trio is asking the rest of the future DA to believe Harry on his word, and yet Hermione absolutely refuses to believe Luna and even teaches Neville to disbelieve too, when Luna mentions Fudge's army of heliopaths, even though there are plenty of eye-witness accounts according to Luna. A nice little lesson in how hard it is to believe in what we don't naturally tend to believe in. Del From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 23:36:25 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 23:36:25 -0000 Subject: Hex, Jinx, Curse, Charm & Spells In-Reply-To: <1ac.2eae84ea.2f065676@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120962 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > Chancie: > > OK Question. Does anyone know what qualifies Spells as either, a > Hex Jinx, Curse, or Charm? I can't seem to find any kind of > defining trait, except of course a Curse is bad. But it seems > pretty much up in the air for the rest. I'd really like to know if > anyone else has any ideas on this. > > Chancie bboyminn: It just so happens I have a long essay on this subject that I've posted here before. Although, it would probably take me hours to track down that specific post. So, I'll post it again. I tried to get HP-Lexicon to publish it, but no luck. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On the Nature of Spells, Charms, And Jinxes- For what it's worth lets start with formal definitions just so we have a reference point, then work our way up to applied definitions. Jinx - To bring bad luck to Hex - An evil spell; a curse Curse - 1.a. An appeal or prayer for evil or misfortune to befall someone or something. 2. To invoke evil or misfortune upon; damn. 3. To bring evil upon; afflict: Charm - (a charm, amulet, fetish, juju, talisman) 1. An item worn for its supposed magical benefit, as in warding off evil; an amulet. 2. To function as an amulet or charm. (to charm) 1. An action or formula thought to have magical power. 2. The chanting of a magic word or verse; incantation 3. To cast or seem to cast a spell on; bewitch. 4. To use magic spells Spell - 1.a. A word or formula believed to have magic power. 1.b. A bewitched state; a trance. 2. To put (someone) under a spell; bewitch. Now to my interpretation- A SPELL is a broad general purpose reference that refers to all 'cast' magic; that is, refers to most magic other than potions. Restated, all non-potions magic is some form of a spell. Although, I concede that Potions could have spells cast upon them; however, that would make them Charmed Potions. See CHARMS. Being 'cast' magic implies the use of a wand, however, if we consider the variations of magic worldwide, a wand isn't an absolute given. CHARMS are in two categories; charm spells and charmed object. Charms as cast magic are made up of spells that are applied to objects; summoning and banishing charms, for example. Although, it is possible for the 'object' to be a person. Charm spells can also be applied to objects to give them protective properties, thereby creating the second class of charms; charmed object. Charmed objects are carried by people as a form of protection to ward off evil and dark magic. A CURSE is a form of attack magic; a spell that assaults a person. For example, the curse of the Bat Bogeys, a Ginny Weasley specialty. If an otherwise benevolent spell is used to assault a person that applied intent is what defines it as a curse. Curses can be cast with a wand, or merely uttered as in the form of a jinx. In this sense, we really have two forms of curses; one is an event curse and the other is a sustained curse (more on this below). >From another perspective, you can cast an event curse at someone, or you can put a sustained curse upon them. Once again, we see how the definitions and applications of these various terms overlap. A HEX I think is another word for a curse; to hex someone is to curse them. Hex and curse are always negative. There are no healing or happy hexes or curses. The Tickle Charm (Rictusempra, used against Malfoy while he and Harry dueled) becomes a hex or a curse when it is used to assault a person. I speculate that under the right circumstances a Hex could be a combination of a Jinx and a Curse, in that it is assaultive and implies that there may be some lingering bad luck. This is another excellent example of how spells, charms, hexes, and curses all overlap in meaning. A JINX is a way of forcing bad luck onto a person. The bad luck may be general bad luck, or it may take on a specific intended form. Quirrel tries to jinx Harry's broom, that jinx forces Harry's broom to try and buck him off. Being bucked off your broom would certainly be bad luck. Draco also used a 'trip jinx' that causes Harry to trip and fall when he is running from the DA room trying to escape Umbridge. It doesn't put a magical object (like a rope or a rock) or magic force in Harry's path that causes him to trip. Draco simple curses Harry with a bit of specific bad luck that causes him to trip. A jinx like a curse or a hex is never positive, it is always an assault of some kind. I want to pause here with a side note, cast magic, spells cast with a wand come in two forms 'event' spells and 'sustained' spells. An event spell is like the Stupefy Stunning Curse, which to some extent is analogous to a gun, BANG! you are stunned. The Cruciatus Pain Curse is a sustained curse, you must cast the spell and hold it for as long as you want it to continue. Notice, in all cases but one where the Pain Curse is used, the curse is sustained until the caster withdraws his wand with the intent of ending the effect. When Harry used the Cruciatus Pain Curse against Bellatrix Lestrange in Ministry of Magic Atrium battle in Order of the Phoenix, it didn't fail because Harry wasn't powerful enough or vicious enough, it failed because he did it wrong. The Pain Curse is obviously a sustained curse, yet Harry cast it like an event curse. He cast it and immediately withdrew his wand and his intent thereby ending the effect. One could argue both ways with regard to the Imperius Mind Control Curse. It does sustain, but since it sustains over days, and even perhaps weeks and months, it's hard to believe a wizard can sustain concentrated intent for so long. So, I conclude that the Imperius Mind Control Curse is a form of Bewitchment (see below). In one sense, it is a sustained curse simply because the effect is sustained, but not in the sense that the wizard has to maintain continuous sustained intent. So, we have both 'event' and 'sustained' spells. Maybe we should add BEWITCH to the list. Bewitch - 1. To place under one's power by or as if by magic; cast a spell over. Note: we now have several applications of 'Spell'; to cast a spell upon or against, and to be put under a spell as in a sustained bewitchment. So, 'to bewitch' means to apply magic to, although, there is a subtle implication that to bewitch something or someone, means that the magic will linger. When you charm an object with protective properties, the properties linger or remain in the object making it a bewitched object. Bewitching a person to some extent also implies that the person has come under your power, so the Imperius Curse, because the ability to control the person lingers after the spell is cast, is a form of bewitchment. DE's claimed 'bewitchment', and that they had no control over acts they performed under Voldemort's Imperius Curse. Which means a spell was cast against them, it was negative, so the spell was a curse (event and sustained curse), also, they were /under/ a spell and therefore charmed, enchanted, and bewitched. On top of that, they were probably hexed and jinxed too. So, there is a significant overlap in the definitions. Also - Enchant - 1. To cast a spell over; bewitch. Entrance - 1. To put into a trance. 2. To fill with delight, wonder, or enchantment: a child who was entranced by a fairy tale. See Synonyms at charm. Ensorcel - To enchant; bewitch. incantation - 1. Ritual recitation of verbal charms or spells to produce a magic effect. 2.a. A formula used in ritual recitation; a verbal charm or spell. Any more? Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Jan 2 00:22:28 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:22:28 -0000 Subject: FILK: My Best Goal Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120963 My Best Goal (QTTA, Chap. 6) To the tune of My Best Girl from Jerry Herman's Mame THE SCENE: A British Quidditch field, 1883. The Department of Magical Games and Sports ignites controversy when they force teams to adopt standard-sized baskets to replace the beloved baskets of yore QUIDDITCH PLAYER (to his old-style basket) You're my best goal, and you're neither too big or long No matter how strong foes be I know they'll never score to win `Cause you're too small to sink it in And when we play, our other goal, as you see Is as large as the great Welsh Green You won't disappoint, I'll score my ten points In my goal. MINISTRY OFFICIAL: It's your last game with baskets of different size It's a national disgrace We say to all of you wise guys The time has come to standardize In this next game a new goal post I've installed Is taking your basket's place, Despite your dismay, we're doing away With your goal. PLAYER And one this day when every fan runs amok, You'll need to escape post-haste, If baskets you burn, PLAYER & MINISTRY OFFICIAL And dare overturn Our/Your best goal... Our/Your best goal... - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated today with 42 new filks) From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sun Jan 2 00:38:18 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 19:38:18 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Double standards and believing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120964 In a message dated 1/1/2005 3:21:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, delwynmarch at yahoo.com writes: Cho learns to think by herself and doesn't do as her parents wish : good. Percy learns to think by himself and decides not to follow in his family's decisions : bad. The Trio is asking the rest of the future DA to believe Harry on his word, and yet Hermione absolutely refuses to believe Luna , when Luna mentions Fudge's army of heliopaths, even though there are plenty of eye-witness accounts according to Luna. A nice little lesson in how hard it is to believe in what we don't naturally tend to believe in. Del ********************************************************** Chancie: I think for the most part, the reason there seem to be "double standards" is not the actions taken in developing your beliefs, but the ending result. Percy did in fact turn on his family to do what he thought was right but he was wrong, not because he did what he believed was right, but that he believed was right ended up being wrong. (Did that make since?) And too, as far as Hermione knows Luna is just some crazy girl that she met on a train. (If you were walking down the street and some crazy looking person told you that George Bush had an army of Tap Dancing Whales, and was getting ready to spring them on the next person who rounded the next corner so that he could test them out before sending them to Iraq. Would you believe them??) She's talking about Fudge having an army of heliopaths, and they aren't even real (as far as we know right now at lest) so how can he have an army of them? Harry on the other hand, has been around Hermione since they first started Hogwarts. Hermione knows him very well, (I'm sure she'd know if he were lying to her) and Voldemort is a VERY real threat. No one knew exactly what happened to him after trying to kill Harry. Why couldn't he come back? I think in this case of believing, its more than just the message that matters, but the credibility of the messenger. Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 2 00:44:59 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:44:59 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120965 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > I've read that people should learn to think by themselves no matter what their parents and friends think. But when Percy does it, he's evil, and when his siblings don't do it, they're good.< Pippin: And when the Weasley children defy Molly to join the DA , that's good, but when Percy defies Molly to join Fudge, that's bad. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 2 00:56:49 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:56:49 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120966 SSSusan wrote: > "I sent out a clarifying post right after I first posted the one > you're responding to, Del," Del replied: > Yes, I know, but I saw it only after I posted that reply. Sorry > SSSusan, I didn't mean to look like I was kicking you even after > you admitted to changing your mind somewhat. Really sorry. SSSusan: Ack! No need to be sorry. I'm the one who should've made sure I'd followed the thread fully. :-| SSSusan wrote: > "I'm starting to see more of the "Good Intentions/Misguided > Efforts Hermione" that we see with SPEW in this initial HH > meeting, too." Del replied: > I agree. Hermione had good intentions, she wanted to do something > to fight Umbridge's growing power at Hogwarts. And she also wanted > to practice DADA. But mixing up the two wasn't a good idea. > > In her defence though, I guess I understand why she did it : > because she knew of the reason why Umbridge was preventing them > from learning practical DADA, and she reacted to that reason, > while the DA recruits reacted only to the results of Umbridge's > actions. DJU was trying to discredit DD and to take all power away > from him. So in Hermione's eyes, DJU's maneouvers were obviously > political, and any counter-action would similarly be political. > What she failed to realise is that some of the DA were blind to > that political aspect and were only concerned with the results of > DJU's decision of stopping them from practicing DADA. SSSusan: Right as to Hermione's not making things clear enough... although I'm not positive I agree that the two intentions [fighting Umbridge and practicing DADA] together wasn't a good idea. The questions for me are whether it was a well-enough-thought-out idea and whether she'd adequately thought through how to explain it all to the non- inner-circle kids who showed up. Clearly I think the answer to both those questions is "no." Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 2 01:05:00 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 01:05:00 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120967 SSSusan wrote: > "I meant Harry/Hermione/Ron/F&G/Ginny -- anyone in Harry's inner > circle who understood/believed that Voldy was back, that Cedric was > killed because he was back, that war was on its way." Del comments: > OK, this is something that has been bothering me lately. Let me > start with some examples. > > Ernie's parents believe DD so Ernie believes Harry : good. > Seamus' mother believes Fudge so Seamus believes Fudge : bad. > See where I'm going ? > There are way too many double-standards being applied sometimes on > this list IMO. SSSusan: Um. I'm not sure why my description of who I considered the core kids at the Hog's Head was used as an example for the issue of whether we're holding people to a double-standard or not. I was describing, in direct response to your questioning who I meant by "these kids" in a prior post, WHO I was including in Harry's "inner circle;" i.e., who it was who had reason to know the things I listed at the end of the sentence (that Voldy was back, how Cedric had died, etc.). May I ask why/how that is holding anyone to a standard of some sort? I pronounced no value judgment about these people as being good or bad. I merely explained that it made sense that this group of kids knew more about what the DA was going to be about and how serious it might be than the kids who'd been brought in from outside that inner group. AND that was why I was faulting Hermione some for not having explained things better or having been on the lookout for kids who were hesitant about joining. Siriusly Snapey Susan, a little bewildered From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 01:32:35 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 01:32:35 -0000 Subject: The Veil, HP & LOTR ?] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120968 Inkling wrote: Yes, Snape does project like mad onto Harry, classic denial behavior, and his potential to devastate the order is very great because of his double agent role. But could you explain what you mean about the prophecy being about Snape? vmonte responds: I'm talking about the scene in PoA when Trelawny, while in a trance, tells Harry about the servant that will return to the dark lord...help him rise to power, blah, blah, blah. Inkling wrote: If you mean that Neville will help Harry in some crucial way when it comes time to vanquish Voldything, I agree. I picture something like the moment in the Return of the King when Sam says, "I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you." Similarly, Neville cannot do the deed -- only Harry can, but he will get an assist at a critical time from Neville, an assist that may come at the very climax. vmonte wrote: Yes, I agree with you, Harry will eventually do the deed. But, perhaps the prophecy is so vague (at present) because both children (at this moment) have the potential to vanquish LV (perhaps the prophecy is so annoyingly vague because the end has not yet been determined. Maybe there is a variable that is in flux (in undetermined mode) right now. I'm not even sure I'm making sense. Maybe something will happen in the future that will finally determine Harry as the one, and Trelawny will once again go in a trance with an updated version of prophecy 1. Vivian From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Jan 2 02:11:02 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:11:02 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120969 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Del comments: > OK, this is something that has been bothering me lately. Let me start > with some examples. > A load of double-standards. That's what's used to judge the characters > of the Potterverse. No wonder we never get anywhere. > True, true. I guess there are a lot of ways to approach this question. Let me set out how I JKR sets it up in the books. It seems to me, as I've said in other posts, that JKR has a lot of essentialism in the books. That is one side is good and the other bad BY DEFINITION. In a sense she has a very metaphysical construct of good and evil. That is, good and evil appear to be existant states that have their own reality quite independent of any human belief or intention. Dumbledore partakes, in a Platonic sense, of Goodness, whereas Voldemort partakes of Evil. Hence her statement about "Dumbledore is goodness" and "Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness." Now, given this set of affairs, how one acts and what one does are good or evil in that they support one of these two opposed principals. Therefore, Percy is evil in defying his family because this supports the evil principal IRREGARDLESS OF PERCY'S INTENT OR REASONING. Cho is good in defying her family because this supports the good principal IRREGARDLESS OF CHO'S INTENT OR REASONING. In JKR's world, your actions are good or not according to an objective standard of who you're helping, your own personal beliefs and intentions and morals seem to have very little, if anything, to do with it. Now that might not seem very fair. But if one believes in Good and Evil as Platonic existants, as JKR seems to in the HP saga, it is perfectly logical. Lupinlore From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 02:22:12 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:22:12 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120970 SSSusan wrote: "Um. I'm not sure why my description of who I considered the core kids at the Hog's Head was used as an example for the issue of whether we're holding people to a double-standard or not. " Del replies: Boo, I'm bad today, I keep getting into elliptic mode. I'm sorry SSSusan, I never meant to say that you were holding those double standards. It's just that your explanation of who the core kids were was so much in synch with what was bothering me that I used it as an example, but without explaining why I considered it an example, which was very bad posting, I admit. Here's the explanation : the core kids are Harry's friends, who are basically the Weasley kids plus Hermione. They all believe Harry without questioning, blindly : none of them has ever seen ressucitated!LV or the DEs. And yet they are supposed to be the kids who made the best choices. Why? Why is it good *for them only* to believe their friend blindly? Why is it good *for them only* to follow their parents? In short : why is it good for them to do things that other kids have been berated for doing? Am I making more sense now? I guess I should just have dropped the quote and gone on with the post. But the two were so logically linked in my mind that I failed to show that in my post. My apologies. Del From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 2 02:54:51 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 02:54:51 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120971 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Here's the explanation : the core kids are Harry's friends, who are basically the Weasley kids plus Hermione. They all believe Harry without questioning, blindly : none of them has ever seen ressucitated!LV or the DEs. And yet they are supposed to be the kids who made the best choices. Why? Why is it good *for them only* tobelieve their friend blindly? Why is it good *for them only* to follow their parents? In short : why is it good for them to do things that other kids have been berated for doing?< Pippin: Is it good for them?... at the end of OOP, they made a dreadful mistake by following Harry to the Ministry. Although Harry's loyalty in CoS saves him, I think the moral lesson there was about refusing to despair, not about being blindly devoted to anybody. Harry needed to have faith in something in order to give him the courage to resist Voldemort. His faith was not that Dumbledore was always right, but that Dumbledore would not abandon Hogwarts...I wish he had been able to hold onto that faith in OOP but he had to learn the hard way. We keep trying to find a formula for the characters making the right choices, and there isn't one, IMO. That's why making the right choice is *hard* and Dumbledore feels pity, not vindictiveness, toward those who make the wrong ones. I would like to see Hermione grow in Dumbledore's direction, not Snape's. Pippin From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sun Jan 2 03:40:10 2005 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:40:10 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120972 Del wrote: > People don't believe in LV's resurrection : bad. > Hermione doesn't believe in heliopaths : good. > > Luna believes in crumpled-horned snorkacks : bad. > Luna believes in resurrection and life after death : good. Many interesting examples snipped (I'd love to discuss them, but time does not permit) but I'll just address these, which concern Luna Lovegood. I'm not altogether sure whether you're saying that list members make these judgements, or whether the text implies them; however, I think there's some misdirection by JKR going on here. I think the superficial reader is encouraged to think with Hermione that Snorkacks and Heliopaths do not exist, but that in a future book Luna will turn out to be right about something (I'm guessing something to do with Fudge) despite Hermione's rationalistic objections. Why are we led feel that scepticism about snorkacks and heliopaths is "good" (I would say "justified" might be a better term) while there may be something in Luna's beliefs about death? - the creatures are mentioned in The Quibbler, and where it is possible to verify its stories (Stubby Boardman is Sirius Black) they are not reliable; - The Quibbler fits in with a known type of paper (called Supermarket Tabloids in America, I believe) in the experience of readers, who know that this type of paper is not to be believed; - the reader, along with Harry, can hear whispering behind the veil, and Luna alludes to that in support of her contention about the dead; - Luna's social reactions are often slightly inappropriate. Although this ought not to reflect on her credibility (and in certain types of literature would be a sure pointer to a supernatural acuity of vision) it does do so for many of her peers, and it is hard for the reader not to be influenced by this. I find it intriguing that JKR has introduced a theme which allows Hermione to seem like the Dursleys in her dismissal of things outside the range of her understanding. It has the odd effect of making all the magic we have so far encountered somehow mundane, just another branch of technology. David From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 04:13:53 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:13:53 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and Hermione was Marrieta and ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120973 Pippin: I've looked over your list of alternative plans you say Hermione could have used to escape from Umbridge's clutches and with out exception they seem pretty harebrained to me. I certainly wouldn't trust any of them to save my life because, unlike Hermione's original plan, for any of your ideas to work Umbridge would have to do something incredibly stupid. They are all equivalent to: Hey Professor Umbridge your shoelace is untied; and then when she looks down at her feet .. Umbridge may not be a genius bur she's not THAT dumb. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 04:45:46 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:45:46 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120974 Lupinlore: True, true. I guess there are a lot of ways to approach this question. Let me set out how I JKR sets it up in the books. It seems to me, as I've said in other posts, that JKR has a lot of essentialism in the books. That is one side is good and the other bad BY DEFINITION. In a sense she has a very metaphysical construct of good and evil. That is, good and evil appear to be existant states that have their own reality quite independent of any human belief or intention. Dumbledore partakes, in a Platonic sense, of Goodness, whereas Voldemort partakes of Evil. Hence her statement about "Dumbledore is goodness" and "Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness." Now, given this set of affairs, how one acts and what one does are good or evil in that they support one of these two opposed principals. Therefore, Percy is evil in defying his family because this supports the evil principal IRREGARDLESS OF PERCY'S INTENT OR REASONING. Cho is good in defying her family because this supports the good principal IRREGARDLESS OF CHO'S INTENT OR REASONING. In JKR's world, your actions are good or not according to an objective standard of who you're helping, your own personal beliefs and intentions and morals seem to have very little, if anything, to do with it. Now that might not seem very fair. But if one believes in Good and Evil as Platonic existants, as JKR seems to in the HP saga, it is perfectly logical. Alla: I will have to think about it a little bit more, but as of today I agree 100%. JKR beats us over the head that Dumbledore is good, Voldemort is bad. I am at least happy that she does not make all people who support Dumbledore to be 100% white. She did not managed it with DE, IMO. All people who support Voldemort are 100% black, at least now and IMO only. So, ummm, yeah, no matter how independently Percy thinks and decides for himself to join Fudge - it is bad, because joining the "black" side is bad in the "potterverse" even if you exercise independent thinking. Going back to Marietta for a second - betraying Light is BAD even if you remain loyal to your family while doing so. I agree with you Lupinlore - based on the values of "potterverse" as I see them, it seems perfectly logical to me. Just my opinion, Alla From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 05:01:30 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 05:01:30 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120975 "delwynmarch" wrote: I wrote: >> In my example I was man B, and that >> changes things. Del Wrote: > I did not use your example. If I had > meant to do so, I would have said so. > You're just trying to weasel out of > the pit you put yourself into. I can say absolutely nothing about your example one way or the other because your thought experiment does not contain enough information to be constructive. You have one man chasing another man for unknown reasons and you ask me to make a moral judgment. I can not. Man A may be a monster, Man B may be a monster, perhaps both are, perhaps neither are, who knows. You need to tell me more. > I believe that systematically ignoring > or weaseling out of uncomfortable > questions on a discussion board is wrong Not knowing the answer to a question is not weaseling, not knowing the answer but pretending you do is weaseling. > You said for example that you dislike > very very sweet people. Does that make > very very sweet people wrong? No it doesn't in my book. Well I guess that's the difference between you and me, in my book it does. Of course morality comes in degrees as do likes and dislikes, so "wrong" might be a little too strong a word, "inappropriate" might be better. > I don't remember reading about any other > member of the faculty of Hogwarts ever > saying anything publicly about LV being > ressucitated. Least of all Snape. If Snape is not afraid to tell Fudge about it, the leader of the wizard world, and tell him in a very direct, forceful, downright rude manner then I don't see why he wouldn't tell the students, or anybody else that asked. Eggplant From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 05:15:15 2005 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 05:15:15 -0000 Subject: Peter Pettigrew's House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120976 Lucy wrote: > > > > Does anyone have an opinion on which house Peter Pettigrew > belonged to? McGonagall refers to him as "that fat little boy who > was always tagging them [the Marauders] at Hogwarts". She doesn't > seem to know him very well. Jen then wrote: > Q: What houses were Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, James Potter and > Remus Lupin in? Everyone tells me they were all Gryffindor, but I > won't believe it unless I hear it from Ms. Rowling herself! > > A: This is JK herself saying that they were indeed in Gryffindor. > ****** > > So, we don't know exactly which house Peter was in given the error > in the question, but it certainly seems logical Peter was in > Gryffindor. It would be hard for Peter to 'tag-along' behind James > and Sirius if he wasn't in their house (and presumably their dorm). Then Frugalarugala added: Unless I'm mistaken, we don't know yet when McGonagall became head of Gryffindor, we just assume there was no other head-of-house between Dumbledore and her. It's possible that she wasn't any more than their transfigerations professor, which might be supported by Snape's lack of resentment for McGonagall from their school days, if she wasn't in charge of the Marauders... --Frug From MorganAnnAdams at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 17:49:49 2005 From: MorganAnnAdams at yahoo.com (Morgan Adams) Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 09:49:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Lupin's boggart In-Reply-To: <1104583304.7468.96795.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050101174949.66558.qmail@web41803.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 120977 Patrick wrote: "There was a teacher who once told me to never tell the reader everything until it was absolutely necessary and that is what I think JKR was doing." Doesn't she give away everything about Remus Lupin in his name, which comes from lupus meaning wolf-like? I normally do not catch on very fast to things, but I was familiar with the word and knew he was a werewolf, or something similar the first time I saw his name. That was a very obvious clue to give away. Anyway, this is my first time posting, but I've been reading for a while. I'm a little intimidated by all of your knowledge, so you probably won't hear much from me, but I was struck by this passage. Thanks! --Morgan From saraqael2000 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 1 19:14:47 2005 From: saraqael2000 at yahoo.com (Saraqael) Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 19:14:47 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and Hermione was Marrieta and ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120978 Pippin: > What Hermione did, IMO, was the equivalent of trying to get the > KKK to help her deal with a corrupt, evil, black person. It'd serve > her right if they tried to lynch her too, and isn't that what > happened? Don't worry about Hermione's comeuppance -- she > got it already. With all due respect, in my opinion, likening centaurs in a children's book series to 'corrupt, evil, black' people and discussing lynchings and the KKK does an incredible disservice to the scores of innocent real human beings who were lynched and murdered by the KKK. Centaurs are not 'racists.' They are an entirely different species, whose homelands have been lost due to the dominance of humankind. Some/all of them may hate human beings (magical or muggle) and they may/may not have justifiable cause to do so. IMO, the fact that the centaurs turned on one of their own for dealing with humans is more akin to people under siege from a conquering army turning on a collaborator. --Saraqael From trekkie at stofanet.dk Sat Jan 1 23:07:40 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:07:40 +0100 Subject: Umbridge and Hermione was Marrieta and ... References: Message-ID: <009101c4f056$b16d71d0$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 120979 Pippin: > > asking Harry to call Fawkes Eggplant: > If Harry has the ability to call Fawkes to him whenever he wants > that's news to me. By the way, how could she ask Harry > anything without Umbridge hearing her do so?< Pippin: (quoting from memory) "You must have shown true > loyalty to me. Only that could have called Fawkes to you." --CoS > Hermione could have said, "I hope our golden friend isn't there, > he might cause trouble." Harry's quick on the uptake, he'd have > figured it out. I doubt Harry is able to consciously call Fawkes. When he summoned the Phoenix in CoS he didn't know he was doing it. He summoned him by believing in Dumbledore, but what he really summoned was Godrick Gryffindors sword, Fawkes was only the "carrier pidgeon" in that case, although of course it also helped later on with the healing tears and by helping them out of the chamber. ~TG From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 2 10:25:36 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:25:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character discussion: Harry (3) Message-ID: <20050102102536.51521.qmail@web25102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 120980 Genesis 3:4 The serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", chapter 2: Harry sat up and gasped; the glass front of the boa constrictor's tank had vanished. The great snake was uncoiling itself rapidly, slithering out on to the floor - people throughout the reptile house screamed and started running for the exits. As the snake slid swiftly past him, Harry could have worn a low, hissing voice said, "Brazil, here I come... Thanksss, amigo." All of us own a "tree". The spinal column with the spinal cord and the two strings of the sympathetic nerve is called the tree of life. The force that runs along these 3 channels, esotericists call the "serpent fire". The crown of the tree is the brain, and what lives in the brain? That is the human intellect! That is the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. In my theory that Harry Potter is the oft repeated universal message of liberation, I have told you that Harry is the new soul-force that is born in the heart of the seeker. This force enters the blood stream and hence spreads throughout the body. James personifies the heart's longing for liberation. When Harry is born, and has reached a certain stage of maturity, the new force in the blood begins to affect the head, the intellect is set free as it were. When a person has a "lily" that is totally enclosed within its petals, it is very hard for him/her to understand the message of liberation. The mind is focused on earthly things. If you explain the teachings of liberation to a person like that you might just as well explain it in Swahili or Double Dutch, because they won't understand it. Their "serpent" is imprisoned in an earthbound cage, as it were. But once the new soul is born and it begins to enter the head it will set the intellect free. The mind can then soar to great spiritual heights. It will easily understand spiritual teachings and will become a great ally of the soul in its long, arduous quest for liberation. Hans ===== Hans Rieuwers see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Jan 2 11:30:06 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:30:06 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120981 > Del wrote: > > > People don't believe in LV's resurrection : bad. > > Hermione doesn't believe in heliopaths : good. > > > > Luna believes in crumpled-horned snorkacks : bad. > > Luna believes in resurrection and life after death : good. > Dave Witely: > I'm not altogether sure whether you're saying that list members make these judgements, or whether the text implies them; however, I think there's some misdirection by JKR going on here. > > I think the superficial reader is encouraged to think with Hermione that Snorkacks and Heliopaths do not exist, but that in a future book Luna will turn out to be right about something (I'm guessing something to do with Fudge) despite Hermione's rationalistic objections. > Valky: I quite agree with your veiw here, David. The intellectual tete a tete of Hermione and Luna has fascinated me from my first read of OOtP. They are both *thinkers* and I highly doubt that JKR is leading into or even implying now a superiority of either of the two minds. Luna challenges the "Hermione institution" of rationality and recognised logic, with intuition and imaginative insight. Personally, I think it's a fantastic development in the story and throughout the next two books I'm sure, as you have said David, that we will discover Luna to be as clever, and *right* as Hermione. Dave: > Why are we led feel that scepticism about snorkacks and heliopaths > is "good" (I would say "justified" might be a better term) while > there may be something in Luna's beliefs about death? > > - Luna's social reactions are often slightly inappropriate. > Although this ought not to reflect on her credibility (and in > certain types of literature would be a sure pointer to a > supernatural acuity of vision) it does do so for many of her > peers, and it is hard for the reader not to be influenced by this. > Valky: Personally, rather than feeling led to scepticism about the fantasy creatures by Hermiones encounter with Luna, I felt I was pointed to a recognition of Hermiones limitations, if you will, a deeper outline of where Hermione ends, and the wider WW begins. Dave: > I find it intriguing that JKR has introduced a theme which allows > Hermione to seem like the Dursleys in her dismissal of things > outside the range of her understanding. It has the odd effect of > making all the magic we have so far encountered somehow mundane, > just another branch of technology. > Valky: Yes, as you have it. I am pretty sure this is the effect that Jo reaches for. The infinity of the WW; beyond what we don't know, there is what they don't know. To me it is these things that make the WW so real so climb-in-and- stay-awhile-able. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jan 2 11:49:38 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:49:38 -0000 Subject: posts from 119806 to 120981 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120982 Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/119806 : <> As James and Lily and Frank and Alice were all members of the Order, and they were the parents of the two people about whom the Prophecy might be, DD definitely *should* have told them at least as much of the Prophecy as LV knew, as part of explaining why LV was determined to kill their babies. Kneasy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/119806 : << What information could Bagman have that would interest a Voldy spy already inside the Ministry? Bagman wasn't working at the Ministry then, though he had expectations - he says that Rookwood offered to help. Yet it was Old Rookwood - a friend of Bagman's father - he was passing the information to. >> I figure that young Bagman, as a beloved celebrity, was often invited to VIP parties, where VIPs, maybe even the heads of MoM departments, tried to impress him by showing off how much they knew about important activities, such as the fight against LV. I imagine Rookwood need merely have taught him to look interested, and to remember what he was told long enough to regurgitate it into a report. Annemehr added in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/119815 : << Not only what information could a young Quidditch star obtain, but what could it be that he could plausibly *think* was to help the good side but was really for the bad side? >> I like to think of young Bagman as stupid enough that it never occured to him that an MoM intelligence officer didn't need spies to find out about official MoM secret plans for, oh, a raid at a certain time of a suspected DE meeting place, or a new kind of Anti-Apparation spell... Okay, I suppose Rookwood could have told young Bagman that he was working for a parallel underground Resistance which existed because the Ministry was so full of traitors; he could have said that this Resistance group was led by the widely respected Albus Dumbledore; he could have said it was the Order of the Phoenix if that name were publically known. Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/119859 : << Minerva MAY feel affection for Harry, I just don't see it in the books. Could you give me some canon on this one? (snip) I suppose her "I wil help you become an auror even if it will be the last thing I do" counts, but besides that I cannot remember anything. >> CoS: <<"Potter! Weasley! What are you doing?" It was Professor McGonagall, and her mouth was the thinnest of thin lines. "We were -we were-" Ron stammered. "We were going to - to go and see -" "Hermione," said Harry. Ron and Professor McGonagall both looked at him. "We haven't seen her for ages, Professor," Harry went on hurriedly, treading on Ron's foot, "and we thought we'd sneak into the hospital wing, you know, and tell her the Mandrakes are nearly ready and, er, not to worry -" Professor McGonagall was still staring at him, and for a moment, Harry thought she was going to explode, but when she spoke, it was in a strangely croaky voice. "Of course," she said, and Harry, amazed, saw a tear glistening in her beady eye. "Of course, I realize this has all been hardest on the friends of those who have been ... I quite understand. Yes, Potter, of course you may visit Miss Granger. I will inform Professor Binns where you've gone. Tell Madam Pomfrey I have given my permission." Harry and Ron walked away, hardly daring to believe that they'd avoided detention. As they turned the corner, they distinctly heard Professor McGonagall blow her nose. "That," said Ron fervently, "was the best story you've ever come up with." >> McGonagall IS A BIG SOFTIE. "nienna_anwamane" asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/119941 : << I've wondered if maybe after the parents flat out refuse to allow their child to go to Hogwarts their memories are erased, but can the child's magic abilities be bound so they can't use them any more? >> It seems to be accepted in this Y!group that parents have a right to prevent their children from getting a suitable education, but *surely* that doesn't give parents the right to *disable* their child by destroying one of the child's innate abilities? May they cut out the child's vocal cords to prevent the child from trying to be a professional singer (pop or opera)? Chrusotoxos wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120042 : << << 2. Was Lupin a werewolf on the night that Lily and James were killed? >> No again. He was suspected, remember? Therefore, he had to be in his human form to be able to go to Voldemort and betray the Potters. >> No, I don't remember Lupin ever being suspected of having led LV to the Potters on that Halloween night. Sirius was suspected because Sirius was believed to be the Secret Keeper, and Sirius suspected Peter because he knew that really Peter was the Secret Keeper. Lupin was not the Secret Keeper, but he could have led LV there with a note telling the Secret written by the Secret Keeper (as Harry was led to 12 Grimmauld Place). That everyone suspected Sirius the Secret Keeper and no one suspected Remus the Secret Keeper's friend who might have had such a note suggests to me that he WAS transformed that night. << Now answer me this, it's obsessing me: did Lucius teach Snape all those drawling tones and silky voices? The self-assurances, the feline grace? Was he trained that way in order to fight as a Death Eater? Are they friends? >> I'm sure that Snape learned all that style from Lucius, from carefully observing and imitating Lucius rather than direct lessons. We don't know if they're *friends*, but they certainly are associates of *some* kind: Umbridge told Snape that Lucius Malfoy had spoken well of him. I believe that the reason for Snape's 'sudden movement' when Harry said Lucius was at the Graveyard (late in GoF) was because Snape liked (hero-worshipped) Lucius so much that he had, until then, managed to fool himself into believing Lucius's claim of having been Imperio'd into Death Eating, and he was shocked to find that Lucius was a voluntary Death Eater. However, I can't imagine that Lucius had any warmer feeling toward Severus than finding him useful. K Cawte wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120182 : << And if we give Harry a pass on killing Voldemort (snip), how is he supposed to go about it? AK is after all illegal. >> Throw him through that Veil in the Department of Mysteries. Del wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGr ownups/message/120192 : << was Sirius an Occlumens? If not, how come DD didn't know Sirius wasn't the traitor? >> I find it hard to imagine that Sirius was an Occlumens, as he is even less able to control or conceal his emotions than Snape is. Of course, it is possible that he had more self-control before Azkaban, or that self-control has nothing to do with Occlumency. If Sirius was not an Occlumens, so DD could see that he had no treason in mind when last they met, DD could have thought that the treason came into him near the last minute ... I don't *recall* DD saying that Sirius had been the Dark Lord's right-hand servant or had been biding his time or any of those things Fudge said; DD may have thought that Sirius broke under torture or was tricked in some way.... Tammy wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120397 : << Madam Hooch - If she's brave enough to be a Quidditch Ref, she's probably a Gryffindor, I'd say. She'd be cool to see as Head of House too, would she still be an impartial referee? >> I've always thought of Madam Hooch as a Hufflepuff. Following the rules is a Hufflepuff trait good for a referee to have. I think that a Gryffindor teacher would concentrate most on teaching the most talented students and get impatient with the least talented ones (as McGonagall with Hermione and Neville in Transfiguration) and a Hufflepuff teacher would concentrate most on patiently teaching the least talented students in an effort to get them up to mediocrity. I think the 'Hufflepuff' style is better for a Flying (or Driver Ed) teacher, as the students who are good at it quickly pass and leave the class, while the struggling students need to learn this skill for the sake of the rest of their lives. Speaking of Madam Hooch, why does she have yellow eyes like a hawk and like Hedwig? << Kingsley would be a lovely Head of House, but who'd want to stop being an Auror to be a teacher? >> I imagine that an Auror who reaches a certain age (maybe 60 or 70) without having been promoted into management usually makes a career change, and that Defense Against Dark Arts teacher would be a suitable new career. Despite JKR having indicated that Harry is not going to be a professor, I like to think that (if he survives the series) he could play Quidditch professionally for a couple or up to twenty years, then be an Auror for 30-40 years, then become DADA teacher at Hogwarts, then become Headmaster. I doubt he'd be a good Head of House but I feel he would be a good Headmaster by the time he's old enough. "jaymzhuk" wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120400 : << Perhaps it's fallen off the bottom of the search, but I noticed on looking at JK Rowling's website that Ginny's full name is Ginevra, but nobody seems to have commented on this! >> Various people commented back then that 'Ginevra' is a form of 'Gwenevere" (as is "Jennifer" but I can't think how to work in a reference to the Donovan song "Jennifer Juniper") and might therefore have some Arthurian (matiere de Bretagne) symbolism. Arthur is named "Arthur" and Percy's name is reminiscent of (but not short for) "Percival", and some listies have said that the Welsh Arthur's spear was named "Ron", but I can't remember any Arthurian referents for "Molly", "Bill", "Charlie", "Fred", "George". Dungrollin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120407 : << Guinevere, which is an Old French form of the Welsh name Gwenhwyfar, from gwen meaning "fair, white" and hwyfar meaning "smooth". >> For what it's worth, Marion Zimmer Bradley had "Gwenevere" as Gwyn Aver meaning White Bird, and I've also seen White Shadow offered as a meaning. << I'm afraid that Juniper only makes me think of gin. :) "Gin" is short for "geneva". I thought the liquor was named after the city Geneva, but the dictionary now claims that the liquor was named for juniper and the city's name started out meaning "knee" -- "same as Genoa". Anyway, in my mind the connotation of the city of Geneva is international treaties and international organizations, so maybe Ginevra Weasley's role is to make peace between two sides. Btw, JKR's comment also said that Ginny is the first Weasley daughter in some (three?) generations, which someone commented must mean that there is something important about being a Weasley daughter. All I know is it screwed up my fanfic in which Arthur's older sister Willa was a hot-shot wizarding lawyer. Moonmyst wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120439 : << << 1. It's the Chamber of Secrets - plural. What else was down there? >> << I don't know but I bet the veiled gateway started life there! >> It would be interesting to know what could possibly have been started out of the veil. Why does this make me think of the riddle with "prince" as the answer? >> It never occured to me that mooseming's answer could be read as meaning that the Veiled Gateway created (started) a life (living creature) in the Chamber of Secrets, as I always assumed that it meant that the Veiled Gateway's own "life" (existence) was started there, meaning it was invented/constructed there. (As in, "she started life named Wendy Wilson but soon became Amy Gurevitch when she was adopted four days later"). I personally dislike the idea that the Veiled Gateway was constructed in Salazar's Chamber of Secrets, therefore not much more than 1000 years old, because I so much loved someone's suggestion that it had been in its current position when humans first came to the Island of Britain, that a wizards tried to study it (maybe mixed wizards and Muggles, back in those days), that a settlement grew around it to house the researchers, that that settlement eventually became the city of London, and the Ministry building was built around the Veil. But if the Veiled Gateway were buried within what I choose to call Hogmount (or Mt. Hog) before Hogwarts Castle was built over it --- that would correlate with Cuaron's interview statement that JKR said Hogwarts was built on an old Celtic site (presumably itself built on an older pre=Celtic site) --- it could be that Salazar found the Veiled Gateway and built his Chamber around it. It could be that the evil spirit (which some of us hypothesized possessed Salazar, turned him evil, and possessed a series of Dark Lords ever after) came out of the Veil and possessed a previously non-evil Salazar. (My fanfic assumes that Salazar was already evil long before the Founding, but my fanfic has been wrong about plenty of other things.) The only thing that requires some fast talking is why an evil being came from a place that contains good people like Sirius and presumably Harry's parents and Luna's mother. Laurasia wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120445 : << And using a visible/opinionated narrator means that there is no mistaking the author's intent. >> Well, maybe not. Sometimes a writer uses a visibly opinionated narrator to show how wrong the narrator's opinions are, like an anti-racism book narrated by a racist who praises all the bad things that happen and criticizes the good things. That is not relevant to HP (sorry, List Elves!) but your statement was phrased as a generalization. Heather wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120447 : << I went back and found that Jo's date of joining was June 27, 2003. So I started searching. Here is her first post: (#64851) << anybody else beginning to suspect that the 'lightening bolt' could in fact be a snake shaped scar? What could this mean? >> >> And mooseming's later posts included the suggestion that the Heir of Slytherin, i.e. the person whom the evil spirit possesses when its previous host dies, gets a silver snake mark on the forehead at time of possession. However, IIRC someone asked JKR if Harry's scar is shaped like the "sig" rune and JKR said The Shape Is Not The Most Important Thing About That Scar. Tim Regan wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120475 : << 1, 15 Charlie's friends were a cheery lot. They showed Harry and Hermione the harness they'd rigged up, so they could suspend Norbert between them. They all helped buckle Norbert safely into it and then Harry and Hermione shook hands with the others and thanked them very much. Harry and Hermione : Charlie and his colleagues >> << 4, 5 Harry had never seen before, though he knew immediately who they must be: Bill and Charlie, the two eldest Weasley brothers. "How're you doing, Harry?" said the nearer of the two, grinning at him and holding out a large hand, which Harry shook, feeling calluses and blisters under his fingers. This had to be Charlie, who worked with dragons in Romania. Charlie : Harry >> I went back to check PS/SS and found that GoF is correct that Harry had never seen Charlie before: Charlie was not with his friends who picked up Norbert. So you should change your summary from "Charlie and his colleagues" to "Charlie's colleagues". Here's the quote from Charlie's letter in PS/SS: "I'd be glad to take the Norwegian Ridgeback, but it won't be easy getting him here. I think the best thing will be to send him over with some friends of mine who are coming to visit me next week." Chancie wrote of the idea that Snape warned James that their Secret Keeper had betrayed them to LV in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120550 : << I agree that IF something like this did happen, then James would probably be very scepical to say the least. However, James and Lily did know Voldemort was looking for them. I have a hard time believing that they would take a chance like that. I mean, ignoring a threat that could very well kill their son??? If I heard some one was looking to kill my baby girl, and that they knew were I was and they were on their way, I would definatly not just take my chances, whether I believed this person or not. >> As various people have pointed out, if Snape came to the Potters' hiding place to warn them that their Secret Keeper had revealed the Secret to LV, they should have realized that their Secret had been revealed at least to *Snape*. So someone suggested that Snape got DD to summon James to Hogwarts so Snape could tell him. In that case, one parent could make the point you made: IF THIS CLAIM IS TRUE, WE MUST RUN AWAY! but the other parent could worry that, if this claim is false, it could be a deliberate trick to get us to leave our safe hiding place and come out into danger. Valky wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120581 : << Is this the authoritative word on ?Why on Earth? did JKR tell us now-relatively-insignificant-since-Harry-got-over-her!Cho's patronus ?? >> IIRC John Granger, who writes the books on alchemical meaning of the Potter ouevre, said it was a way to slip in a swan because the swan is an alchemical symbol for the next step in the recipe. Jen Reese wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120757 : << World domination is a little mundane, yet remains popular among the evil overlord set. >> You phrased that so well! Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120760 : << did that make it okay for Umbridge to use the quill? Of course not, she was violating the policy that corporal punishments should not be used against students. >> To me, there is a wrongness to that quill beyond it being corporal punishment, much worse than caning or or even being hung from the ceiling in chains. A pen that drinks the blood of the writer *must* be some kind of Dark Magic! And branding his flesh with what she *knew* was a false accusation! Del wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGr ownups/message/120899 : << We're told that everyone at school read the Quibbler article, so this must include Marrietta. As I said in another post, I think JKR didn't give us any logical reason for Marrietta to have acted when she did because Marrietta was never supposed to be anything more than a plot device. I find that quite frustrating though. >> I assume that Marietta acted when she did because that is when her parents put some heavy emotional pressure on her, which may have been because Fudge's paranoia had gone up a few notches resulting in increased pressure on all Ministry employees. Or may have been because they somehow found out (she actually let some words slip out) that she was closer to the suspect Harry Potter than they had warned her against being. Saraquel wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/120978 : << With all due respect, in my opinion, likening centaurs in a children's book series to 'corrupt, evil, black' people and discussing lynchings and the KKK does an incredible disservice to the scores of innocent real human beings who were lynched and murdered by the KKK. >> Um, I think Pippin was comparing Umbridge to an evil Black person in relation to comparing the centaurs to the KKK. Just because all the victims of real-life lynchings were innocent doesn't make it impossible for a hypothetical person to be both Black and evil. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Jan 2 12:38:28 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 12:38:28 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120983 Valky: Hi Del, You are posing some interesting questions here, and if you don't mind, I would like to offer some *perhaps* answers. > Del comments: > > Ernie's parents believe DD so Ernie believes Harry : good. > Seamus' mother believes Fudge so Seamus believes Fudge : bad. > Valky: I think there are two positions on this issue. The first one being the readers sympathies: I don't know about others but for me as a reader I began OOtP with the image of the graveyard scene and the trauma Harry suffered there and thereafter fresh in my mind. When Ernie lend his blind faith to Harry it was good,I felt, but not because I was led that way by a double standard, but because of what *I knew* had happened. I didn't see Seamus' trusting his mother as bad though, frankly though I shouldn't tell how deeply involved I get with the characters, I felt sorry for her, and concerned for her safety, again not because I was led to believe it was *bad* to trust Fudge or *bad* to trust your misinformed mother, but because *I knew* they were wrong. The second standpoint I see here is from inside the story, though I think that having the readers insight overwhelms it. Ron and Harry especially are the ones who find fault with Seamus over this matter but they also *know better* than Seamus. Harry, I think, is entitled to his anger, it is painful for him to lose friends due to Fudges poor behaviour. Del: > Cho learns to think by herself and doesn't do as her parents wish : good. > Percy learns to think by himself and decides not to follow in his > family's decisions : bad. > Valky: This one is interesting, I would like to say first that I disagree with the statement that Percy is thinking by himself. IMHO Percy's rejection of his family was definitely influenced thinking. However, lets just for arguments sake say that Percy chooses to side with Fudge as an excercise in independent will, much like the claim Cho makes about her intent to side with Harry. Then Percy believes independent will, regardless of consequences, is a good thing, right? What about Rons independent will, then? If Percy has so much regard for the right of one to think for himself why does he write in his letter to Ron "I have always been afraid that you would take what we might call the 'Fred and George' route, rather than following in my footsteps," and "Your loyalty, Ron, should not be to him (Dumbledore), but to the school and the Ministry." Del: > Draco doesn't question his family's traditions : bad. > Most of the Weasley children don't question their friend and family : good. > Valky: Actually I think that most of the Weasley clan get around to questioning their friends and family at some stage and *that* is what is good, whereas the Houses of Black, Malfoy and other such are the places where independent thought gets suppressed. Bill and Charlie, Fred and George, and Percy, have all taken some route away from their family's influence, Ron and Ginny so far have been a bit young to be doing so. Del: > A load of double-standards. That's what's used to judge the characters of the Potterverse. No wonder we never get anywhere. > Valky: *smile* We are a many coloured group, and 13000 of us can't be wrong, can we? ;D From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Jan 2 13:26:02 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 13:26:02 -0000 Subject: Hex, Jinx, Curse, Charm & Spells In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120984 > > Chancie: > > Does anyone know what qualifies Spells as either, a > > Hex Jinx, Curse, or Charm? I can't seem to find any kind of > > defining trait, except of course a Curse is bad. But it seems > > pretty much up in the air for the rest. > > Chancie > Valky: Well, as i am constantly reminded, noone *knows* what qualifies spells into their likely Potterverse categories, except JKR herself. Since you're interested, though, I would be glad to share my own often loathed opinion. To start with Steve offered some good insight: > > bboyminn: > A SPELL is a broad general purpose reference that refers to all 'cast' magic; that is, refers to most magic other than potions. > CHARMS are in two categories; charm spells and charmed object. Charms as cast magic are made up of spells that are applied to objects; summoning and banishing charms, for example. Although, it is possible for the 'object' to be a person. Charm spells can also be applied to objects to give them protective properties, > Now Valky: Up to this point I entirely agree. Of course, this is the simple end of the scale. Then we go on to the issues of contention among HP fans. bboyminn: > A CURSE is a form of attack magic; a spell that assaults a person. For example, the curse of the Bat Bogeys, a Ginny Weasley specialty. If an otherwise benevolent spell is used to assault a person that applied intent is what defines it as a curse. > A HEX I think is another word for a curse; to hex someone is to curse them. Hex and curse are always negative. > Valky: I concur that a curse is by nature an attack, but I disagree that the Bat Bogey Hex falls into this category. IMHO a curse is more malevolent than a hex. In most examples that I can recall to mind of hexes in the books, there seems to be a recurring theme of mischief associated with hexes, rather than maleficence which seems to be more often attached to the word curse. And I strongly disagree that an otherwise innocuous spell misused becomes a curse. I am sure that it is not considered right to turn scourgify on someones throat, and perfectly cruel, but technically, by definition it is not a curse. That is of course just my humble opinion. So for me: HEX - A spell that's nature is micheivous but not directly or permanently harmful. CURSE - A spell that's nature is purposefully harmful and dangerous. > bboyminn: > A JINX is a way of forcing bad luck onto a person. The bad luck may be general bad luck, or it may take on a specific intended form. Quirrel tries to jinx Harry's broom, that jinx forces Harry's broom to try and buck him off. Being bucked off your broom would certainly be bad luck. Valky: I agree with this one. I suspect that a JINX is somewhere between a hex and a curse in nature. More malevolent than a hex so as to cause some harm, but technically less directly dangerous than a curse. Thanks for bringing up the topic, Chancie, I am also keenly interested in finding out where the JKR draws the line, and I love a chance to get my two knuts in. :D From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 15:04:39 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 15:04:39 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120985 Del: A load of double-standards. That's what's used to judge the characters of the Potterverse. No wonder we never get anywhere. Valky: *smile* We are a many coloured group, and 13000 of us can't be wrong, can we? ;D Alla: Yes, Valky. Besides I am sure we'll come somewhere. Eventually. At least when book 7 comes out we'll be closer to ... that place. Maybe. :o) From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 2 15:09:34 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:09:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: explanation Message-ID: <20050102150934.93313.qmail@web25101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 120986 Dear Friends, one and all, Please permit me to explain my motivation in sending to this group the series of posts which examine the characters and symbols in Harry Potter from an Alchemical point of view. May I ask you all to believe me when I say that I will be as truthful as a flawed human being can possibly be? Please also regard all of this as my personal view and belief. It's rather boring to begin every sentence with, "In my humble opinion". Just imagine you're a doctor who has studied cancer all his/her life. You are deeply affected by the fear, grief, pain and bereavement caused by this horrible disease. Right from childhood you have been drawn to this subject; you have read every book on it, you have read every website, and you have spent your whole life in actively fighting the disease in the operating theatre and in your profession. Obviously you are totally familiar with all the symptoms and especially the causes. These interest you most, because that's where the true solution is to be found. You know that the body is extremely complicated and you understand all those technical words that the general public has never heard of. You know what triggers this, which in turn causes the immune system to produce that, making the endocrine system do whatever. You understand the genes and chromosomes of the human body; in short, you know the causes and effects of cancer and the human body from A to Z. And you know what can cure it. You know that the only way to cure cancer is for people to change their lifestyle quite radically. Then one day you read a novel which, on the surface, is a book for children. You read it reluctantly, because you feel you're a bit beyond that sort of stuff. But after only a few pages, the hairs in your neck begin to prick. It all seems so strangely familiar somehow. You read on and vague suspicions begin to form in your mind. This book in some strange way seems to reflect your own knowledge of the cure for cancer. Just a coincidence, you shrug. But then you read the other three books. Once again each book seems to tell, in a symbolic way, how humanity can cure cancer! Astounding, and you can't believe it yourself. But as you read and study the books, the parallels are too many and too striking to be just coincidence. You start looking for websites to see if anyone else has made similar discoveries. You find "HP for Grownups" and send your discoveries there to see how people react. The reactions are mainly of the "huh?" variety, but you get the occasional private email telling you to keep going. So in April 2003 you post your predictions for book 5. Obviously if you know the whole story of the cure for cancer you can tell in advance what step 5 is going to be (see post 55793). Your predictions turn out to be correct on June 21("Coincidence!" I hear you shout). Ever since, you have been reading this kids' book and discovering more and more symbols which tell you with unshakable certainty that the author of this book knows everything there is to know about cancer, and also that she knows exactly how to cure it. Only she isn't stating it in medical terms but by using symbols and personification. This is what I mean: Say you know exactly what causes cancer, what happens in the body when cancer cells form, and what happens next. You know why some people get cancer and some don't. You know why some people are cured and some aren't. You are deeply affected by compassion for humanity, and you want to do something for it. You know that the true cause lies in humanity's lifestyle. If you tell the world in technical terms what happens in the body, and what people should do to prevent cancer, only a very few will understand you, and the people who should know, i.e. the general public, will never get to hear about it. So what do you do? You turn your knowledge of the battle to fight the causes of cancer into an exciting novel. You do this by personifying every aspect of cancer, i.e. by giving human names and human characters to all the organs, chemicals, cells, hormones, medicines etc. involved in cancer. The really aggressive body chemicals you give startling, evil sounding names and characters, while the chemicals that fight cancer you give noble names and characters. The body you turn into a castle, and the extremely competent doctor becomes a wise old man. The theme of health versus illness you turn into the theme of good versus evil, and you turn the atmosphere of the knowledge of medicine into magic. That's not so far fetched, because people used to think medicine was magic (think of the "Medicine Man"). Now to make this an exciting novel with characters with which readers, and especially children, can identify, you make them like real, human beings, with strong emotions and logical human motivations. You make the leading characters young kids between the ages of 11 and 18. Obviously children have parents, so you bring them into it, but the hero is an orphan. The world you're inventing has to have its infrastructure, and everything has to be done to make the world logical, complete and self-supporting within your parameters. Hence there are plot devices that are just there to move the story along, or are needed to make motivations human. Hormones act in a certain way because of the laws of biochemistry, but when you personify them as nasty or good characters, you have to make their motivation acceptable as apparent human beings. Hence you invent motivations in place of chemical reactions. You have a really good imagination, and so can turn the world of biology into a really vivid and beautiful world with lots of mythical creatures and magical events that excite the imagination of young and old. You tell your story from the point of view of the young hero, who personifies the new healthy lifestyle people need to change to to defeat cancer permanently. You give him very strong feelings, and have a lot of bad things happen to him so people will feel real empathy with him. However, when you strip the whole story down to its essentials it is and remains the story of the cause of cancer and the permanent cure. I'm sure you will all have worked out that I'm not a doctor and that I don't know any more about cancer than any of you. However if you can regard cancer as an analogy for the cancer in our human world today, you'll understand what I'm saying. I'm talking about the cancer of drug abuse, of human slavery, of child abuse, of terrorism, of war, and of a dozen other things you could all add to this list. For the last 45 years I have sought intensively for the causes and cure of evil in the world. And I have found the Teachings of Alchemical Liberation. Can we stop there and just make one thing crystal clear? I'm not asking you to accept these teachings as true. I'm only asking you to accept that they EXIST. That can be proven. Can you accept as a working hypothesis that the teachings actually exist, without considering whether they're true or whether they'll produce the results they claim? If so, I can tell you that these teachings claim to be able to explain the cause of evil and the permanent cure to it. And I have studied these teachings for 45 years. These teachings are known by very few people indeed; in fact only a few thousand spread over the whole world. And yet!! To my great amazement and astonishment these teachings known by only a handful of people are very clearly outlined in the most popular book of all times. I can understand you all being extremely skeptical about this. I even have to pinch myself sometimes to make sure I'm awake. I've had doubts and have re-examined all my discoveries. Yet each time I come to the same conclusion: the foundation of Harry Potter is the Teachings of Alchemical Liberation. Never mind whether the teachings are true; the point is JK Rowling knows them much better than I do and she IS basing her book on them. That is my motivation for sending my discoveries to this group. I have to tell the world! I just want to remind you that I have written an essay, "Harry Potter: Christian Rosycross in Jeans", and this is the the group's files under "essays". I want to assure you all, and I promise with all the honesty I have, that I'm not trying to convert anyone to Liberating Alchemy. For a start conversion or even persuasion is against the laws of alchemy, but in any case that's not the purpose of this forum. Its purpose is to share our discoveries of what we see in Harry Potter, and that's exactly what I'm doing. I believe that this group is the right place to tell the world about the hair-raising discovery of the real foundation of Harry Potter. It's not in the least important to me what people do with my discoveries. All I'm doing is telling you about the parallels between Harry Potter and Liberating alchemy, just as other people are comparing it to Lord of the Rings, the Bible, or whatever. I'm not result-oriented. People can do with my discovery whatever they wish. This email is prompted by comments Geoff Bannister has made, and by messages about the word "innate". Geoff stated that Harry is not like Jesus because Harry is imperfect. My answer to that is that JK Rowling has purposely made Harry a flawed human being ON THE SURFACE so that we can identify with him. If Jo made him a boy who can do no wrong we would get sick of him very quickly. What makes him so lovable is his ability to make mistakes, to jump to the wrong conclusions, to be hurt by people like Malfoy, and yet to be so noble, loyal and compassionate when it comes to the crunch. To be able to understand what Jo is doing you have to develop a certain way of thinking. You have to be able to distinguish between what is part of the foundation of the story and what is just an added decoration to make the character and the story believable and acceptable. In my posts on Harry I'm pointing out the things that are essential, like: getting the Stone out of the mirror, defeating the basilisk, freeing Dobby, saving Buckbeak and Sirius, driving off the dementors, letting Cedric grasp the Trophy together with Harry, defeating Voldemort in the battle of wills, becoming leader of Dubledore's Army, driving Voldemort out of his mind. To say that Jo is successful is an understatement. As Steve has said in his exquisite post about devastation in the world if Harry dies, Harry is more beloved than the President (and many politicians in other countries). This would never have happened if Jo had given Harry the character of a goody-goody. However as you will see in Book 7, Harry will do the same things as Jesus, i.e. overcome death. To the people discussing the topic of whether the main characters of Harry Potter are INNATELY good, and yet make choices: this sort of discussion is very interesting, and basically gets back to the old "Nature versus nurture" debate. It's very useful for helping people understand morality and freedom of choice, but it will never help to understand Harry Potter. The characters in Harry Potter are personifications of forces, objects or archetypes on the Path of Alchemical Liberation, and their motivation is invented by Jo to justify their actions on a human level. However the way they act in reality is according to spiritual laws, just as chemicals in the body act according to the natural laws of chemistry. This is why I find it difficult to engage in debates such as Del and Eggplant carry on. I believe, with great respect, that if we take the story too literally we will never understand the foundation of the story. It's great to examine things like the human character and its motivations generally, but that's not what Harry Potter is REALLY about. I hope I haven't offended anyone. That's the last thing I want to do. Unless I'm stopped by the moderators or Voldemort I'll post the rest of my series. I would like to issue a warning that some parts of the Teachings of Liberating Alchemy put part of the blame of humanity's dire straits on the traditional religions. That shouldn't be surprising as we've had 2000 years of traditional Christianity and yet the above problems are prevalent in the most overtly Christian countries. To go back to our cancer analogy: Despite the most intense struggle of allopathic medicine to defeat cancer it still kills more people than ever. It shouldn't surprise anyone that maybe the solution lies in changing our lifestyle. If anyone is easily offended by this line of thought I would ask them politely but firmly to delete all messages by Hans Andra before reading them. I welcome reactions to this message. I hope it's clarified many things. ===== Hans Rieuwers see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 15:29:04 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 15:29:04 -0000 Subject: JKR's Messages (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120987 > > SSSusan: > What if that crazy muggle woman also mentioned that by calling > them "innately good" she wasn't trying to say that they're little > saints who never break rules or never do anything wrong? What if > she said she meant that most of the time they follow their hearts, > which is where they're finding the goodness, even in the face of > being labeled "bad" for doing so? > > For me the phrase "innately good" doesn't mean so much that they > can't do wrong but that their hearts are aligned with rightness and > their tendency is to try to follow that, even if it means breaking > official (external) rules which might tell them they're "bad". > > Neri: ****************** Year 4, November: Harry's ears were ringing. The injustice of it made him want to curse Snape into a thousand slimy pieces. Harry sat there staring at Snape as the lesson began, picturing horrific things happening to him... If only he knew how to do the Cruciatus Curse... he'd have Snape flat on his back like that spider, jerking and twitching... ****************** OK, we know that righteous anger is not enough to make the Cruciatus work, so forget about the Cruciatus for a moment. Just give Harry here a baseball bat, and assume he doesn't have to fear retribution from Snape or anyone else. What would Harry do? Is this Harry's heart that wants to hurt Snape? Is this anger "innate" also? And does Harry have no choice but to follow it? > > SSSusan: > So you think perhaps they're not choosing A or B so much *each* time > they're facing a dilemma or situation so much as are consistently > following a set of principles & values they have previously chosen? > I think I agree. I think it's possible there is an inner set of > principles and values [a moral compass?] which they attempt to & do > follow consistently. > Neri: I agree, unless by "inner" you mean "pre-determined and impossible to overrule". In this case it wouldn't be a compass, it would be a control system. > SSSusan: > So the question is *did* they choose this system? Or is that what's > innate [an inner light?]? Neri: By that "or" you seem to be saying that "innate/inner" means no choice. So are the trio actually robots? I'll have to disagree. I've known them closely for several years now and I'm sure they are persons, so I have no doubt they chose the system. > SSSusan: > And is that distinction the problem we're > having w/ JKR's comment? > If it was something they chose, then why > call it *innate* goodness? Isn't it more like you say, that they > give the *impression* of its being innate because they're so > consistent to the principles held inside? > Neri: Excuse me, but who is this JKR and why do you give so much weight to that "innate goodness" expression of her? > SSSusan: > Hmmm. What does this do to a Percy? He's certainly following a set > of principles & values, *extremely* consistently, but he's not > likely to be labeled "innately good" by either JKR or a reader or a > character w/in the story who knows him well. He's chosen the not- > quite-right set of principles & values, then? > Neri: A "reader"? A "character"? A "story"?? Oh, you mean this is all just fiction??? Well, in this case it's obvious that Percy is not as innately good as the trio. Why d'you think they are the heroes and he's just a secondary character? Neri From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 15:51:42 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 15:51:42 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120988 > Del comments: > > Ernie's parents believe DD so Ernie believes Harry : good. > Seamus' mother believes Fudge so Seamus believes Fudge : bad. > > People don't believe in LV's resurrection : bad. > Hermione doesn't believe in heliopaths : good. > > I wish someone could explain to me what exactly is expected of people > in the Potterverse, short of being Legilimens or knowing instinctively > what is right or not. > > I've read that people should learn to think by themselves no matter > what their parents and friends think. But when Percy does it, he's > evil, and when his siblings don't do it, they're good. > > I've read that people should check their sources and facts before > making their decisions. And yet they are expected to believe in the > resurrection of a dead wizard. They are also expected to believe in a > single undetailed second-hand testimony. > > I've read that people shouldn't be influenced by the popularity or > glory of someone (Lockhart, Crouch, Fudge...). And yet everyone should > remember how great a wizard DD was, and that Harry saved the WW as a baby. > Neri: This post strongly reminded me of the Eschatological Laundry List, which is a partial register of 927 (or was it 928?) eternal truths. The four eternal truths that especially came to my mind were: ************************************ 32. We must live within the ambiguity of partial freedom, partial power, and partial knowledge. 33. All important decisions must be made on the basis of insufficient data. 34. Yet we are responsible for everything we do. 35. No excuses will be accepted. ************************************ It seems that these eternal truths hold not merely for RL, but also for the WW. In fact, Harry himself would probably be the first to admit it. Neri, who was given this list as a present from a very good friend many years ago, but lost it, and thanks Del for reminding him and making him looking it up on the web. If anyone's interested the (partial) list, originally by Sheldon Kopp, can be found in: http://tombrazaitis.com/Eternal%20Truths.htm From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 16:23:32 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:23:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] VWII and WWII (was Marietta and Hermione) References: Message-ID: <007e01c4f0e7$75bb0940$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 120989 > Charme wrote: > " However we've already seen via comments from the Weasley twins (if > I recall correctly) that Arthur Weasley's fondness for Muggles is one > of the reason Fudge doesn't support Arthur getting ahead at the > Ministry - a clue to a dangerous undercurrent belief of racial > superiority similiar to what occurred when Hitler took office. Law or > no law, it's ok to have the belief as long as you don't act on it > perhaps? It's what I interpret when I read the books." > > Del replies: > The issue is getting muddied again. It doesn't look like Fudge is a > DE, so his holding back Arthur because of the pureblood superiority > could in no way be a clue as to LV's return. It is indeed a clue > (apparently only known to insiders, btw) about the rampant feeling > about Muggleborns among some wizards, but that's no clue as to VWII. > There were many people who disliked the Jews before and during WWII > but who weren't Nazis in any way. And today, many people who hate the > Jews are not neo-nazis at all. > charme: With all due respect for your opinion, I wish you hadn't stated for fact the issue was getting muddied in the manner you did, unless you mean muddied toward the original Marietta discussion. If not, IMO a better way would be to question by asking me to explain why I think it's relative, rather than leaving me with the perception you've deemed what I've tried to explain is entirely bogus. I wasn't proposing the clue of pureblood superiority and racism applied to LV's return exclusively. If I was unclear, forgive me. I applied the concept of what's happening in the formulative stages of VWII to what reportedly began to occur prior to the declaration of WWII - law or no law, there is an undercurrent that's hard in my mind to ignore and I don't think it's limited to insiders in the manner you've suggested. Arthur says as much when talking about "Mugglebaiting" in OoP and how it's indicative of something much more damaging than just a prank toilet regurgitating (ew) or missing keys. Otherwise, why have the (albeit small) department he works for in the Ministry? If I remember correctly, there's only 2 people in that department: enough to keep up the pretense the Ministry is doing something about it? It isn't that big a problem or so they'd like the WW to think? Or is it just "not important" enough? Racism is multilayered, multifaceted thing -not limited to whether you are a DE or not, to my way of thinking. Pureblood or racism is a key issue in CoS, GoF and OoP: -CoS reveals the Mudblood, Half Blood & Pureblood terms and Slytherin preference for purebloods only so much that he'd assemble a secret chamber for a heir to finish his vision along with a little memory of LV to keep us on our toes -GoF introduces us to DE's abusing Muggles, named DE's and an overview to what they believe -OoP allows us to meet Siruis' mother among the Black family tree & explanations, Umbridge & her half breed aversions, the revelation there are Ministry employees who are DE's and working on LV's behalf Frankly, with as little as we're supposed to see LV in the next book (he likes his henchmen to do his work as I remember a JKR quote), he almost appears not as important (at the moment anyway) as what's happening in the WW society. DD actually refers to such, IMO, when talking to Harry after the DoM encounter at the end of OoP: he says that for too long wizards have mistreated their fellows and now they are reaping their rewards. While not "half breeds" of the same sort in the WW, the whole racial superiority mantra in WWII encompassed not only Jews, but homosexuals, gypsies and blacks.In the WW,we have learned over the course of the books of racism applied by some wizards to half breeds, elves, goblins, muggles, and mudbloods. Each book we find there is more prejudice from wizards against another group, and the Ministry has already passed some laws and acts to control those other races! The progression of prejudice and racism appears to be growing in the WW just as it did in Germany prior to WW2. One has to wonder even if LV didn't return and given there have been other seemingly "racial" wars in the WW (Binns & his History of Magic class, you know) in the past, history might have been doomed to repeat itself anyway. I agree there were many people who disliked Jews before, during, and after WWII: conceptually one could argue that it allowed many of them the predisposition to "turn a blind eye" so to speak and not take any action or ask questions. I'd submit that hating or disliking a certain group or race may dispose the avg person *not to take action* when events occur to that race or group which could be viewed as clearly as inhumane, violent, and tragic. I am reminded of a story repeated by the late Stephen Ambrose regarding a US unit who made German townspeople close to one of concentration camps dig graves for the dead at the camp - the US soldiers had the impression the townspeople lived that close, knew what was happening, and went about their daily lives as status quo, ignoring the starvation, torture, and death happening half a mile away. Where does the line get drawn between having tendencies toward a specific racial mantra (Fudge), being a sympathizer or supporter to such view (Mrs Black) and then being classified as racist? (LV, The Lestranges) This isn't a question I can answer BTW,it's one of those morality and value questions each person can answer for themselves. I will say this, for myself and only myself, racial tendencies and belief can be just as destructive as outright action or portrayal of that belief. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 2 17:50:27 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:50:27 -0000 Subject: JKR's Messages (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120990 Neri: > ****************** > Year 4, November: > > Harry's ears were ringing. The injustice of it made him want to > curse Snape into a thousand slimy pieces. Harry sat there > staring at Snape as the lesson began, picturing horrific things > happening to him... If only he knew how to do the Cruciatus > Curse... he'd have Snape flat on his back like that spider, > jerking and twitching... > ****************** > > OK, we know that righteous anger is not enough to make the > Cruciatus work, so forget about the Cruciatus for a moment. Just > give Harry here a baseball bat, and assume he doesn't have to fear > retribution from Snape or anyone else. What would Harry do? Is > this Harry's heart that wants to hurt Snape? Is this > anger "innate" also? And does Harry have no choice but to follow > it? SSSusan: An excellent example to bring in, Neri. Straight from canon, Harry's NOT some little saint who never has "bad" thoughts or is never tempted to act out of anger. SSSusan: > > So the question is *did* they choose this system? Or is that > > what's innate [an inner light?]? Neri: > By that "or" you seem to be saying that "innate/inner" means no > choice. So are the trio actually robots? I'll have to disagree. > I've known them closely for several years now and I'm sure they are > persons, so I have no doubt they chose the system. SSSusan: No, I don't think "innate/inner" means no choice. Not at all. I think, as I believe Pippin spoke about a day or two ago, "innate/inner" means a tendency is present; it doesn't mean automatic anything. It has to be developed and built up to be maintained or advanced, and it can be "overridden," but I do believe it speaks to a tendency, a starting point as it were. As for your other point, "or" was a poor way to start off the sentence, because it DID imply that I was thinking only of all-or- nothing, choice or a total given. In my mind, truth be told, I was back to JKR's comment when I wrote that, wondering in what sense she was using the term "innate." Neri: > Excuse me, but who is this JKR and why do you give so much weight > to that "innate goodness" expression of her? SSSusan: Hee. I'm not saying I'm giving her so much weight, but I do admit to having difficulty getting her out of my mind. I'm saying she's the one who made the statement that got this thread started and so she's the place I was returning to. But seriously. IIUC, you're saying you prefer to just ignore JKR's words, is that correct? And to just look yourself at these characters you've gotten to know so well, to make the judgment for yourself? Or maybe you're just saying you're choosing to define "innate goodness" in a way which is consistent with how you've seen these characters behave. Neri: > A "reader"? A "character"? A "story"?? Oh, you mean this is all > just fiction??? Well, in this case it's obvious that Percy is not > as innately good as the trio. Why d'you think they are the heroes > and he's just a secondary character? SSSusan: You may mean this just to be rather a smart-ass remark [so hard to read tone in e-format, you know], but I think it's part of what's bugging me about this thread as well as the one about "double standards." When all is said and done, it's a pretty simple premise for a story we have here. There's this kid, and he's Really Good. And he's the WW's only hope against this Evil guy, Lordy Voldythingy. I mean, JKR has made it brilliantly complex in many ways, but did she really think, in advance, about all the myriad of ways people were going to analyze her Potterverse? And about all these people with Ph.D.s in all sorts of disciplines [or just lots of life experience] stepping in to critique her "system"? Maybe it's *not* perfect. Maybe there are "deficiencies" or inconsistencies. Maybe she speaks off the top of her head sometimes. Maybe that's why (I think) you're arguing that we should ignore this JKR person who called the trio "innately good" and just decide for ourselves what we think? Have I finally got *that* much right, Neri? Siriusly Snapey Susan, feeling quite deficient indeed at the moment. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jan 2 18:27:51 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:27:51 -0000 Subject: McGonagall Head of House for Marauders? (Re: Peter Pettigrew's House) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120991 > Frugalarugala > > Unless I'm mistaken, we don't know yet when McGonagall became head > of Gryffindor, we just assume there was no other head-of-house > between Dumbledore and her. It's possible that she wasn't any more > than their transfigerations professor, which might be supported by > Snape's lack of resentment for McGonagall from their school days, if > she wasn't in charge of the Marauders... Maybe McGonagall was head and attempted to reign in the Marauders, just like she does with the Trio. Snape would see her impatiality as taking control of the sitaution better than Dumbledore, who appears to allows heads to monitor their own students. When McGonagall said in COS, "it's out of my hands, Potter" it sounded like going to Dumbledore was truly a last resort. If all that's true, it begs the question: Why does Snape act so partial to his own house, from what we've seen ;)? Surely he loved seeing the Marauders punished, yet he pretends not to see his own Quidditch team hexing players in the hallways. You'd think it would be the opposite and he would have an over-developed sense of justice, but no. Jen From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jan 2 18:49:54 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:49:54 -0000 Subject: What's in a name? (Re: Lupin's boggart) In-Reply-To: <20050101174949.66558.qmail@web41803.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120992 > Patrick wrote: > "There was a teacher who once told me to never > tell the reader everything until it was absolutely > necessary and that is what I think JKR was doing." Morgan: > Doesn't she give away everything about Remus Lupin in > his name, which comes from lupus meaning wolf-like? I > normally do not catch on very fast to things, but I > was familiar with the word and knew he was a werewolf, > or something similar the first time I saw his name. > That was a very obvious clue to give away. > > Anyway, this is my first time posting, but I've been > reading for a while. I'm a little intimidated by all > of your knowledge, so you probably won't hear much > from me, but I was struck by this passage. Thanks! You'd think Remus Lupin would be an obvious clue, but I didn't get it until Hermione spilled the beans! And some of JKR's names are ambiguous, too. Like Sirius Black. Since we're led to believe he's the darkest of criminals, I read Sirius to be a 'once promising star' who had chosen the Dark side instead. Same with Remus. The Lupin is obvious (now), but I was drawn to his first name and figured the mystery would be a twin brother or something of the like. Luna is another. My first thought wasn't the moon, but the Luna Moth, a type of moth who lives a very, very short life. I thought she might die before the end of OOTP. Then she's described as 'loony' so you might think that's the reason for her name. There must be others, but I'm drawing a blank. Jen (*waves to Morgan* hope we'll be hearing more from you!) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 18:58:13 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:58:13 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120993 Eggplant wrote: "I can say absolutely nothing about your example one way or the other because your thought experiment does not contain enough information to be constructive. You have one man chasing another man for unknown reasons and you ask me to make a moral judgment. I can not. Man A may be a monster, Man B may be a monster, perhaps both are, perhaps neither are, who knows. You need to tell me more." Del replies: That's *exactly* what I've been saying all along : motives, reasons, background *do* matter a great deal. Judging people *only* on their actions is running a high risk of getting the whole situation completely wrong. And yet whenever I mention that we don't know about such or such character's motives, you tell me that you don't care and that their actions are enough for you to judge them evil. Eggplant wrote: "If Snape is not afraid to tell Fudge about it, the leader of the wizard world, and tell him in a very direct, forceful, downright rude manner then I don't see why he wouldn't tell the students, or anybody else that asked. " Del replies: Oh, I have no doubt that Snape wouldn't in any way be afraid of telling anything to anyone. That wasn't my point though. I was asking if we know from canon that Snape *did* tell the WW about what he knows. I don't remember he or any other member of the Hogwarts faculty (except for DD of course) ever witnessing of anything they've seen or been told about the resurrection of LV. And where Snape is concerned, it's even very likely that he cannot do that because of his Order mission, whatever it is. Del From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 19:05:12 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:05:12 -0000 Subject: JKR's Messages (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120994 > > Neri (previously): > > A "reader"? A "character"? A "story"?? Oh, you mean this is all > > just fiction??? Well, in this case it's obvious that Percy is not > > as innately good as the trio. Why d'you think they are the heroes > > and he's just a secondary character? > > SSSusan: > You may mean this just to be rather a smart-ass remark [so hard to > read tone in e-format, you know], Neri: No, it wasn't meant as a smart-ass remark (or not just, anyway). It was an attempt to show by example what I obviously failed to explain in the previous post. So I'll just explain it again: if you want to argue about Free Will you need to do it from within the story, and then we have to pretend that the Author and her authority don't exist. By relying on JKR's authority here you put yourself outside the story, and from this point-of-view no character has free will ? they all do what JKR makes them do. So from this point-of-view I have absolutely no problem agreeing that the trio are "innately good", in the strongest sense of this expression. They were definitely written as the good heroes of the story. > SSSusan: > but I think it's part of what's > bugging me about this thread as well as the one about "double > standards." When all is said and done, it's a pretty simple premise > for a story we have here. > > There's this kid, and he's Really Good. And he's the WW's only hope > against this Evil guy, Lordy Voldythingy. > Neri: Yes, I was fully agreeing with this all along. From OUTSIDE the story, it is that simple. But this doesn't necessarily mean it applies to realty, either true or fictional. If you insist on claiming that Harry et al are "innately good" as persons WITHIN the story, then it's against the rules to rely on an observation the author had made outside the books. Neri From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 19:36:42 2005 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:36:42 -0000 Subject: What's in a name? (Re: Lupin's boggart) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120995 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Patrick wrote: > > "There was a teacher who once told me to never > > tell the reader everything until it was absolutely > > necessary and that is what I think JKR was doing." > > Morgan: > > Doesn't she give away everything about Remus Lupin in > > his name, which comes from lupus meaning wolf-like? I > > normally do not catch on very fast to things, but I > > was familiar with the word and knew he was a werewolf, > > or something similar the first time I saw his name. > > That was a very obvious clue to give away. (snip) Jen: > You'd think Remus Lupin would be an obvious clue, but I didn't get > it until Hermione spilled the beans! > >> > Jen > >mhbobbin: I admit that I did not know Lupin was a werewolf until Hermione revealed it--although the clues were all there. But I do want to mention it is Sirius who reveals that Professor Lupin's first name is Remus--AFTER Hermione reveals Lupin's secret. I knew there was something interesting about the name Lupin but I ploughed on ahead and didn't check it. But the name Remus would have bitten even me. I resolve to read Half-Blood Prince with more patience, checking on the clues and not rushing head-long to find out who dies, and what is revealed. Or maybe not. mhbobbin From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Jan 2 20:13:08 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:13:08 -0000 Subject: What's in a name? (Re: Lupin's boggart) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120996 > >mhbobbin: > I admit that I did not know Lupin was a werewolf until Hermione > revealed it--although the clues were all there. But I do want to > mention it is Sirius who reveals that Professor Lupin's first name > is Remus--AFTER Hermione reveals Lupin's secret. I knew there was > something interesting about the name Lupin but I ploughed on ahead > and didn't check it. But the name Remus would have bitten even me. Oh, you're right. I thought Dumbledore introduced him as Professor Remus Lupin, but it was just Professor Lupin. Guess my thoughts on Remus came after my first read-through. Sometimes I wish I could go back to that very first reading and remember how simple my views were of the characters and the plot. So JKR *did* hold back a clue, like Patrick was suggesting. mhbobbin: > I resolve to read Half-Blood Prince with more patience, checking on > the clues and not rushing head-long to find out who dies, and what > is revealed. Or maybe not. Jen: I'm re-reading OOTP and still finding clues and nuances I didn't pick up the first few readings. Maybe all this time spent analyzing the story will help us see the clues ahead of time, or it might serve to stick us in our positions so firmly we don't see clues coming a mile away. Only now does OOTP make sense to me, after months of re-reading and analyzing. And that knowledge doesn't help me imagine what's in store for Harry in HBP! Jen From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 20:44:41 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:44:41 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120997 "delwynmarch" wrote: > motives, reasons, background *do* matter > a great deal. Judging people *only* on > their actions is running a high risk of > getting the whole situation completely wrong. Motives matter only insofar as they change your appreciation of the act itself. If you ask me to judge someone who does something that I at first think is evil but on finding out more it turns out the act was not evil at all then obviously my viewpoint of the person changes radically. But if you say yes the act was bad but he only did it because he had a bad childhood or had bad genes or had a bad hair day . Well, it could all be true but I just don't care, the man is still a monster In my example, a man chasing me with a bloody ax, I have enough information to make a moral judgment, the man is a monster. In your example, one unknown man chasing another unknown man I don't know enough to judge anything because I don't have a clear idea of what is going on. In Marietta's case motives would matter to me only if due to some astounding plot twist she was the only one who believed (and believed correctly, that's very important!) that telling Umbridge about the DA would lead to a fantastically beneficial future good of some sort and not telling her would lead to disaster. Except for that astronomically unlikely possibility I don't care what the reasons for her betrayal were because I have enough information to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that she is scum. > I was asking if we know from canon > that Snape *did* tell the WW about > what he knows. To my knowledge it doesn't says so explicably in the books but no novelist tells her readers that if you can't find a line of dialog in my book then the character never said the words in his entire life. We know Snape told Fudge, it is consistent with everything we know about the man to assume he told others too, in fact it is inconceivable he did not. Eggplant From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 20:52:57 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:52:57 -0000 Subject: VWII and WWII (was Marietta and Hermione) In-Reply-To: <007e01c4f0e7$75bb0940$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120998 Charme wrote: "With all due respect for your opinion, I wish you hadn't stated for fact the issue was getting muddied in the manner you did, unless you mean muddied toward the original Marietta discussion." Del replies: Actually yes, that was what I meant, but I sure chose my words poorly. It looks like I insulted you twice in a single day or a couple of days IIRC, for which I'm really sorry! (And I'm glad I'm not a House Elf, or it would take me days to recover from the punishment I would have to inflict on myself ;-) Charme wrote: "law or no law, there is an undercurrent that's hard in my mind to ignore and I don't think it's limited to insiders in the manner you've suggested." Del replies: In fact, I agree with you. My insider remark should have concerned only the Arthur and Fudge example you gave. Even the way people react to the insult "Mudblood" smells of guilty conscience to me. If people really didn't agree that Muggleborns are inferior, they wouldn't get into such an uproar when someone utters the insult : they would just dismiss it as stupid and prejudiced. There's also the fact that anti-Muggleborn prejudice is still openly practiced in some parts of the world, like Eastern Europe. We know that Durmstrang doesn't accept Muggleborns. And there's a general feeling that permeates the whole WW that wizards are better, more gifted than Muggles. Even Muggle-loving Arthur displays that attitude. Not to mention the way wizards react to Squibs: they are made fun of and casually dismissed. They are *very obviously* not equal members of the wizarding society, simply because they are not magical. This implies that Muggles, who not only aren't magical, but who weren't even born inside the WW, are considered even worse. Charme wrote: "Frankly, with as little as we're supposed to see LV in the next book (he likes his henchmen to do his work as I remember a JKR quote), he almost appears not as important (at the moment anyway) as what's happening in the WW society." Del replies: I completely agree. This is why I was trying to argue that the apparent rise of racism in the WW cannot be considered as a clue about the return of LV. Racism is inherent to the wizarding mentality, it's not something that LV created. LV is the result of the wizarding racism, not the other way around. If there had been no pureblood superiorists (?) when LV came around, he could never have become the leader of the anti-Muggle and anti-Muggleborn cause. Just like Hitler's racist theories wouldn't have taken hold in a society that wouldn't have been prejudiced already. Hitler and LV became big because people were ready to support them. Charme wrote: "Each book we find there is more prejudice from wizards against another group, and the Ministry has already passed some laws and acts to control those other races! The progression of prejudice and racism appears to be growing in the WW just as it did in Germany prior to WW2. One has to wonder even if LV didn't return and given there have been other seemingly "racial" wars in the WW (Binns & his History of Magic class, you know) in the past, history might have been doomed to repeat itself anyway." Del replies: Exactly. It is very obvious that LV could only be reborn if someone was willing to do what was needed to ressucitate him, and that he can become big again only if enough people support him. It's the prejudiced, hateful wizards that "make" LV, not the other way around (well, up to a point : once LV's army becomes big enough and such things as Imperius become widespread, things start being quite different). I'm not sure I agree with what you say concerning the progression of prejudice and racism in the WW, though. As you say, the WW seems to have always been a pretty racist place, with quite a lot of racial wars. So I'm not sure the WW is "growing" more prejudiced those days. I think it might just be that Harry is seeing more and more of it. The anti-werewolf prejudice, for example, always existed, since we're told that Lupin got lucky that DD was made Headmaster just before he turned 11, otherwise he would not have been able to attend Hogwarts. And even so, Lupin and the staff had to keep the secret very tightly. Same with Hagrid being half-giant (I've always wondered if Dippet and the Hogwarts staff knew about Hagrid's mother, somehow I doubt it). So I don't think the WW is growing more racist. I think it was always racist. Maybe things got slightly better after VWI, because people were feeling bad about what their prejudice had brought about. But now, time has passed, and people are going straight back to what has been their behaviour for centuries. Which of course makes the rise of LV or another such evil wizard unavoidable eventually. Charme wrote: "Where does the line get drawn between having tendencies toward a specific racial mantra (Fudge), being a sympathizer or supporter to such view (Mrs Black) and then being classified as racist? (LV, The Lestranges) This isn't a question I can answer BTW,it's one of those morality and value questions each person can answer for themselves. I will say this, for myself and only myself, racial tendencies and belief can be just as destructive as outright action or portrayal of that belief." Del replies: Which is why even Arthur makes me uncomfortable. He obviously loves the Muggles, but he also quite evidently IMO doesn't consider them as equal to the wizards. *Nobody* in the WW considers the Muggles as equal to the wizards, *not even the Muggleborns themselves*. Because the Muggles aren't magical, they are considered as *inherently inferior* to the wizards. Not different : inferior. This to me is akin to considering blind people, or deaf people, as inferior because they can't see or hear. Just look at the kind of remarks Arthur or the Muggle studies books make about Muggles : they don't praise the Muggles' achievements for what they are inherently, but because they are such ingenious ways of replacing magic. By doing this, they imply that all the Muggles spend their time and energy doing is trying to create a substitute for magic, which is not only completely false (how could the Muggles create a substitute for something they don't even know exist?), but is terribly WW-centered, and by consequence prejudiced. To me it's like saying that blind people's hyper-developed sense of touch is such a marvelous thing because it is such a brave attempt at compensating for what they don't have : vision. IMO a hyper-developed sense of touch is a marvelous thing in and of itself, and I admire whoever is willing to develop such a talent, whatever their motive might be. I do not consider blind people to be inferior to me. I have one ability they lack, many of them have developed another ability way beyond anywhere I ever will, and apart from that we all have our diverse likenesses and differences. Blind people are different from me on a very restricted number of points, but overall we are perfectly equal human beings. But the wizards don't see things that way. They have made magical ability their paramount differentiating trait, and they judge everyone and everything according to that trait. On top come all the powerful wizards, then all the talented ones, then all the normal ones, then all the less-talented ones, then the Squibs, and finally the Muggles. The Muggleborns then become a problem because they don't have a fixed place in that hierarchy. They are born at the very bottom of it, then at age 11 they suddenly jump over the Squibs, and as time passes some of them climb the ladder, sometimes all the way to the top. For a racist, this is as disconcerting and unacceptable as, say, a kid who would be born white in a Black family, spends his childhood among the Black community, but is then allowed into a white school at age 11, becomes a ruler over "truly-whites", and marries a girl from a "truly-white" family. He has by then become an equal to "truly-whites", and yet he is still technically Black because his parents were Black. For those "truly-white" racists, he will never be an equal, because he was born inferior. So I think that the WW will keep being racist and having to endure racist wars, for as long as they will keep magic as their grading quality. They will be able to do away with racism only when they realise that magic is just an ability like any other, and that they shouldn't judge each other and the Muggles on that ability only. They need a whole new moral system, where the truly human qualities become the important factors, where they are human beings before being wizards. But this will never happen, because magic is the very reason the MW and the WW are separated, so there's no way the wizards are ever going to stop considering magic as their primordial, defining quality. There will always be another LV. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 21:12:38 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 21:12:38 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 120999 Eggplant wrote: "In Marietta's case motives would matter to me only if due to some astounding plot twist she was the only one who believed (and believed correctly, that's very important!) that telling Umbridge about the DA would lead to a fantastically beneficial future good of some sort and not telling her would lead to disaster. Except for that astronomically unlikely possibility I don't care what the reasons for her betrayal were because I have enough information to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that she is scum." Del replies: Now, *that* is a real explanation :-) I had to bug you to get it, but I finally got it. Your view makes MUCH more sense to me when rationally explained like that, you know. That doesn't mean that I entirely agree with it, of course. For example, I personally don't think the possibility that Marrietta thought betraying the DA would have a generally good outcome is astronomically unlikely. But we're getting into pure speculation there, since the canon doesn't give any hint as to that matter, so none of us is wrong. Eggplant wrote: "no novelist tells her readers that if you can't find a line of dialog in my book then the character never said the words in his entire life." Del replies: I would generally agree with you, but I've become very cautious concerning the Potterverse, because there *are* many words that I would assume characters must have said that they in fact never said. For example, there are all the questions Harry never asked about his family. There is the fact that Harry never knew that Remus and Sirius were his dad's best friends even though he has a photo album full of pics of his parents. There is the fact that none of the kids ever knew about Neville's parents even though Neville keeps mentioning that he is being raised by his Gran, and the Longbottoms were extremely popular and the attack on them was a huge affair in its time. So if JKR didn't write that Snape or any other Hogwarts staff member talked to the general public, I am not really willing to assume they did. Especially not Snape, since we don't know what his mission is, but it does seem to require a good dose of secrecy. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 21:24:24 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 21:24:24 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121000 Lupinlore wrote: (snip highly interesting explanation) "In JKR's world, your actions are good or not according to an objective standard of who you're helping, your own personal beliefs and intentions and morals seem to have very little, if anything, to do with it. Now that might not seem very fair. But if one believes in Good and Evil as Platonic existants, as JKR seems to in the HP saga, it is perfectly logical." Del replies: Fascinating! I had never seen things like this. But it does explain the Potterverse quite nicely. And it ties in very well with Renee's explanation that in the Potterverse being loyal to DD seems to be the main moral compass. Now, such a view is quite abhorrent to me, but hey, I did ask for someone to explain things to me, so I can't complain now that you did it :-) Del From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 21:42:33 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 21:42:33 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121001 delwynmarch" wrote: > I personally don't think the possibility > that Marrietta thought betraying the DA > would have a generally good outcome is > astronomically unlikely. That's wouldn't be enough for me to forgive Marrietta, thinking it would have a good outcome is not enough, she also needs to be correct. I think that is highly unlikely, people have been sent to the chair with less certainty. > There is the fact that none of the kids > ever knew about Neville's parents even > though Neville keeps mentioning that he > is being raised by his Gran, When I first read the books I wondered if that could be a British thing about not asking personal questions. In the Sherlock Holmes stories the great detective worked with Dr. Watson for over 10 years and were best friend and then one day Holmes (nobody ever dared call him Sherlock) casually mentioned that he had a brother named Mycroft who was even more brilliant than he was. Dr. Watson hadn't heard even a hint of this before. Eggplant From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 2 22:06:34 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 22:06:34 -0000 Subject: McGonagall and DD' roles (wasRe: Peter Pettigrew's House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121002 > Then Frugalarugala added: > > Unless I'm mistaken, we don't know yet when McGonagall became head > of Gryffindor, we just assume there was no other head-of-house > between Dumbledore and her. It's possible that she wasn't any more > than their transfigerations professor, which might be supported by > Snape's lack of resentment for McGonagall from their school days, if she wasn't in charge of the Marauders... Potioncat: Actually, now that you mention it: We know how long McGonagall's been teaching at Hogwarts but we don't know if she's always taught Transfigurations or when she became Head of Gryffindor or when she became Deputy Headmistress. As far as I'm concerned, we don't know that DD was on staff the entire time after Tom Riddle was a student. He could have left Hogwarts either completely or been on leave for a number of years. I suspect, based on canon, but not confirmed, that MM replaced DD as Transfiguration teacher. I don't think it was ever said that DD was a Head of House or a Deputy Headmaster. We know that DD became Headmaster shortly before the Marauders came, but we do not know who his Deputy was nor who the Heads of Gryffindor and Slytherin were at that time. We do know that it isn't a requirement to be on staff to become Headmaster. Headmistress Derwent (I hope I spelled that correctly.) was a Healer at St. Mungo's prior to becoming Headmistress. Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 2 22:19:35 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 22:19:35 -0000 Subject: Lupin's boggart (was: Remus and Sibyll sitting in a tree) In-Reply-To: <3def328f041231130962824f0a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121003 > > SSSusan: > > > > Also, presumably Lupin's boggart was fairly small -- at least as > > compared to something like Harry's dementor!boggart -- so if > > students weren't standing right beside Lupin, maybe they only saw > > the general shape & color? > > > Patrick: > > Precisely my thoughts. There was a teacher who once told me to never tell the reader everything until it was absolutely necessary and that is what I think JKR was doing. Potioncat: Yes, I agree. Good points both of you. SSSusan came up with a good explanation for why one student thought it was a crystal ball and another thought it was a moon. At the end of PoA I'm sure most of us (all of us?) thought it was a moon. So, why in OoP is it still called an orb? And in OoP, it seems to turn into a puff of smoke rather than a cockroach? If my somewhat humorous explanation is correct, Trelawney's smokey room could be why he uses smoke as the humorous change.(To review, IMHO, the boggart is a cystal ball or a prophecy orb and Trelawney is the amusing change via either a bug or smoke.) Or, for some reason, he found the idea of a cockroach funny at Hogwarts, but now he finds smoke funny (Molly fussing at Mundungas for smoking?) And I wonder if the cockroach is completely unimportant since the movie!boggart changed into a deflated balloon. Much funnier! Potioncat (wondering who first came up with the idea of Prophecy Orb for boggart on this list?) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 22:33:08 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 22:33:08 -0000 Subject: "innate goodness" (Was: JKR's Messages) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121004 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > > Carol earlier: > > > > I don't know about either of you, but I'm bothered by the > word "innate," which suggests that their goodness is inborn--a > concept very much at odds with the idea of choice. snip> > > > > > > Carol again: > > "Innate" means both "inborn" and "essential to." > > > > Here's Merriam-Webster's definition in case mine is unclear: > > > > > So if Harry and company are "innately good," goodness is part > of their *essence* and therefore unchangeable and > incorruptible.< > > Pippin: > Um, that's too much of a leap for me. Regardless of what > essence means in our world, how can any 'essence' be > unchangeable and incorruptible in a world where a > mild-mannered human can become a raging werewolf? Tonks: I think JKR is using the idea of innate as in the concept that Humans are created as good. (as opposed to the Calvinist idea that they are basically flawed and in need of redemption.) They can choose to change who and what they become over time by the choices that they make. Being basically good does not mean that they can not make mistakes and bad choices. It means that their bad choices do not make them bad to the core. They can however CHOOSE to become something other than what they were created to be, as LV had apparently done. But this is not done easily and takes both a conscious choice to go against ones true nature and a long series of deliberate bad choices over time. As to the term essence. There is a concept that involves the essence of a person, and the energies of a person. They are not the same. The energies are the events in time and space. The essence exist outside of time and space. Tonks_op From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 2 22:57:48 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 22:57:48 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121005 Eggplant wrote: "That's wouldn't be enough for me to forgive Marrietta, thinking it would have a good outcome is not enough, she also needs to be correct. I think that is highly unlikely, people have been sent to the chair with less certainty." Del replies: I purposely didn't point out that detail :-), because I know we have different principles concerning this particular point. Being incorrect doesn't make someone evil in my book. It might have something to do with my studies. When I was studying Mathematics and Physics, being incorrect wasn't a sin, while being dishonest was one. If you honestly applied the right method the right way and yet you came up with the wrong answer because you had made an accidental mistake somewhere, then that was no big deal. But if you didn't follow the rules, or if you dismissed the facts that didn't square with your demonstration, just so that you could get the right answer, then that was a very big deal. Eggplant wrote: "When I first read the books I wondered if that could be a British thing about not asking personal questions." Del replies: It could very well be. However my examples were not supposed to be only about not asking questions : they were supposed to be about people not talking to each other at all. Apparently, none of the parents ever said anything to their kids when they mentioned the name "Neville Longbottom" for example. Maybe that's a British thing too, but it's so different from what I'm used to that it always makes me wonder. If it had been in my school, everyone would have known about Neville's parents 2 weeks after the first holidays, because one kid would have mentioned his name to his parents, who would have then told the story of Neville's parents to the kid, who would have spread the story as soon as he got back to Hogwarts. But I am more than willing to accept that things don't happen that way in Britain. Del From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Jan 2 23:41:57 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 23:41:57 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121006 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Lupinlore wrote: > (snip highly interesting explanation) > "In JKR's world, your actions are good or not according to an > objective standard of who you're helping, your own personal beliefs > and intentions and morals seem to have very little, if anything, to do > with it. > > Now that might not seem very fair. But if one believes in Good and > Evil as Platonic existants, as JKR seems to in the HP saga, it is > perfectly logical." > > Del replies: > Fascinating! I had never seen things like this. But it does explain > the Potterverse quite nicely. And it ties in very well with Renee's > explanation that in the Potterverse being loyal to DD seems to be the > main moral compass. > As this discussion continues, I am growing more and more convinced that JKR is, at heart, espousing a rather old-fashioned form of Christian moralism in the Potter Saga. That is, I truly think at heart she is a Christian Platonist, someone who believes that Good and Evil are very real metaphysical principals, and that the goodness or evil of actions, beliefs, and even human beings is not determined by their intentions or reasoning, but by the extent to which they obey the harsh demands of one principle or the other. Note in Dumbledore's speech about choosing between "What is right and what is easy," he leaves absolutely no room for middle ground. You either choose what is right or you don't, PERIOD. It is also instructive that Sirius says "The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters," but he DOES NOT say "The world isn't divided into good people and evil people." I think all our recent conversations about grey areas are, in a way, missing the heart of JKR's morality, because I'm just not very sure she really believes in grey areas as such. It is a very harsh morality, but let me give some examples. Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys. I have been extremely critical of this decision, and I have been hoping we would see some exploration of its consequences. I have been hoping that eventually we would see a greater confession on Dumbledore's part that this was an extremely grey area and that he proceeded with great misgivings and heartache, as well as a greater acknowledgement of pain Harry has suffered due to Dumbledore's decision. But I regret to say I am becoming convinced we will see no such. In the harsh morality of the Potterverse I don't think there is room for such heartache and acknowledgement of Harry's pain and the injustice of DD's decision on any plane. DD did what was necessary to uphold THE GOOD in a Platonic sense. His action was RIGHT, full stop, no apology or sense that perhaps the morals and priorities weren't clear or that Harry deserves a chance to challenge the assumptions that have caused him so much pain. That is extremely distasteful to me to admit, but I am becoming convinced that such is JKR's stand. In the case of Percy and Draco once again I don't think JKR sees a true grey area. Percy and Draco have chosen to uphold the Evil principle. Percy's reasoning in breaking with his family, his sincerity or lack of it, is entirely irrelevant. He has not done what was RIGHT. The fact that Draco has not ever had a counterexample in his family once again I don't think cuts any ice with JKR. There is good and there is evil and Draco has chosen the wrong side, full stop. The question of Snape is one of the opposite case. Snape supports the side of THE GOOD. His reasons for doing so, I think in JKR's eyes, are ultimately irrelevant. The fact that he causes pain and heartache wherever he appears also seems to be irrelevant to JKR. There is good and there is evil and Snape has chosen THE GOOD, full stop. Is JKR trying to say something about complex morality in the HP saga? The more I think of it the more I think she is saying something in exactly the opposite direction. She seems to be implying that morality is harsh, Good and Evil are real, and human ideas about justice or reason or individual worth or even the right to be loved and comforted are not very important in the great scheme of things. You either support the good principle or the evil principle, there is no middle ground and there is no quibbling. JKR has said she doesn't care if she has only six fans when she is finished. I think a lot of people (including me) have assumed that means things will come to a very confused, complex, and possibly grey conclusion. I am starting to believe that, on the contrary, we will see an end that is shocking in its harshness and clarity. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Jan 2 23:47:59 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 23:47:59 -0000 Subject: McGonagall and DD' roles (wasRe: Peter Pettigrew's House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121007 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > I suspect, based on canon, but not confirmed, that MM replaced DD as > Transfiguration teacher. I don't think it was ever said that DD was > a Head of House or a Deputy Headmaster. We know that DD became > Headmaster shortly before the Marauders came, but we do not know who > his Deputy was nor who the Heads of Gryffindor and Slytherin were at > that time. We do know that it isn't a requirement to be on staff to > become Headmaster. Headmistress Derwent (I hope I spelled that > correctly.) was a Healer at St. Mungo's prior to becoming > Headmistress. > Potioncat I may be wrong about this, as I don't have access to OOTP right now, but I believe that Dilys Derwent was Head of St. Mungo's AFTER she was Headmistress of Hogwarts. Like I say, I could have things backwards. Lupinlore From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 00:09:11 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 19:09:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: VWII and WWII (was Marietta and Hermione) References: Message-ID: <006f01c4f128$7457bf30$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 121009 > Del replies: > Which is why even Arthur makes me uncomfortable. He obviously loves > the Muggles, but he also quite evidently IMO doesn't consider them as > equal to the wizards. *Nobody* in the WW considers the Muggles as > equal to the wizards, *not even the Muggleborns themselves*. Because > the Muggles aren't magical, they are considered as *inherently > inferior* to the wizards. charme: Heh. :) I am about to say something which may be *very* unpopular. You folks who are Molly and Ron/Hermoine shippers, don't shoot Dungbombs at me now, ok? Arthur doesn't make me nearly as uncomfortable as Molly does, and I vacillate on that in different severities each time I read GoF. :) At least Arthur is enamoured of Muggles and their culture, and that's perhaps a start, IMO. I got this weird, strange and lingering impression that Molly wasn't too happy with the possibility of Hermoine being Harry's girlfriend: "Harry looked between them, then said, "Mrs.Weasley, you didn't believe that rubbish Rita Skeeter wrote in Witch Weekly, did you? Because Hermoine's not my girlfriend." "Oh," said Mrs. Weasley, "No - of course I didn't." But she became considerably warmer toward Hermoine after that." (GoF/US) Now, before I get Stunned repeatedly by those Molly fans, let me say this: earlier in the same chapter only a couple pages before, Molly angrily admonishes Amos Diggory for believing anything Rita Skeeter writes. So I'm either left with Molly: - As the "do as I say not as I do" sort of person with Amos, yet she believes the worst of Hermoine per that article (if that makes sense) - If the Ron/Hermoine shippers are right, how she'd take having a Muggle daughter-in-law like Hermoine :) There are probably other reasons, but she damn well confuses me :) From frugalarugala at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 00:51:13 2005 From: frugalarugala at yahoo.com (frugalarugala) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:51:13 -0000 Subject: McGonagall Head of House for Marauders? (Re: Peter Pettigrew's House) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121010 > > "Jen Reese" wrote: (snip) > If all that's true, it begs the question: Why does Snape act so > partial to his own house, from what we've seen ;)? Surely he loved > seeing the Marauders punished, yet he pretends not to see his own > Quidditch team hexing players in the hallways. You'd think it would > be the opposite and he would have an over-developed sense of > justice, but no. Frug: Ah, but the Marauders weren't punished--they were winked at and popular. And Slytherins are assumed villians, at least by the people Harry associates with, as he was by the Marauders. His own after school experiance has only confirmed that Slytherins are default villans and get no credit, since he didn't for his role during the war. He was on the good guys side and is STILL seen as the evil, greasy git, so even his own personal experiance is still that Slytherins are the underdogs and need to be protected. But I also think part of it is an act, for the war effort. Look at the crap DD pulls--giving the House Cup to Slytherin, only to arbitrarily assign point at the last moment, and take it away and give it to Gryffindor. That has no purpose other than to alienate Slytherins. No, before anyone says it was to reward the trio, no, if it were, the points could have been awarded beforehand. Doing it as it was done had no purpose other than to alienate the Slytherins. I think Snape and DD play good-cop/bad-cop with the Slytherins. After all, kids from DE families aren't going to be won over easily to DD's side, but Snape is another story. I'd imagine they see him as the only teacher on their side, and are quite loyal it him. Which is loyalty to DD, by proxy. --Frug, who believes Snape is perfectly capable of having multiple motives. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 00:52:49 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:52:49 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121011 Lupinlore: As this discussion continues, I am growing more and more convinced that JKR is, at heart, espousing a rather old-fashioned form of Christian moralism in the Potter Saga. That is, I truly think at heart she is a Christian Platonist, someone who believes that Good and Evil are very real metaphysical principals, and that the goodness or evil of actions, beliefs, and even human beings is not determined by their intentions or reasoning, but by the extent to which they obey the harsh demands of one principle or the other. Note in Dumbledore's speech about choosing between "What is right and what is easy," he leaves absolutely no room for middle ground. You either choose what is right or you don't, PERIOD. It is also instructive that Sirius says "The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters," but he DOES NOT say "The world isn't divided into good people and evil people." I think all our recent conversations about grey areas are, in a way, missing the heart of JKR's morality, because I'm just not very sure she really believes in grey areas as such. It is a very harsh morality, but let me give some examples. Alla: As I said yesterday, I do agree with you that Good and Evil seem to be very real principles in Potterverse with Dumbledore and Voldemort being their personifications. I have this very uncomfortable feeling that you will turn out to be 100% correct (and I would welcome someone to convince me in the opposite very much), but I still WANT to think that JKR believes in grey areas, otherwise it is very harsh morality as you said it yourself. I do think right now that my hope will turn out to be false. Nevertheless, does it really MATTER if she believes in grey areas or not? IMHO, she surely shows those grey areas in the books. Therefore I am not sure that we are missing the heart of her morality, when we discuss grey areas of characters' behaviour. Regardless of author's intention they are were, IMO. Now, you are absolutely correct that ending may put an end to those unintentional "grey areas" because I also have a feeling that it will be very "black and white". I never thought I will say it, but I would like you to be proven wrong on this one. :o) Lupinlore: Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys. I have been extremely critical of this decision, and I have been hoping we would see some exploration of its consequences. I have been hoping that eventually we would see a greater confession on Dumbledore's part that this was an extremely grey area and that he proceeded with great misgivings and heartache, as well as a greater acknowledgement of pain Harry has suffered due to Dumbledore's decision. But I regret to say I am becoming convinced we will see no such. In the harsh morality of the Potterverse I don't think there is room for such heartache and acknowledgement of Harry's pain and the injustice of DD's decision on any plane. DD did what was necessary to uphold THE GOOD in a Platonic sense. His action was RIGHT, full stop, no apology or sense that perhaps the morals and priorities weren't clear or that Harry deserves a chance to challenge the assumptions that have caused him so much pain. That is extremely distasteful to me to admit, but I am becoming convinced that such is JKR's stand. In the case of Percy and Draco once again I don't think JKR sees a true grey area. Percy and Draco have chosen to uphold the Evil principle. Percy's reasoning in breaking with his family, his sincerity or lack of it, is entirely irrelevant. He has not done what was RIGHT. The fact that Draco has not ever had a counterexample in his family once again I don't think cuts any ice with JKR. There is good and there is evil and Draco has chosen the wrong side, full stop. The question of Snape is one of the opposite case. Snape supports the side of THE GOOD. His reasons for doing so, I think in JKR's eyes, are ultimately irrelevant. The fact that he causes pain and heartache wherever he appears also seems to be irrelevant to JKR. There is good and there is evil and Snape has chosen THE GOOD, full stop. Alla: Call me "hopeless cause", but I am still keeping hope that Dumbledore was sorry for leaving Harry with Dursleys. When I read his OOP speech, I at least see some small hints to it, but again if I am honest with myself, I have to say that I agree with you. Snape - well, I am not sure. She promised more information about him, so maybe his reasons WILL be important after all and she did call him "sadistic teacher", so maybe she will write something along the lines that the fact that Snape IS on Dumbledore's side does NOT automatically make him a good person. Speaking about Snape, actually. He himself IS a grey character, don't you agree? Lupinlore: Is JKR trying to say something about complex morality in the HP saga? The more I think of it the more I think she is saying something in exactly the opposite direction. She seems to be implying that morality is harsh, Good and Evil are real, and human ideas about justice or reason or individual worth or even the right to be loved and comforted are not very important in the great scheme of things. You either support the good principle or the evil principle, there is no middle ground and there is no quibbling. JKR has said she doesn't care if she has only six fans when she is finished. I think a lot of people (including me) have assumed that means things will come to a very confused, complex, and possibly grey conclusion. I am starting to believe that, on the contrary, we will see an end that is shocking in its harshness and clarity. Alla: What do you make of her statement then that "Nobody is born evil"? I don't know, I am confused to tell you the truth. Alla From azakitpgr at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 3 00:24:54 2005 From: azakitpgr at yahoo.co.uk (Paul) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 00:24:54 -0000 Subject: SHIP query Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121012 Has there been a thread on the possibility of a Harry/Tonks SHIP? If so, I'd be grateful for a link. Thanks Paul From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 3 01:23:11 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:23:11 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121013 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Lupinlore: > > As this discussion continues, I am growing more and more convinced > that JKR is, at heart, espousing a rather old-fashioned form of > Christian moralism in the Potter Saga. That is, I truly think at > heart she is a Christian Platonist, someone who believes that Good > and Evil are very real metaphysical principals, and that the > goodness or evil of actions, beliefs, and even human beings is not > determined by their intentions or reasoning, but by the extent to > which they obey the harsh demands of one principle or the other. [deleted] > I think all our recent > conversations about grey areas are, in a way, missing the heart of > JKR's morality, because I'm just not very sure she really believes > in grey areas as such. It is a very harsh morality, but let me give > some examples. I think that JKR models her WWII much after our own WWII. And that one without a doubt was a black and white affair. Either you supported the pure evil personified by Hitler (aka Voldemort) or you did not. And in JKR's world, just as in the real world at the time, those who would not make a choice would end up being crashed. Witness Sirius' brother who went for the evil side not truly comprehending his choice and was then murdered when he tried to get back. In JKR's world there is no gray area as there hasn't really been in the real WWII. During more peacefull times people can proceed without making real choices, but not in war. Then you are either for me or for my enemies. > Nevertheless, does it really MATTER if she believes in grey areas or > not? IMHO, she surely shows those grey areas in the books. > Therefore I am not sure that we are missing the heart of her > morality, when we discuss grey areas of characters' behaviour. There are many gray areas and we have definitely seen despicable characters (the Dursleys, the ministry officials, etc.) who nevertheless have not by and large made the choice to support evil as well as seemingly good characters who end up being evil (Quirell, Fake!Moody). By and large the "gray people" way (Fudge, Marrietta,, etc.) is to follow their own interests and staying in line thinking that all will be well then. This works so long as the war hasn't started. Once it has, they would have to make choices or be ground between the warring sides. > Lupinlore: > Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys. I have been > extremely critical of this decision, and I have been hoping we would > see some exploration of its consequences. [deleted] > DD did what was necessary to uphold > THE GOOD in a Platonic sense. His action was RIGHT, full stop, no > apology or sense that perhaps the morals and priorities weren't > clear or that Harry deserves a chance to challenge the assumptions > that have caused him so much pain. That is extremely distasteful to > me to admit, but I am becoming convinced that such is JKR's stand. DD is the lead general in a war. His goal is to preserve the ultimate weapon he has to win the war and prepare that weapon for the task assigned to him by prophecy and chance. Harry therefore has to be protected at all costs to himself or others (you realize that his residence with the Dursleys puts them in mortal peril - I could hardly blame Vernon for deducing the logical conclusion from the events even if he did it in a very mean fashion). In addition, Harry has to be toughened. He can't be coddled too much and has to be given great challenges early on to raise him to fulfill his destiny. It's harsh perphaps but that was the only way he could survive. > In the case of Percy and Draco once again I don't think JKR sees a > true grey area. Percy and Draco have chosen to uphold the Evil > principle. Except that I am guessing that Percy will indeed descend further into evil and then at some point will try to move back. He's one of those I expect to not survive but that he'll end up doing some good at the end before he goes. > The fact that Draco has not ever had a > counterexample in his family once again I don't think cuts any ice > with JKR. There is good and there is evil and Draco has chosen the > wrong side, full stop. Draco unfortunately shows no gray area, he has chosen the evil side. The only possible remedy might be a life debt (i.e. if Harry saves his life). One of the chapters in the upcoming book is named "Draco's detour". So maybe this will actually happen? > The question of Snape is one of the opposite case. Snape supports > the side of THE GOOD. His reasons for doing so, I think in JKR's > eyes, are ultimately irrelevant. The fact that he causes pain and > heartache wherever he appears also seems to be irrelevant to JKR. > There is good and there is evil and Snape has chosen THE GOOD, full > stop. Except that Snape is a very conflicted character. For some unknown (as yet) reasons he is allied with a group of people he generally detests against other with whom he should fit as a glove. I would not be surprised if he turns out to be a double-double agent or that when Dumbledore dies he turns back to where his nature would have him. The only real loyalty he has is to Dumbledore, but he will probably die before the series end. Salit From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 01:40:25 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:40:25 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121014 >> >Lupinlore: His action was RIGHT, full stop, no apology or sense that perhaps the morals and priorities weren't clear or that Harry deserves a chance to challenge the assumptions that have caused him so much pain. That is extremely distasteful to me to admit, but I am becoming convinced that such is JKR's stand. Salit: DD is the lead general in a war. His goal is to preserve the ultimate weapon he has to win the war and prepare that weapon for the task assigned to him by prophecy and chance. Harry therefore has to be protected at all costs to himself or others (you realize that his residence with the Dursleys puts them in mortal peril - I could hardly blame Vernon for deducing the logical conclusion from the events even if he did it in a very mean fashion). In addition, Harry has to be toughened. He can't be coddled too much and has to be given great challenges early on to raise him to fulfill his destiny. It's harshperphaps but that was the only way he could survive. Alla: Right, so do you think that JKT allows for gray area on this issue or not? "Harry's survival" v "Harry's living as abused child to save WW later on in life". Do you think she allows middle areas as such that Lupinlore pointed or not? Is Dumbledore AT LEAST feeling sorry for what he allowed to happen to Harry or NOT? I tend to think that he does feel sorry, but as I said earlier, I think my reading of his last speech in OOP is too optimistic and Lupinlore is correct. Because you see, if Dumbledore is OK with what he did, it does not make him a very moral person in my book. Sure, general has to sacrifice good of one for the good of many (I cringe when I type this sentence, to tell you the truth), BUT Dumbledore not only a general, but an epithome of goodness in GENERAL SENSE,according to JKR and a such should, IMO, at least TRY to lessen the pain of one child, who is expected to save them all. "Happiness of all mankind is not worth one tear of the child". Do you think that Dumbledore ever heard of such or similar saying? Just my opinion, Alla From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 3 01:51:42 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:51:42 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121015 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Salit: > > DD is the lead general in a war. His goal is to preserve the ultimate > weapon he has to win the war and prepare that weapon for the task > assigned to him by prophecy and chance. Harry therefore has to be > protected at all costs to himself or others (you realize that his > residence with the Dursleys puts them in mortal peril - I could > hardly blame Vernon for deducing the logical conclusion from the > events even if he did it in a very mean fashion). In addition, Harry > has to be toughened. He can't be coddled too much and has to be > given great challenges early on to raise him to fulfill his destiny. > It's harshperphaps but that was the only way he could survive. > > > Alla: > > Right, so do you think that JKT allows for gray area on this issue > or not? > > "Harry's survival" v "Harry's living as abused child to save WW > later on in life". > > Do you think she allows middle areas as such that Lupinlore pointed > or not? > > Is Dumbledore AT LEAST feeling sorry for what he allowed to happen > to Harry or NOT? > > I tend to think that he does feel sorry, but as I said earlier, I > think my reading of his last speech in OOP is too optimistic and > Lupinlore is correct. > > Because you see, if Dumbledore is OK with what he did, it does not > make him a very moral person in my book. > > Sure, general has to sacrifice good of one for the good of many (I > cringe when I type this sentence, to tell you the truth), BUT > Dumbledore not only a general, but an epithome of goodness in > GENERAL SENSE,according to JKR and a such should, IMO, at least TRY > to lessen the pain of one child, who is expected to save them all. > > "Happiness of all mankind is not worth one tear of the child". Do > you think that Dumbledore ever heard of such or similar saying? > > > Just my opinion, > > Alla Well, I really didn't mean to touch this debate off again. For the record, I agree with Alla and Dumbledore was wrong to do what he did. But rather than get into the trenches on that issue yet again, I really would like, if possible, to keep the focus on the overall moral themes and tones of HP. Lupinlore From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 02:10:10 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:10:10 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121016 > Del's comments about double standards: snip > Ernie's parents believe DD so Ernie believes Harry : good. > Seamus' mother believes Fudge so Seamus believes Fudge : bad. Meri: I don't think it is so much bad here that Seamus sides with his mother. It's just that he ignores four years of sharing a dormitory with Harry. He knows Harry, he's friends with Harry and the moment that that got to be uncomfortable he started thinking Harry was a nutter. Ernie didn't know Harry well at all in COS, so it is easier to understand that he would suspect Harry of being the Heir of Slytherin. But again, Seamus has had four years of living with Harry. That should be enough to get him to be able to say to his mam, "Give him a break." >Del: Cho learns to think by herself and doesn't do as her parents wish : good. > Percy learns to think by himself and decides not to follow in his > family's decisions : bad. Meri: Here I think the issue should not be sticking to one's convictions, but more along the lines of what the character values. Cho, I think as far as we know, didn't abandon her family or say that their actions have caused her embarassment. She simply decides to resist as best she can against the maniac wizard who killed her boyfriend. Percy, OTOH, puts his career and personal ambitions ahead of his family. He insults his father, ignores his mother and all because, like Fudge, holding on to his job is most important to him. I applaud Percy for sticking to his guns and doing what he thought was right. But what he did was for his own personal gain. >Del: Draco doesn't question his family's traditions : bad. > Most of the Weasley children don't question their friend and family : > good. Meri: Ron might not initially question his family's values, but he does modify them a bit. The Weasleys have passed down the some of the same prejudices to their children (about werewolves and giants, for instance) but he has come to learn the truth about these beings. He is willing to learn from others, something Draco doesn't seem to be that big on. Plus it isn't bad that Draco doesn't question his father, it is that what his father teaches him is bad. >Del: People don't believe in LV's resurrection : bad. > Hermione doesn't believe in heliopaths : good. Meri: That's just the nature of Hermy's character isn't it? Now I like Hermione very much. I think she's a strong, albeit imperfect heroine. And one of her faults is that she totally lacks anything resembling blind faith. For Hermy, if she can't read it in the library it doesn't matter. IMHO her disbelief in heliopaths is not necessarily presented in a positive light. Her dismissiveness of Luna kind of annoyed me, and showed again that unless there's documentation and photographic evidence to be had, then she's not inclined to believe. But why, you ask, did she believe so firmly in LV's return? She was in the hospital wing that night, she saw Snape's Dark Mark, she's been in on every peice of evidence that Harry's had and she knows and trusts Harry. And as for everyone else in the WW and why they didn't believe, I chalk it up to why Fudge didn't want to believe either: the return of LV would mean messing up the lives they had built in the last thirteen years. Denial, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt. There were signs even before Harry witnessed the rebirt, from the disappearances of Bertha Jorkins and Frank Bryce and Barty Crouch, Sr. to the escape of Sirius. And, as they also say, ignorance is bliss. >Del: Luna believes in crumpled-horned snorkacks : bad. > Luna believes in resurrection and life after death : good. Meri: This is a convention that happens in the real world, too. For instance, millions, well billions of people profess faith in God, an afterlife of some kind and many other things that are accepted as mainstream religion, things for which there is no factual basis. But the person who believes in flying saucers, the Loch Ness monster, and other tabloid fodder is deemed nutty. But again, I don't feel that Luna's belief in the unbelievable is presented as bad. I am not the only one who feels that she has been written as she has to act as a foil for Hermione. >Del: See where I'm going ? > There are way too many double-standards being applied sometimes on > this list IMO. Meri: I would have to disagree. We as readers are allowed to see this whole story from an objective perspective. And in our views of course Percy choosing Fudge over his family and Marietta betraying the DA are bad while Ernie's faith in Harry is good. We can't see things from the limited perspectives of the characters. snip >Del: I've read that people shouldn't trust in other people blindly, like in > Fudge for example. And yet this is exactly what Harry's friends do, > and what is expected of everyone : trust in Harry blindly. Meri: I don't think anyone is expected to trust Harry blindly. His friends have come to know him over the last four years, and that kind of trust isn't blind. DD is even more well known and respected and he isn't asking people to trust him blindly either. We may never know what kind of testimony he gave to the Wizengamot, but IMO he probably presented every fact he could to get people to believe him about LV. It would have been foolish of him not to do that. >Del: I've read that people should take every fact into consideration when > judging someone. And yet the facts that Harry is a Parselmouth, that > Cedric was a rival in more than one way, and that Harry was gone > somewhere with just Cedric when Cedric died, should most definitely be > overlooked. Meri: First off, Harry being a parselmouth should have anything do do with anything. Being a parselmouth does not make one evil and Harry did not choose to have this ability. And secondly, the circumstantial evidence that you describe that would make people think Harry murdered Cedric is just that: circumstantial evidence. Meri From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 3 02:18:51 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:18:51 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121017 Lupinlore: > As this discussion continues, I am growing more and more convinced > that JKR is, at heart, espousing a rather old-fashioned form of > Christian moralism in the Potter Saga. That is, I truly think at > heart she is a Christian Platonist, someone who believes that Good > and Evil are very real metaphysical principals, and that the goodness > or evil of actions, beliefs, and even human beings is not determined > by their intentions or reasoning, but by the extent to which they > obey the harsh demands of one principle or the other. Jen: You make a good argument for this type of moralism. The problem I have with wholeheartedly agreeing that JKR is headed in this direction is two-fold. First, the boring answer--we're getting a filtererd view of the WW through Harry's perspective. Harry has the moral development of a 15 year old and is prone to seeing situations and people in very black/white terms. Until OOTP, I'd say the majority of his time was spent thinking in terms of good/evil. Now we're beginning to see where questions and moral ambiguity exist in the WW. The other argument is this: where a vacuum exists, matter rushes to fill it. The basis for the Platonist argument is also the basis for ESE!Lupin, IMO. Lupin shows signs of cowardice, he makes poor choices at times, he rationlizes his choices. He doesn't always choose what is 'right over what is easy', therefore he is evil. For those who believe Lupin is evil, it's not a moral dilemma. But for the rest of us... And Harry does seem to struggle with complex moral issues like why a 'good' person such as Seamus doesn't believe his story. And why Dumbledore would trust a 'bad' person like Snape. And how the once- sainted James can be a good person and a bully at the same time. His moral complexity grows with his character. Lupinlore: > Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys. I have been > extremely critical of this decision, and I have been hoping we would > see some exploration of its consequences. I have been hoping that > eventually we would see a greater confession on Dumbledore's part > that this was an extremely grey area and that he proceeded with great > misgivings and heartache, as well as a greater acknowledgement of > pain Harry has suffered due to Dumbledore's decision. But I regret > to say I am becoming convinced we will see no such. In the harsh > morality of the Potterverse I don't think there is room for such > heartache and acknowledgement of Harry's pain and the injustice of > DD's decision on any plane. DD did what was necessary to uphold THE > GOOD in a Platonic sense. His action was RIGHT, full stop, no > apology or sense that perhaps the morals and priorities weren't clear > or that Harry deserves a chance to challenge the assumptions that > have caused him so much pain. Jen: Dumbledore gave an explanation that the community good and the future of the WW were more important in his mind than one individual. That's a lousy choice if you're Harry, but not so much if you're the rest of the WW. There was no 'good' choice for Dumbledore to make in that situation. Every choice would have an unintended or unwelcome consequence, either for Harry or the WW. In PS/SS we had our first clue that Dumbledore did not relish the choice he had made: "For a full minute the three of them stood and looked at the little bundle; Hagrid's shoulders shook, Professor McGonagall blinked furiously, and the twinkling light that usually shone from Dumbledore's eyes seemed to have gone out." (SS, chap. 1, p. 16) Lupinlore: > Is JKR trying to say something about complex morality in the HP > saga? The more I think of it the more I think she is saying > something in exactly the opposite direction. She seems to be > implying that morality is harsh, Good and Evil are real, and human > ideas about justice or reason or individual worth or even the right > to be loved and comforted are not very important in the great scheme > of things. You either support the good principle or the evil > principle, there is no middle ground and there is no quibbling. Jen: I can't quite see this in the story, not to the extent you see it, Lupinlore. It's because of the cognitive dissonance Harry experiences, something we are privy to through his internal dialogue. Like when he discovers James and Sirius were bullies. He can't quite dismiss the former impression he had of his father and best friend, yet he doesn't dismiss the new information, either. It would be so much *easier* to dismiss the new information or the old, and hold only one idea at a time, but Harry doesn't choose to do that. He's consistently willing to struggle with opposition which implies complex moral thinking. And as Harry goes, so goes the story. Jen From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 02:36:55 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:36:55 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121018 > Jen: snip. And Harry does seem to struggle with complex moral issues like why a 'good' person such as Seamus doesn't believe his story. And why Dumbledore would trust a 'bad' person like Snape. And how the once- sainted James can be a good person and a bully at the same time. His moral complexity grows with his character. Alla: Yes, Jen, absolutely, Harry struggles with moral issues and that IMO shows that grey areas right now, till the story is WIP, exist whether author wants them to or not, BUT do you think that at the end we will be left with any doubts as to who are the good guys in the story (those who support Dumbledore vs Voldemort supporters?) > Jen: snip. > There was no 'good' choice for Dumbledore to make in that situation. > Every choice would have an unintended or unwelcome consequence, > either for Harry or the WW. In PS/SS we had our first clue that > Dumbledore did not relish the choice he had made: "For a full minute > the three of them stood and looked at the little bundle; Hagrid's > shoulders shook, Professor McGonagall blinked furiously, and the > twinkling light that usually shone from Dumbledore's eyes seemed to > have gone out." (SS, chap. 1, p. 16) Alla: NO, there was no good choice. I wanted to know whether Dumbledore expressed regrets as to "bad choice" he had to make. Thanks for the quote. Maybe my reading of his OOP speech is not overly optimistic after all. :o) Jen: I can't quite see this in the story, not to the extent you see it, Lupinlore. It's because of the cognitive dissonance Harry experiences, something we are privy to through his internal dialogue. Like when he discovers James and Sirius were bullies. He can't quite dismiss the former impression he had of his father and best friend, yet he doesn't dismiss the new information, either. It would be so much *easier* to dismiss the new information or the old, and hold only one idea at a time, but Harry doesn't choose to do that. He's consistently willing to struggle with opposition which implies complex moral thinking. And as Harry goes, so goes the story. Alla: Actually, Harry does try to dismiss old information - up to the point when he wonders whether James forced Lily to marry him. He cannot fully grasp yet that his former Saint father could make mistakes while at school, but yes, I am sure Harry will eventually understand it. Thanks for another great example. Alla From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 3 02:46:02 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 02:46:02 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121019 > Lupinlore: > > Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys. I have > been > > extremely critical of this decision, and I have been hoping we > would > > see some exploration of its consequences. I have been hoping that > > eventually we would see a greater confession on Dumbledore's part > > that this was an extremely grey area and that he proceeded with > great > > misgivings and heartache, as well as a greater acknowledgement of > > pain Harry has suffered due to Dumbledore's decision. But I > regret > > to say I am becoming convinced we will see no such. In the harsh > > morality of the Potterverse I don't think there is room for such > > heartache and acknowledgement of Harry's pain and the injustice of > > DD's decision on any plane. DD did what was necessary to uphold > THE > > GOOD in a Platonic sense. His action was RIGHT, full stop, no > > apology or sense that perhaps the morals and priorities weren't > clear > > or that Harry deserves a chance to challenge the assumptions that > > have caused him so much pain. > > Jen: Dumbledore gave an explanation that the community good and the > future of the WW were more important in his mind than one > individual. That's a lousy choice if you're Harry, but not so much > if you're the rest of the WW. > > There was no 'good' choice for Dumbledore to make in that situation. We think there was no good choice. I'm not at all sure that's what the books are saying, however. > Every choice would have an unintended or unwelcome consequence, > either for Harry or the WW. In PS/SS we had our first clue that > Dumbledore did not relish the choice he had made: "For a full minute > the three of them stood and looked at the little bundle; Hagrid's > shoulders shook, Professor McGonagall blinked furiously, and the > twinkling light that usually shone from Dumbledore's eyes seemed to > have gone out." (SS, chap. 1, p. 16) I hope that this issue is going to be explored much more fully and that Dumbledore is going to make a valiant effort to give recompense to Harry for the injustice that he visited upon him. But I'm just not sure. Lupinlore From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jan 3 02:55:11 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:55:11 EST Subject: Character Discussion: explanation Message-ID: <19b.2d68c5a4.2f0a0e0f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121020 Hans wrote: > Yet each time I come to the same conclusion: > the foundation of Harry Potter is the Teachings of Alchemical Liberation. > Never mind whether the teachings are true; the point is JK Rowling knows > them much better than I do and she IS basing her book on them. That is my > motivation for sending my discoveries to this group. I have to tell the > world! > Julie says: Out of curiosity, has JKR ever stated that she is basing her books on these teachings? I thought I read somewhere that she'd addressed the question of whether she based the books on any sort of religious teaching or wrote deliberate correlations between particular religious teachings/writings and HP plot/characters (and I recall her answer being "No."). But I could easily be wrong. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 03:04:02 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 03:04:02 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121021 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > Jen: > > And Harry does seem to struggle with complex moral issues like why > a 'good' person such as Seamus doesn't believe his story. And why > Dumbledore would trust a 'bad' person like Snape. And how the once- > sainted James can be a good person and a bully at the same time. > His moral complexity grows with his character. I've snipped ruthlessly, but I think there's a potential distinction being lost here. :) The Platonic belief in Good and Evil and the absolute essences thereof doesn't necessarily preclude human beings not being completely one or the other. Remember your Plato--Forms are eternal and perfect, but all manifestations of Forms are imperfect and transient. That means, roughly, that Good can exist in a perfect form, and a person can be good but not perfectly so--but that doesn't oblivate the existence of perfect good. It's the degree to which one partakes in it. I may be butchering my philosophy here, but I think that's some of what is going on here. I have to say that generally I agree with the gist of Lupinlore's original post, although like many others on this thread, I wish in some ways that I didn't. But what I want and what is there in the text are often not quite the same things. Despite the grayness of many people and situations, I get the feeling that JKR's moral vision is a fairly direct one, with very definite ideas about Good and Evil, put in caps for a reason. The imperfection of characters does not necessarily have any bearing upon the deeper metaphysical background. Boy, there are so many things about the metaphysics of the Potterverse that aren't clear yet. I'm fairly sure that finding out why and how Lily's sacrifice worked will tell us a lot, and that Love *is* at the top of the metaphysical pantheon in this world. Chew on that, all ye cynics out there in the internet void. :) -Nora gets back to finishing that paper that she should be finishing instead of getting into Platonism that she was never too fond of to BEGIN with... From editor at texas.net Mon Jan 3 03:07:33 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 21:07:33 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Character Discussion: explanation References: <19b.2d68c5a4.2f0a0e0f@aol.com> Message-ID: <001301c4f141$5f984740$f959aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 121022 > Hans wrote: > > Yet each time I come to the same conclusion: > the foundation of Harry Potter is the Teachings of Alchemical Liberation. > Never mind whether the teachings are true; the point is JK Rowling knows > them much better than I do and she IS basing her book on them. That is my > motivation for sending my discoveries to this group. I have to tell the > world! Julie says: > > Out of curiosity, has JKR ever stated that she is basing her books on > these teachings? I thought I read somewhere that she'd addressed > the question of whether she based the books on any sort of religious > teaching or wrote deliberate correlations between particular religious > teachings/writings and HP plot/characters (and I recall her answer > being "No."). But I could easily be wrong. Actually, after reading Hans for a while, I have decided that two things are occurring: Hans is doing a masterful job of focused interpretation, but there also does seem to be some actual parallel evolution between alchemical theory, and JKR's philosophy. I won't go so far as to say that means there is a deliberate or intentional link, or derivation--but that doesn't mean it's not a valid interpretation. And given the convergences Hans has found, he may well have a good handle on predicting the shape of things to come in books 6 & 7. Paths of wisdom that run in similar channels, often reach similar ends. That's about as far as I'll go, though. ~Amanda From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 3 04:08:46 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 04:08:46 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (and Percy) (and C.S. Lewis) and Tonks and Molly, oh my In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121023 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > In Marietta's case motives would matter to me only if due to some > astounding plot twist she was the only one who believed (and > believed correctly, that's very important!) IIRC, C.S. Lewis made it very clear, both in Narnia and in The Screwtape Letters, that (in his religion), it is not at all morally important whether a person's belief is correct; the only moral importance is if the belief is sincere and the person acts according to his belief even at such costs as being courageous and self- sacrificing. I seem to recall a person who fought on behalf of the evil god against the defenders of the good Aslan, and killed some of the good guys before himself being killed in battle, and awoke in Aslan's heaven because he gave his life for his sincere belief that the evil god was really good. Which is kind of awkward to think about for real life, when torturers and terrorists and other operatives of the bad guys might sincerely believe that they are doing the right thing to advance goodness. Then we should think that they are stupid rather than evil. (The usual word is 'misguided', but I jump to the conclusion that anyone who believes something so totally opposed to what I know to be true must be stupid.) But no matter how sincere the bad guys are, we can't let them win and impose an incompetent dictatorship on people, because it would cause so much suffering to people for so many generations. But I imagine that C.S. Lewis would say we have to fight against them in order to be true to our beliefs, but it isn't really morally important whether we win or not, because this world is just a testing ground where people can earn the right to go to heaven, and the people suffering under the incompetent dictatorship have so much opportunity to be courageous and self-sacrificing for their beliefs.... I think a lot about the pre-Christian Roman notion that part of Goodness is to serve and advance the State that you were born into -- in their case, go around conquering other States to increase the size of their empire -- in the case of people born into those neighboring States, to fight against the Roman conquerors until totally defeated. It seems to me they were inconsistent in judging that rebels in their conquered territories were not merely inconvenient, but evil. But having a moral system that approves of wars of conquest, killing, enslaving, etc, does make many decisions simpler. Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: << Hmmm. What does this do to a Percy? He's certainly following a set of principles & values, *extremely* consistently, but he's not likely to be labeled "innately good" by either JKR or a reader or a character w/in the story who knows him well. He's chosen the not- quite-right set of principles & values, then? >> And Meriaugust wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121016 : << Percy, OTOH, puts his career and personal ambitions ahead of his family. He insults his father, ignores his mother and all because, like Fudge, holding on to his job is most important to him. I applaud Percy for sticking to his guns and doing what he thought was right. But what he did was for his own personal gain. >> Yes, I believe that JKR presented Percy as following the principle of self-interest and careerism, rather than any system of morality. She had Percy laughing at Fudge's bad jokes and being a general sycophant, and there is no clue that he was doing it because of hero-worshipping Fudge. It would be different if Percy chose Fudge over his family because he had a principle that the government is always right or he thought Fudge was so wise and competent or he really believed that Harry had gone mad and Dumbledore was using him to make trouble for some selfish no-good reason. Paul wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121012 : <> I don't remember if there's been a thread about it, but back in 2003 when I used to attend the weekly chats, there were certainly chatters in favor of it. Well, depending what 'it' is. No one thought Harry was ready to marry at age 15 or 16, but many, thinking he will die in volume seven, thought it tragic that he would die without ever having had sex. My opinion is that having sex once is probably worse than never at all, because the first couple of times are so extremely stressful and nervous as the beginner worries whether he/she is doing it right... Other chatters said that's why he should get together with an experienced, good-humored, slightly older woman who could act as a teacher: that is, Tonks. IIRC some said that Tonks, as a newly introduced character, could be killed off by bad guys as a blow at Harry, thus giving him more motive to fight the bad guys, without hurting any readers' feelings by harming Hermione or Ron. Charme wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121009 : << I got this weird, strange and lingering impression that Molly wasn't too happy with the possibility of Hermoine being Harry's girlfriend: "Harry looked between them, then said, "Mrs.Weasley, you didn't believe that rubbish Rita Skeeter wrote in Witch Weekly, did you? Because Hermoine's not my girlfriend." "Oh," said Mrs. Weasley, "No - of course I didn't." But she became considerably warmer toward Hermoine after that." (GoF/US) Now, before I get Stunned repeatedly by those Molly fans, let me say this: earlier in the same chapter only a couple pages before, Molly angrily admonishes Amos Diggory for believing anything Rita Skeeter writes. So I'm either left with Molly: - As the "do as I say not as I do" sort of person with Amos, yet she believes the worst of Hermoine per that article (if that makes sense) - If the Ron/Hermoine shippers are right, how she'd take having a Muggle daughter-in-law like Hermoine :) >> I read that *entirely* as Molly, ferocious to the point of irrationality in defense of her family members, believed Rita Skeeter's accusations because they presented Harry (an unofficially adopted family member) as a victim for her to defend. And Harry's statement comforted her because it meant Hermione hadn't cheated on him, not because she didn't think Hermione otherwise was good enough for him. I do think she might be a bit disappointed by Harry/Hermione ship because she is a Harry/Ginny shipper. But I think she'd be pleased with Ron/Hermione ship, at least until she realized that Hermione's SPEW and/or career activities kept her from making dinner for Ron on most weekdays. Here is a bit of forbidden fanfic about Bill Weasley coming out to his family. It starts with Molly nagging him to marry some nice young witch, even Fleur, and give her grandchildren. Bill replies that he has already found the person with whom he wants to spend his life, and it's not a witch. Molly jumps to a conclusion and berates him for thinking she wouldn't welcome a Muggle girl into the family if she was his choice, "Don't your father and I always stand up for Muggles are people too?!" From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 3 04:11:30 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 04:11:30 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121024 Nora: > The Platonic belief in Good and Evil and the absolute essences > thereof doesn't necessarily preclude human beings not being > completely one or the other. Remember your Plato--Forms are eternal > and perfect, but all manifestations of Forms are imperfect and > transient. That means, roughly, that Good can exist in a perfect > form, and a person can be good but not perfectly so--but that > doesn't oblivate the existence of perfect good. It's the degree to which one partakes in it. Jen: Aack, Nora, you're making me think to hard after all the holiday food and napping! But you bring up some questions for me. The way you explain it, Platonism indicates that forms supercede the actual event/person/structure etc. found below the ideal (so to speak). To me, that indicates there is no value judgement at the level of Good and Evil, merely the abstract conceptions of these principles. If I'm getting the idea, this doesn't equate with a harsh morality to me. At the level of the perfect form, there's no implication of right or wrong. Perfectly Evil and Perfectly Good are not given the meaning a human would give. Is that right? It's only in our value judgements that we make it so. > I have to say that generally I agree with the gist of Lupinlore's > original post, although like many others on this thread, I wish in > some ways that I didn't. But what I want and what is there in the > text are often not quite the same things. Despite the grayness of > many people and situations, I get the feeling that JKR's moral > vision is a fairly direct one, with very definite ideas about Good > and Evil, put in caps for a reason. The imperfection of characters > does not necessarily have any bearing upon the deeper metaphysical > background. Jen: I've been reading a few articles on Platonism trying to understand, and it sounds vaguely like the concept of "creating your own reality" to me. That the thought forms in your mind are the reality and what you actually perceive outside yourself is a distant second. If that's the case, then yes, morality in Potterverse is a moveable feast depending on who you know! But I'd like to be set right if I'm misunderstanding. Nora: > Boy, there are so many things about the metaphysics of the > Potterverse that aren't clear yet. I'm fairly sure that finding out > why and how Lily's sacrifice worked will tell us a lot, and that > Love *is* at the top of the metaphysical pantheon in this world. > Chew on that, all ye cynics out there in the internet void. :) Jen: Oh, I do so hope you're right and we get a few explanations. Ancient magic is something I believe must be explored. That concept seems to be at the heart of the story, a principle (?) which Dumbledore is able to tap into to his advantage and Voldemort ignores to his detriment. Jen, confused but learning ;) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 04:39:09 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 04:39:09 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121025 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Lupinlore: > > As this discussion continues, I am growing more and more convinced > that JKR is, at heart, espousing a rather old-fashioned form of > Christian moralism in the Potter Saga. snip> > > Alla: > > As I said yesterday, I do agree with you that Good and Evil seem to be very real principles in Potterverse with Dumbledore and Voldemort being their personifications. > > I have this very uncomfortable feeling that you will turn out to be 100% correct (snip) but I still WANT to think that JKR believes in grey areas, otherwise it is very harsh morality as you said it > yourself. > (snip) > Now, you are absolutely correct that ending may put an end to those unintentional "grey areas" because I also have a feeling that it will be very "black and white". (snip)> > > Alla: > > Call me "hopeless cause", but I am still keeping hope that > Dumbledore was sorry for leaving Harry with Dursleys. When I read > his OOP speech, I at least see some small hints to it, but again if I am honest with myself, I have to say that I agree with you. (Snip> > > Alla: > > What do you make of her statement then that "Nobody is born evil"? I don't know, I am confused to tell you the truth. Tonks here: JKR is a Christian writer telling us a story with deep moral meaning. Whenever I say this, no one believes me. But now I see that some of you are coming around to the fact. SO at the risk of being blown out of the waters again let me say this: The black and white ending.. is the ending that we are told God will judge each of us by at the end of our life. Only one.. the one that JKR has mentioned over and over... LOVE. It says in the bible that the greatest thing we can do is LOVE. And I think it was Jesus that said we will be judged by only one thing... how much did we obey the law of love. Love your neighbor... etc. over and over... and over and over in the Harry Potter books. And JKR does show gray areas... areas where the players do things that seem wrong... but done for the right reason. And when they do the wrong thing, for the wrong reason, they are often forgiven. We are told that Lord Voldmort... Never loved... this is what makes him the evil principle. LOVE is a central theme in the books. And I say that this is so for a reason. As to no one is born evil. This is true... All that JKR is writing makes perfect sense if you look at it from the view of the Christian faith... not a hell fire and brimstone faith of some of the fundamentalist groups... but a faith of LOVE. God is LOVE we are told. And Love does accept gray areas of human imperfection Love forgives. There are stories of the Prodigal son... like Snape. And most Christians believe that Human Beings were created in the image and likeness of God and therefore are GOOD. No one is born evil. Evil is a choice. The teaching of the Church tells us that the only people who go to hell are those who CHOOSE to do so. Also the only real sin... is a complete turning away from God... a conscious CHOICE to go against the law of LOVE. And it is not a one time thing... it is a series of choices made over a lifetime to do Evil instead of what is loving. If you look at the books from this point of view, I think many things will make sense. Tonks_op From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 3 04:47:44 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 04:47:44 -0000 Subject: McGonagall and DD' roles (wasRe: Peter Pettigrew's House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121026 Lupinlore wrote: > I may be wrong about this, as I don't have access to OOTP right now, > but I believe that Dilys Derwent was Head of St. Mungo's AFTER she > was Headmistress of Hogwarts. Like I say, I could have things > backwards. > Potioncat: Having been wrong before, I decided I'd better go back and check. I don't recall where it's written in the books, but here's a link to the Lexicon: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/wizards-d-g.html She was a Healer from 1722--1741 and a Headmistress from 1741--1768. Potioncat From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 05:15:11 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:15:11 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (and Percy) (and C.S. Lewis) and Tonks and Molly, oh my In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121027 "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > IIRC, C.S. Lewis made it very clear, both in > Narnia and in The Screwtape Letters, that > (in his religion), it is not at all morally > important whether a person's belief is > correct; the only moral importance is if > the belief is sincere I believe C.S Lewis is dead wrong; sincerity is a vastly overrated virtue. If a person does the right thing for the wrong reason it's still the right thing, and if they do an evil thing for a sincere reason it's still an evil thing. Usamah Bin Laden is not a fraud, I think he believes in every word he says as do most of the worst monsters on this planet. I'll take someone who is insincerely right of someone sincerely wrong any day . Eggplant From snow15145 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 05:41:25 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:41:25 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121028 Lupinlore snipped: > Dumbledore's decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys. I have been > extremely critical of this decision, and I have been hoping we would > see some exploration of its consequences. I have been hoping that > eventually we would see a greater confession on Dumbledore's part > that this was an extremely grey area and that he proceeded with great > misgivings and heartache, as well as a greater acknowledgement of > pain Harry has suffered due to Dumbledore's decision. But I regret > to say I am becoming convinced we will see no such. In the harsh > morality of the Potterverse I don't think there is room for such > heartache and acknowledgement of Harry's pain and the injustice of > DD's decision on any plane. DD did what was necessary to uphold THE > GOOD in a Platonic sense. His action was RIGHT, full stop, no > apology or sense that perhaps the morals and priorities weren't clear > or that Harry deserves a chance to challenge the assumptions that > have caused him so much pain. Jen Reese snipped: There was no 'good' choice for Dumbledore to make in that situation. Every choice would have an unintended or unwelcome consequence, either for Harry or the WW. In PS/SS we had our first clue that Dumbledore did not relish the choice he had made: "For a full minute the three of them stood and looked at the little bundle; Hagrid's shoulders shook, Professor McGonagall blinked furiously, and the twinkling light that usually shone from Dumbledore's eyes seemed to have gone out." (SS, chap. 1, p. 16) Snow: What a beautiful statement, Jen! I would like to add to that: that this was Dumbledore's only choice given the sacrifice that Lily made; he could only expand on Lily's sacrifice and give even more protection to it. Was that a sacrifice in itself, yes! But it was a- worse-than-all-evils-choice. Dumbledore had less than 24 hours to combat what he thought had happened with what could eventually happen. Given the `gray' or unknown area Dumbledore had to face (the plan), of not knowing absolutely who was trustworthy, whom better than a muggle (and a giant)? And Dumbledore used them both wisely. It worked so far because Harry isn't dead from abuse or any other reason that could stem from abuse but overcame his upbringing and has defied Voldemort four times. From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 3 05:55:41 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 05:55:41 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121029 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Jen: Aack, Nora, you're making me think to hard after all the > holiday food and napping! But you bring up some questions for me. > The way you explain it, Platonism indicates that forms supercede the > actual event/person/structure etc. found below the ideal (so to > speak). To me, that indicates there is no value judgement at the > level of Good and Evil, merely the abstract conceptions of these > principles. If I'm getting the idea, this doesn't equate with a harsh morality > to me. At the level of the perfect form, there's no implication of > right or wrong. Perfectly Evil and Perfectly Good are not given the > meaning a human would give. Is that right? It's only in our value > judgements that we make it so. Well, I'm not Nora but I'll try to help, as at one point in my life I dwelled deep inside the philosophical tangles of Plato. There are many, many different forms of Platonism. One cannot escape Plato's influence in the Western World. Indeed, it has been said, in only slight exaggeration, that all of Western Philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. But what is generally meant by Platonism in discussions of this sort is the kind of philosophy found in Plato's own writings. In these writings he put forth the idea of a world of Forms or Ideas. The Forms are real, perfect, and eternal. They also exist in hierarchy, with the greatest form being the form of The Good (always capitalized). Now, and this is CRUCIALLY important, the Forms are the ONLY things that are True and Real (capitals intended once again). Nothing else is, in the end, real. The chair on which I sit is not, in the final analysis, real. Only the Form of the Chair (note the capital) in which my chair partakes is real, the thing I am sitting on is ultimately only a shadow, a passing illusion given some vestige of reality by its participation in an eternal Form. This is ESPECIALLY true of The Good. Only The Good is in fact good. And it is good by definition, by nature, by Eternity, and by Reality. Every other good only exists ONLY insofar as it partakes in The Good. What we mortals think (and we are in many ways just shadows ourselves after all) has NO BEARING ON THE SITUATION WHATSOEVER. If you call something good that does not partake of The Good, you are WRONG. Plato's most famous allegory, the Allegory of the Cave, says that mortals are only observers of a shadow show. We can only observe The Good by its shadowy presence that we can see. The best that we can hope for is to CORRECTLY percieve the presence of The Good in the shadows that partake of it. Once again, our perceptions and beliefs are not really important, they are but the passing shadows within the mind of a shadow. The best we can hope is that they are CORRECT. You can call The Good evil all you want, it makes less difference in Reality than a human breath pitted against a hurricane -- which is to say it makes no difference whatsoever. Christian Platonism equates The Good either with God Himself or with the ultimate Idea of the World that exists in the Mind of God. Christian Platonists tend to see humans as being Persons only insofar as they partake in the Form of God, the only Real Person. By partaking in the Form of God, humans have some measure of free will (only God has Free Will). But if you use your free will to turn your understanding away from The Good, it is even worse than in the case of Plato. Plato would say you have made a moral mistake (but very much a MORAL mistake). A Christian Platonist sees this as a Sin (once again with a capital letter). Once again, what you WANT to believe, what you DO believe, makes no difference at all. You can say that God is not The Good. All that means is you have turned from the only Real, True, Good and fallen into Sin, which in the eyes of many Christian Platonists means you are in danger of not being a person anymore (you can't Totally be Not a Person due to the fact that God will never totally abandon you), but rather become more and more Shadowlike. If that sounds like Tolkien it is with good reason. Tolkien, a very devout Catholic, was in some ways an archetypal Christian Platonist. > Jen: > I've been reading a few articles on Platonism trying to understand, > and it sounds vaguely like the concept of "creating your own > reality" to me. That the thought forms in your mind are the reality > and what you actually perceive outside yourself is a distant second. > If that's the case, then yes, morality in Potterverse is a moveable > feast depending on who you know! But I'd like to be set right if I'm > misunderstanding. There are some forms of Platonism that do seem very solipsistic (creating your own reality). However, the Platonism of Plato's Dialogues and the beliefs of most Christian Platonists are just the opposite. Morality is given and grounded in the Real. You are Moral only in that you partake of the pre-existing Good. Your own beliefs do not affect the Good, they only determine whether you are more or less in moral error, or in the case of Christian Platonism, more or less in sin. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 3 07:02:55 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:02:55 -0000 Subject: Yet another DD Dursley thread (was Harsh Morality ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121030 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > Snow: > > What a beautiful statement, Jen! I would like to add to that: that > this was Dumbledore's only choice given the sacrifice that Lily > made; he could only expand on Lily's sacrifice and give even more > protection to it. Was that a sacrifice in itself, yes! But it was a- > worse-than-all-evils-choice. Dumbledore had less than 24 hours to > combat what he thought had happened with what could eventually > happen. Given the `gray' or unknown area Dumbledore had to face (the > plan), of not knowing absolutely who was trustworthy, whom better > than a muggle (and a giant)? And Dumbledore used them both wisely. It > worked so far because Harry isn't dead from abuse or any other reason > that could stem from abuse but overcame his upbringing and has defied > Voldemort four times. I said I wasn't going to get into this, but I'm afraid I can't let it go. Could you elaborate, Snow, on what you mean by this? I don't think you are saying that it's good that Harry was abused. In what way was Dumbledore's decision correct? Surely he could have forced the Dursleys to act more appropriately. And surely you don't mean to imply that child abuse can EVER be a good thing, or it is ever appropriate to put someone in an abusive household to "strengthen" or "toughen" them. I think I should elaborate a little bit on my own problems here. I have no trouble in agreeing to DD's decision to place Harry with the Dursleys initially. He had little time and did not know whom to trust, as you point out. Indeed, safety was a huge issue. The Longbottoms, after all, were presumably hidden and protected in every way available to the Order yet they were tortured into insanity AFTER Voldemort fell. My problem is his inaction for ten years thereafter. Surely once it became apparent that the DE threat was at least momentarily at bay there were more appropriate arrangements that could have been made. Or given that he feared Voldemort's return (and I readily grant he had no way, as far as we know, of predicting when that might be) surely he had it within his power to force the Dursleys to behave more appropriately, not to mention he had it within his ability to provide more support for Harry from the Wizarding World. Sirius was in prison, but why would periodic visits/checkups from Remus or even McGonagall have been out of the question, not to mention visits on his own initiative? I fail to see how the safety of the entire Wizarding World could possibly have been jeapordized to any great extent if proper safeguards were taken. (And if we refuse to take any risks at all with the safety of the Wizarding World, if the few are really to be sacrificed to the many, there is a ready answer -- just have a headsman standing by for every time the Sorting Hat calls out "Slytherin!"). Now, some would argue that Dumbledore is too Noble and Good to threaten the Dursleys. I'm afraid that, IMO, is simple and total balderdash. There is nothing Noble or Good about standing aside and allowing a child to be abused. Others have argued he adopted this attitude to "toughen" Harry. Once again, balderdash. He would be risking the creation of another Voldemort, which is something he would not do if he is truly as wise as JKR lets on. Also he would be nowhere as Good as JKR lets on to adopt such a policy either. As to the idea that DD was preserving a weapon or arranging things so Harry would not be arrogant, IMO those are also non-starters, given a Good Dumbledore. The only moral reason for his decision is to preserve Harry's individual life. Sorry, but when push comes to shove all "the good of the many" stuff just doesn't cut it. Morality isn't a numbers game, and you can't find out what is good simply with an adding machine. Now, I'm not saying that numbers aren't important, but they can't be all there is. I'm not saying the good of the many isn't important, but that can't be all there is. There are times in life when the good of the one trumps the good of the many, and this is one of them. It's true that sometimes in war you sacrifice a few to save many more. It is also true, however, that you often risk many to save a few, even one, in war and in daily life. If that weren't the case, we would not agonize so much as we do over such questions as hostages, nor would we have elaborate Search and Rescue procedures. For that matter we also wouldn't have firemen to rush into burning buildings, rescue squads to risk themselves fishing people out of life-threatening situations, and constitutional lawyers who argue even a scumbag who may well be a serial killer deserves the presumption of innocence. A related case is executive orders forbidding assassinations. Why risk some nut case getting nuclear weapons rather than kill him? Why sacrifice thousands of soldiers and civilians to topple such a nutcase rather than kill him? Why risk said nutcase using weapons of mass destruction you think he has rather than assassinate him? I know there are practicalities in that argument, but there is also an oft-stated moral principle that there are simply some things that are too evil to do at any price, even if the cost of not doing them is a nuclear exchange. Or, is it's often put in political and military circles, there are just some things good people don't do even if it seems stupid and incredibly destructive not to do them, and even if you know the bad guys WILL do them. That, unfortunately, is part of the pain of being the good guys. And if you say (the argument goes) that it's better and more sensible and more caring of your own citizens and etc., etc. to engage in certain behaviors, well ... congratulations, you've just erased the difference between you and the bad guys. Pick up a black hat at the Villains' Desk and you'll be pleased to know there are still spaces available is Moustache Twirling 101. Remember, I am not talking about Dumbledore's INITIAL decision, but about his failure to intervene in all the succeeding years of Harry's suffering. His initial decision was clearly necessary to preserve Harry's life, but any decision not to intervene thereafter runs into much murkier waters. Surely giving the boy a little support from the WW and acting to restrain the Dursleys would not have turned him into a raving maniac, nor would it have significantly imperilled the Wizarding World. As I said above, that line of reasoning leads to killing everyone sorted into Slytherin on the philosophy that its better to strangle the serpents before they can develop poison glands. I also don't buy the argument that it wasn't Dumbledore's responsibility. By making the decision to leave Harry with the Dursleys, he MADE it his responsibility. Unless of course, and this is what I fear, JKR's morality really is extremely harsh, and she really does see all of Dumbledore's actions and failures to act as Good. In which case its time to take seven books and use them for kindling, since they don't illustrate any kind of morality I want anything to do with. Now, I'm hoping rather against hope we are going to discover that Petunia and/or Vernon drove an incredibly stiff bargain that prevent DD from acting. That is, that DD was in effect restrained against his will. I don't have warm fuzzies on that one, though. Lupinlore From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 3 07:50:28 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 07:50:28 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (was Re: Double standards and believing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121031 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Right, so do you think that JKT allows for gray area on this issue > or not? > > "Harry's survival" v "Harry's living as abused child to save WW > later on in life". I believe based on the information given in the books that Harry's only chance of survival was if he was left with the Dursleys. Now it is possible (this being a fictional literary work) that there was some other magical way of saving his life but I can only work with what the author has given us. Your question should rather be "could there have been ways to make Harry's life with the Dursleys easier?" Possibly. Again there is not much information. Based on what Mrs. Figg hints in the second chapter of OoP, any attempt by outsiders to make Harry's life better would have resulted in further abuse (she more or less suggests that she had to treat him badly or the Dursleys would not have let him go to her - just think if they sent him to Aunt Marge instead... :-)). Add to that the Dursleys refusal to deal with wizards and the risk that people with whom Harry had contact might be hurt by the bad side. Also Dumbledore had to weigh the risks of intervention against the possibility that intervention would lead the Dursleys to give up on the whole thing and renege on their contract to raise Harry. So my answer is that based on the information we have, Dumbledore did not have much choice. Possibly more information can shed better light on this. > Is Dumbledore AT LEAST feeling sorry for what he allowed to happen > to Harry or NOT? That is pretty obvious from the "The Lost Prophecy" chapter. I can bring up supporting quotes if you really insist but his sorrow and regret were pretty obvious to me throughout the chapter beginning with him letting Harry scream and break things through the end where he actually sheds some tears... > Because you see, if Dumbledore is OK with what he did, it does not > make him a very moral person in my book. He thinks he did the right thing based on the information he had on hand at the time. That's the best any of us can do... > Sure, general has to sacrifice good of one for the good of many (I > cringe when I type this sentence, to tell you the truth), BUT > Dumbledore not only a general, but an epithome of goodness in > GENERAL SENSE,according to JKR and a such should, IMO, at least TRY > to lessen the pain of one child, who is expected to save them all. I did not say that Harry had to be put in an abusive situation for the general good. First and foremost it was to save his life. And I fail to see what DD could have done to lessen Harry's suffering as a child without putting him at the risk of mortal danger or even worse abuse. Salit From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Mon Jan 3 09:13:25 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:13:25 -0000 Subject: Lupin's boggart (was: Remus and Sibyll sitting in a tree) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121032 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > >> So, why in OoP is it still called an orb? And in OoP, it seems to > turn into a puff of smoke rather than a cockroach? > And I wonder if the cockroach is completely unimportant since the > movie!boggart changed into a deflated balloon. Much funnier! > Renee: If the cockroach is completely unimportant because the movie!boggart changed into a balloon, the shape of Lupin's boggart is either 1) also completely important to the plot, or JKR would have seen to it that it remained more ambiguous in the movie 2)a full moon after all, because that's what it is in the movie, with clouds and all And why it is still called an orb in OoP? Perhaps because it's not really a full moon - it doesn't make Lupin transform. Or because to Harry, it's never more than an orb; after all, it's not his boggart. Renee From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 10:02:29 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:02:29 -0000 Subject: Moon orb? (was Remus, Sibyl and a lot of other stuff) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121033 > Julia here: > You know, while reading the posts about Lupin's boggart I thought it > can't be nothing else but moon too. But know I'm almost sure that it > can't be moon. Why? (apart from the fact that I can't understand why > he should be afraid of the moon... after so long it should be a > normal thing in his life...) I was surprised that no one has came up > with it yet (or maybe someone has?) > > The orb which we see in a scene in PoA can't be moon because it > doesn't affect Lupin in a way real moon affects him. According to > Harry's boggart - Dementor, it (boggart) behaves in the same way as > the real one. When Harry sees his boggart he can feel as if the real > Dementor was approaching. He hears the voices in his head and so > on... So why Lupin's boggart doesn't affect Lupin? Why he doesn't > change into a werewolf? It'd seem logical after all... Finwitch: I think it really WAS the Moon but it's very different from the REAL moon: it's present indoors, not up in the sky. It's also much smaller than the REAL moon, it didn't have Moon's gravity... It was just something that looked like a moon, but wasn't one. Both Boggart and Dementor try influence emotions, so I suppose it's easy enough. Nor did Harry's boggart attempt to admister the kiss - I think it can't - Boggarts cannot eat souls. Anyway, it's doubtful that Moon causes Lupin's transformation, as it may only indicate the time (which happens to be exactly one moon since the last time) of it. The Moon orbs Harry saw-- 3D maps of the moon, perhaps? Finwitch From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 10:09:32 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 10:09:32 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121034 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Del replies: > > ...edited... > > Here's the explanation : the core kids are Harry's friends, who are > basically the Weasley kids plus Hermione. They all believe Harry > without questioning, blindly : none of them has ever seen > ressucitated!LV or the DEs. And yet they are supposed to be the kids > who made the best choices. Why? Why is it good *for them only* to > believe their friend blindly? Why is it good *for them only* to > follow their parents? In short : why is it good for them to do > things that other kids have been berated for doing? > > ...edited... > > Del bboyminn: Del, you really seem to throw a lot of fat into the fire. I have to wonder if you were involved in the Debating Club at school, and just can't resist arguing the counterpoint for the sake of the counterpoint rather than a firm belief. Not that it really matters; you are very good at it, and stimulate some great discussions. While you make very good and reasonable arguements for the 'double standard', with a slightly adjusted perspective, they don't quite ring true. >From your original 'double standard' post- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ernie's parents believe DD so Ernie believes Harry : good. Seamus' mother believes Fudge so Seamus believes Fudge : bad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I don't think Seamus was supporting his mother or Frudge. My read of the orginal blow-up between Harry and Seamus was that Seamus was more than willing to give Harry a fair hearing. He had very little information about the events of the previous year, combined with all the unlikely and uncertain crap he was reading in the paper, and he thought the only fair thing to do was let Harry tell him what happened so he could make up his own mind. I suspect Seamus's intent was to support Harry, but Harry was so defensive and argumentative about it that he never gave Seamus a chance. Once Harry appear to attack Seamus's mother, Seamus became very defensive, and the whole thing spiraled out of control. From that point on, it wasn't about Voldemort anymore, it was about Harry and Seamus both being stubborn unreasonable jerks toward each other. So, Seamus was not blindly supporting Fudge, or taking a stand against Harry simply because his mother was. Another example- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cho learns to think by herself and doesn't do as her parents wish : good. Percy learns to think by himself and decides not to follow in his family's decisions : bad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This is a tougher one. First all the people who know Harry well are not 'blindly' following or believing him. The Weasley family have known Harry for years, and are probably closer to him than anyone. The newspaper's representation of Harry as an unreliable attention seeking prat would ring totally false to them. Since the position was promoted by the Ministry, and given the fact or belief that the Ministry tried to 'railroad' Harry, the paper and the Ministry had very low credibility. Harry on the other hand, to the knowledge of the Weasleys and Hermione, has always shunned the limelight and done his best to stay out of the public view. The paper and the Ministry's characterization of Harry would have rung totally false to those who knew him well. Plus, Dumbledore's belief in Harry would have lent great credibility to Harry story. In addition, Ron and Hermione, and to some extent the Weasleys heard the story and saw the results in greater detail than others did. They are basing their support of Harry on a great deal more knowledge than is available to the average wizard. Once the average wizard has that same knowledge via Rita's article, a great many of them come around to Harry's side. Percy, within reason, knew Harry well, and should have seen that Harry had no reason to lie about Voldemort's return. Further, he should have seen that the paper's characterization of Harry was inconsistent with his own experience. But Percy is a very ridgid and formal person, he truly 'blindly' followed the Ministry because they make the rules, and in Percy's ridgid mind, the rules rule. Harry's friends believed him because Harry's claims were completely consistent with is personality, and further, they could see the trama and stress he suffered. They had no reason to not to believe Harry. On the other hand, the newpaper and the Ministries version of events and their characterization of Harry was about as dodgy as it could possibly be. There would be no logical reason for anyone who knew Harry well to believe that crapola. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Percy fan and defender. Percy did the right thing, but he did the right thing blindly. He accepted a position that was counter to his own knowledge and experience with Harry, simply because that position was professed by people he admired. In addition, he was somewhat blinded by ambition. Personally, I think a great deal of the blame for the Percy fiasco falls on Arthur. Apparently, diplomacy is not a great skill in the wizard world. Certainly, Arthur could have play his hand much better. He could have started by congradulating Percy on his new promotion, then later, gradually worked in the possibility of a conflict of interest, then once that was established and sorted, gradually appealled to Percy's own knowledge of Harry. Percy could have certainly been brought around, or at least, acceptingly neutralized. But no, Arthur had to get into a great shouting match with him. I don't blame Percy for being pissed. In a sense, Arthur did to Percy what Harry did to Seamus, he got is back up and put him on the defensive before he had a chance to see the light. Once that secondary hostility entered the picture, it became the focus instead of a rational discussion of the real issues. As far as Luna, Luna believes so many unbelievable things that she, even by her own admission, doesn't have much credibility in the eyes of others. So, people's disbelief or lack of support for Luna is far from a double standard. One last point on the double standard, which actually refers to another thread in this group. Sorry I can't cite it, but I'm hopelessly behind, and have just been reading bit and pieces to get caught up. This is Umbridge's actions vs Hermione's actions. For example, Umbridge via the Dementor attack tried to (as good as) kill Harry; which we see as bad. Hermione tried to kill Umbridge (or so some assume) via the trip to the forest and the Centaurs; which we see as good. The difference was the Umbridge acted with offensive intent. She attacked an innocent person without provocation or legal justifications. Hermione on the other hand, acted in a defensive manner. She lured a ruthless and cruel person who admitedly tried to previously do great harm to Harry (Dementor attack) and who was about to attacking him again with a curse that was illegal and probably immoral. Defense against immenent threat vs unwaranted illegal unautorized attack. Plus, we don't know that Hermione intended the Centaurs to kill Umbridge. Reasonably, in the limited time she had to form the plan, Hemione thought the Centaur adventure would buy them some time, and at worst, provide them an opportunity to escape from Umbridge. And while the Centuars were outraged and incensed, the next morning Umbridge was still alive. That would imply that the Centaurs are not as murderous as they try to make themselves out to be. So, Umbridge's actions from beginning to end were assaultive, vicious, offensive attacks, whereas Hermione acted defensively against an the assault of an obviously unstable person. If you step in close and look at the examples in the narrowest possible view, it is possible to support your counterpoint of a seeming double standard, but if you step back and view the actions and people in a broader context, the true nature comes out. In that 'true nature' bad is deemed bad because it really is, and good, when all is said and done, really is. Just a counter to the counterpoint. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 3 11:09:41 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 11:09:41 -0000 Subject: Yet another DD Dursley thread (was Harsh Morality ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121035 > > Snow: > > this was Dumbledore's only choice given the sacrifice that Lily > > made; he could only expand on Lily's sacrifice and give even more protection to it. Was that a sacrifice in itself, yes! But it was a- worse-than-all-evils-choice. Dumbledore had less than 24 hours to combat what he thought had happened with what could eventually happen. Given the `gray' or unknown area Dumbledore had to face(the plan), of not knowing absolutely who was trustworthy, whom better than a muggle (and a giant)? And Dumbledore used them both wisely. > It worked so far because Harry isn't dead from abuse or any other > reason that could stem from abuse but overcame his upbringing and has defied Voldemort four times. > Lupinlore: > I said I wasn't going to get into this, but I'm afraid I can't let it go. Could you elaborate, Snow, on what you mean by this? I don't think you are saying that it's good that Harry was abused. In what way was Dumbledore's decision correct? Valky: Excuse me, all, as I intervene on this matter. I think that what Snow is actually saying, and yes I do agree, that in the 24hrs following Voldemorts vapourisation DD alone had to quickly consider what resources he had, the trust in him of the late Lily and James and all other OOtP people whom were close to them and cared for Harry, the danger that lay in the future and all in the face of knowing himself that the prohecy was only partially fulfilled, and hence that Voldemort would return to power someday. The wizard world was /not/ safe, Nevilles parents were attacked after Harry was placed at the Dursleys, the DE's were being rounded up for at least a year that we know of, following such. Now Dumbledore may not have been pleased to be the bearer of tidings that Harry Potter would be safe in the keep of a family of less than admirable muggle folk, but the fact is Harry *was* SAFE and DD himself couldn't make Harry safer than Lily already had. His decision was not so much *correct* as it was the *only* one that was any kind of guarantee, in a time were guarantees were few to non- existent. Lupinlore: > Surely he could have forced the Dursleys to act more > appropriately. And surely you don't mean to > imply that child abuse can EVER be a good thing, or it is ever > appropriate to put someone in an abusive household to "strengthen" > or "toughen" them. > Valky: I don't think that anyone *least of all JKR* is even remotely implying this. Though to some degree JKR I *think* implies, that the relatively harmless ego battering that Harry endures from the Dursley's is, in DD's mind, slightly favourable to the wanton corruption and mortal danger that he would have faced daily in the WW, as an equally loved and hated celebrity. Most importantly of all, IMO, Dumbledore gazed at the *big picture Harry* and endeavoured to ENSURE ABSOLUTELY his survival, though in hindsight he felt that it was regrettable decision. And ONLY the blood of Aunt Petunia could unblinkeringly GUARANTEE anything, anything else was a gamble, at any time of Harry's life. Lupinlore: > My problem is his inaction for ten years > thereafter. Surely once it became apparent that the DE threat was at least momentarily at bay there were more appropriate arrangements > that could have been made. Or given that he feared Voldemort's > return (and I readily grant he had no way, as far as we know, of > predicting when that might be) surely he had it within his power to force the Dursleys to behave more appropriately, not to mention he had it within his ability to provide more support for Harry from the Wizarding World. Valky: Here I partially agree with you, Lupinlore. But I am sure that DD *must* have had his reasons for needing to keep his distance. If it was essentially, just Dumbledore rationalising the possible cost of losing guaranteed protection for Harry weighed against one or two trivial matters in the Dursley household, and it may well have started that way.... and as the years passed each *minor* transgression by the Dursleys was weighed and measured to be not relative to the importance of Harry's life, before too long they added up and nine to ten years had passed.... by which time of course help was on it's way for Harry...... well if it was essentially this, it kind of makes sense. Dumbledore never intended to let it go on, but action just kept being rationalised away by the greater need for ensuring the boy stayed alive. As for visiting rights, well I seriously doubt any kind of visitation would have gone over well with the Dursleys, even if Remus or DD had showed up to Mrs Figgs for tea with Harry, surely the mere mention of it by Harry to Petunia and Vernon would have created chaos in the ranks and destabilised the situation and put Harry at risk of ousting. DD sealed Harry into Petunia's protection with a charm of his own, the advantage of Lily's great sacrifice made it possible, only once. If the Charm was broken by Petunia, if DD pushed her beyond the brink of her willing involvement just enough, for anything at all, the Charm couldn't be replaced. It was a once only deal, that guaranteed only one thing. Harry's physical survival. For however long DD felt Harry needed that guarantee, he could do nothing to jeopardise it. From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Mon Jan 3 12:02:44 2005 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 07:02:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta and Hermione (and Percy) (and C.S. Lewis) and Tonks and Molly, oh my In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <609C1B7F-5D7F-11D9-934C-000A95DC8A32@bellsouth.net> No: HPFGUIDX 121036 > Eggplant: > > > I believe C.S Lewis is dead wrong;sincerity is a vastly overrated > virtue. If a person does the right thing for the wrong reason it's > still the right thing, and if they do an evil thing for a sincere > reason it's still an evil thing... Barbara: I remember learning that ethics (Christian world view) is best addressed from three different angles. The first angle is the law(s) or principle(s) involved (and in real life the principals sometimes conflict.) The second angle a person's motives (or "sincere reason.") The third, I believe, angle is the end results arising from the choices made or the situation. Any choice which violates any of the three could be wrong. Impossible? Messy? Yes, but traditional Christianity doesn't get to alarmed since it sees imperfect mankind struggling in an impure world. It doesn't place much faith in the idea that we will always do the right thing, so that's why Christianity has a savior. I may be one of minority that doesn't completely discount that Dumbledore did leave Harry at the Dursleys so as to prevent him growing up to be a pampered little prince. It's not the only reason, but it figures in the decision. In OotP, we clearly see that Harry's father was spoiled. In PS/SS Minerva M. who knew James well has only a little trouble with swallowing that Harry needs to stay at the Dursleys. In all the books, Harry is repeatedly contrasted with two good examples of spoiled brats--Duddley and Draco. Harry, who is like his father, would be spoiled by too much admiration, so it was for Harry's own good to grow up with the Dursleys. And some may not like this, but it also a Christian principle that bad things sometimes (not always) happen and that God uses sometimes for our own good. Dumbledore seems to be divinely inspired from time to time, and makes decisions based on the larger picture. Barbara Roberts, who must now hurry to work [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 13:04:47 2005 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:04:47 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121037 > Del comments: > Ernie's parents believe DD so Ernie believes Harry : good. > Seamus' mother believes Fudge so Seamus believes Fudge : bad. > > Cho learns to think by herself and doesn't do as her parents wish : good. > Percy learns to think by himself and decides not to follow in his > family's decisions : bad. > > Draco doesn't question his family's traditions : bad. > Most of the Weasley children don't question their friend and family : > good. > > People don't believe in LV's resurrection : bad. > Hermione doesn't believe in heliopaths : good. > > Luna believes in crumpled-horned snorkacks : bad. > Luna believes in resurrection and life after death : good. > > See where I'm going ? > There are way too many double-standards being applied sometimes on > this list IMO. > Tammy: I'm weighing in on the discussion rather late, as I had little time to reply before this... I think what it ultimately comes down to is INTENT. ------------ > Ernie's parents believe DD so Ernie believes Harry : good. > Seamus' mother believes Fudge so Seamus believes Fudge : bad. ------------ Ernie, who knows Harry and trusts Harry, and probably trusts his parents, follows his instinct and supports Harry. The intent behind that is good, so the action is good. Seamus, as someone else pointed out, didn't get a chance to finish his thoughts, he reacted to Harry's insults (rightly so), by being defiant and going against what he probably really believed in his heart, so that was bad. I think that JKR, throughout all the books, is trying to show that good people do bad things (Fudge, Umbridge, Ron, Seamus, Dumbledore) and bad people do good things (Snape). Rather than looking at things in a strictly bad/good manner, things should be taken more as what their intent was. -Tammy From snow15145 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 15:02:05 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:02:05 -0000 Subject: Yet another DD Dursley thread (was Harsh Morality ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121038 > Snow previously: > > What a beautiful statement, Jen! I would like to add to that: that > this was Dumbledore's only choice given the sacrifice that Lily > made; he could only expand on Lily's sacrifice and give even more > protection to it. Was that a sacrifice in itself, yes! But it was a- > worse-than-all-evils-choice. Dumbledore had less than 24 hours to > combat what he thought had happened with what could eventually > happen. Given the `gray' or unknown area Dumbledore had to face (the > plan), of not knowing absolutely who was trustworthy, whom better > than a muggle (and a giant)? And Dumbledore used them both wisely. It > worked so far because Harry isn't dead from abuse or any other reason > that could stem from abuse but overcame his upbringing and has defied > Voldemort four times. Lupinlore: I said I wasn't going to get into this, but I'm afraid I can't let it go. Could you elaborate, Snow, on what you mean by this? I don't think you are saying that it's good that Harry was abused. In what way was Dumbledore's decision correct? Surely he could have forced the Dursleys to act more appropriately. And surely you don't mean to imply that child abuse can EVER be a good thing, or it is ever appropriate to put someone in an abusive household to "strengthen" or "toughen" them. I think I should elaborate a little bit on my own problems here. I have no trouble in agreeing to DD's decision to place Harry with the Dursleys initially. He had little time and did not know whom to trust, as you point out. Indeed, safety was a huge issue. The Longbottoms, after all, were presumably hidden and protected in every way available to the Order yet they were tortured into insanity AFTER Voldemort fell. My problem is his inaction for ten years thereafter. Surely once it became apparent that the DE threat was at least momentarily at bay there were more appropriate arrangements that could have been made. Or given that he feared Voldemort's return (and I readily grant he had no way, as far as we know, of predicting when that might be) surely he had it within his power to force the Dursleys to behave more appropriately, not to mention he had it within his ability to provide more support for Harry from the Wizarding World. Sirius was in prison, but why would periodic visits/checkups from Remus or even McGonagall have been out of the question, not to mention visits on his own initiative? I fail to see how the safety of the entire Wizarding World could possibly have been jeapordized to any great extent if proper safeguards were taken. (And if we refuse to take any risks at all with the safety of the Wizarding World, if the few are really to be sacrificed to the many, there is a ready answer -- just have a headsman standing by for every time the Sorting Hat calls out "Slytherin!"). >Snip< Remember, I am not talking about Dumbledore's INITIAL decision, but about his failure to intervene in all the succeeding years of Harry's suffering. His initial decision was clearly necessary to preserve Harry's life, but any decision not to intervene thereafter runs into much murkier waters. Surely giving the boy a little support from the WW and acting to restrain the Dursleys would not have turned him into a raving maniac, nor would it have significantly imperilled the Wizarding World. As I said above, that line of reasoning leads to killing everyone sorted into Slytherin on the philosophy that its better to strangle the serpents before they can develop poison glands. Snow: Dumbledore didn't place Harry with the Dursley's to be abused or to toughen him up but both were a product of his decision. Dumbledore also placed several protections with Harry when he left him other than the blood protection: Mrs. Fig, and her many spying cats that inform her, who was an Order member, was placed as an informant close by and I believe Mundungus looked out for Harry when he was not inside the Dursley's house. In fact, Dung may have had a hand in Harry managing to escape Dudley and his gang by ending up on the roof of the school kitchens. (Harry describes this scene as possibly being picked up by the wind) Harry has protection from physical abuse by Vernon whether Dumbledore placed that protection with Harry or not is uncertain but a real safeguard against physical abuse nonetheless. Petunia herself, to some degree, protects Harry when Vernon suggests calling Aunt Marge to watch Harry while they take Dudley to the zoo and Petunia's reply to this was "Don't be silly, Vernon, she hates the boy." If Petunia were ruthlessly abusive she wouldn't have given a second thought to handing Harry over to Aunt Marge. Could Dumbledore have removed Harry from the Dursley's after the major threat was over, yes! But that would have jeopardized the reasons Dumbledore had to place him with the Dursley's in the first place. Dumbledore himself could have looked after Harry except that he didn't want Voldemort to know that he and Harry had a relationship that was closer than Headmaster and pupil. We could also wonder why not place Harry with the Weasleys but then again look what happened to the Longbottoms after Voldemort himself was no longer a threat. Could Dumbledore have encouraged the Dursley's to treat Harry in any specific manner, I don't think so, considering that Dumbledore had to convince Petunia to accept Harry grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly and bitterly involving some unknown pact as part of the deal. If Dumbledore had attempted to impose restrictions on the Dursley's lifestyle Petunia may not have accepted Harry. As I had said before, I think Dumbledore chose the lesser of the two evils, so to speak, when considering the entire scope of Harry's protection. The Dursley's weren't the ideal place for Harry's childhood but that is where Lily's protection could be invoked which according to Dumbledore was the strongest shield he could give Harry. Voldemort himself realizes that when Harry is with the Dursley's not even he can touch him nor anyone else who wanted to cause him harm or they certainly would have done so. There may be more to Dumbledore's protection with the Dursley's other than the blood factor. Harry is still required to return to the Dursley's even after the blood protection factor had been penetrated by the use of Harry's blood so I would surmise that at least one other protection had been placed with Harry at the Dursley's. The Dursley's are like a catalyst to the original protections Dumbledore placed with Harry. To remove Harry at anytime after these protections were administered would be to endanger Harry. Dumbledore sent a howler to Petunia to remind her just how important it is that Harry remain with her and Harry has been reminded also, at the end of OOP, that he needs only return to the Dursley's, and yes there mistreatment, to engage these protections. In the end it was really Lily's sacrifice that determined Harry's fate in more than one way. Snow From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 3 15:26:31 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:26:31 -0000 Subject: Yet another DD Dursley thread (was Harsh Morality ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: Or given that he feared Voldemort's > return (and I readily grant he had no way, as far as we know, of > predicting when that might be) surely he had it within his power to force the Dursleys to behave more appropriately, not to mention he had it within his ability to provide more support for Harry from the Wizarding World. Sirius was in prison, but why would periodic visits/checkups from Remus or even McGonagall have been out of the question, not to mention visits on his own initiative? < Pippin: Force? Where I live, a teacher who suspects abuse is supposed to report it to the proper authorities. He certainly isn't supposed to intervene by threatening or forcing the parents to behave appropriately, and if he does, he himself becomes a criminal, at least in my country. Should Dumbledore have intervened anyway? Dumbledore has many enemies who would love to find out that he has been harrassing Muggles. Just think what Lucius Malfoy would make of that! The same goes for his deputy, McGonagall, and double for Remus Lupin, werewolf. And if Dumbledore did convince the WW that Harry was being treated so badly that intervention was justified, what would happen? They'd take Harry away from Privet Drive. Game over. Whether the proper authorities were ever notified, we don't know, but I am afraid a report from dotty old Mrs. Figg might not be taken very seriously. Still, IIRC, the time of Harry's longest incarceration in the cupboard corresponds with Mrs. Figg being incapacitated with a broken leg, does it not? She seems to have had some influence. Pippin From MWorth1019 at aol.com Mon Jan 3 13:38:00 2005 From: MWorth1019 at aol.com (mworth1019) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:38:00 -0000 Subject: Platform 9 3/4 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121040 How do the wizard/witch children of muggles figure out how to get onto Platform 9 3/4 on their first trip to Hogwarts? Harry lucked out and found the Wealsleys' but others may not be so lucky? I know that Hagrid tells Harry to "stick to his ticket" but that did not help much. -mworth From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 15:42:28 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:42:28 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121041 Here it is, the tragic Chapter 35. With thanks to Penapart Elf for some edits. Meri Chapter Discussion: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil The Death Eaters converge on Harry, Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Neville and Luna. Harry recognizes the voice of Lucius Malfoy, who demands the dusty orb that Harry has picked up from the shelf, but Harry demands to know where Sirius is. Harry quickly realizes that he's been tricked and that the DEs want the orb he's holding (Malfoy calls it a `prophecy' but Harry really doesn't know what that means). Bellatrix Lestrange tries to Accio the prophecy, but Harry stops her from taking it with another spell. Bellatrix suggests they torture Ginny to persuade Harry to give up the prophecy but Harry steps in front of Ginny with his wand up. Harry, trying to buy time, asks what the prophecy is about and the DEs laugh at him and taunt him because he doesn't know. Harry in turn taunts them, by both saying Voldemort's proper name and revealing to the Death Eaters that their leader is a half-blood - something Bellatrix reacts badly to, to say the least. She tries to curse Harry, Malfoy deflects it and in the process two prophecies are broken (one referring to something that will happen at the Solstice and one referring to the last of something). Harry gets the idea to smash the prophecy shelves to cover the kids' escape and tries to pass that on to the others while still buying time from the DEs, until Malfoy tells him that the prophecy is why he has his scar, which throws Harry off guard. Here Malfoy reveals that the only people who can "retrieve a prophecy from the Department of Mysteries" are the people they refer to (and also reveals that this is why Sturgis and Bode could not steal it for Voldemort), while Hermione and the others get ready to smash the shelves. Unable to wait any longer, Harry signals the others to fire their curses and several large bookshelves of prophecies come smashing down. The trio and friends run for their collective lives with the DEs in hot pursuit. Ron, Ginny and Luna overtake the others and the group gets separated after Harry, Hermione and Neville seal themselves into what we will later learn is the Time Room. They listen through the door as Malfoy organizes the DEs (and tells us the names of the ones with him: Nott [already injured and out of commission], Bellatrix, Rodolphus, Crabbe, Rabastan, Jugson, Dolohov, Macnair, Avery, Rookwood, and Mulciber). Harry, Hermione and Neville have barely concealed themselves under desks when a pair of DEs burst through the door, and the Battle of the Department of Mysteries, the opening skirmish of the Second War, begins in earnest. Harry takes out the first Death Eater and then Hermione, with Neville's help, manages to incapacitate the second (the one who gets his head stuck in the bell jar). The kids try to barricade themselves in an office, but another pair of DEs take them down with well placed Impedimenta spells. Harry stuns one of them with the Full Body Bind, but the other, silenced by one of Hermione's spells, casts one at her and knocks her unconscious. Harry fears that she may be dead, and as Neville crawls over to help the silent DE kicks him, breaking his wand and his nose. (This DE is recognized by Harry to be Antonin Dolohov - the one responsible for killing the Prewetts, Molly's brothers.) Harry knocks him out with a Full Body Bind and then he and Neville bend over Hermione. They are relieved to discover that she is still alive. Harry tries to get Neville to take Hermione and run for the lift, but Neville refuses; he wants to stay with Harry. He also tells Harry that Gran is going to kill him: the broken wand was once his father's. They end up back in the Door Room where they are reunited with Ginny (who has broken an ankle), Luna (who is unharmed), and Ron (who is bleeding from the mouth and has gone a bit giggly). The others have been fighting off DEs in a Planet Room. Ginny tries to walk herself, but ends up accepting help from Luna. Harry carries Ron and Neville carries Hermione as they try and figure out which door will take them to the lifts. But they wait too long - Bellatrix bursts in and the kids take refuge in the Brain Room. Harry, Neville and Luna try to seal off the doors but are not fast enough. Luna is knocked out by a spell from one of the entering DEs and Ron Accios a couple brains at him, which proceed to try and choke him. Harry and Ginny try to free Ron from the brains, but Ginny is taken out by a spell from the DEs, leaving Harry and Neville alone against the remaining DEs. Harry leads the DEs away from the Brain Room and accidentally ends up in the room with the archway and the veil, where he is promptly surrounded by DEs. Neville tries to come to Harry's rescue, but he is captured and recognized by Bellatrix, who taunts him about his parents. She tortures Neville with the Cruciatus Curse, but Neville, fighting mightily, begs Harry not to give up the prophecy. Harry is just about to give the orb to Malfoy when a real rescue arrives: Kingsley Shacklebolt, Mad-Eye Moody, Tonks, Professor Lupin and Sirius. Harry reaches Neville but is grabbed by a DE, who turns out to be Macnair. Neville stabs him in the eye with Hermione's wand and Harry Stupefies him. The battle goes up another notch; Mad-Eye and Tonks are both down for the count and Dolohov tries to relieve Harry of the prophecy. Sirius stops him, but not before Neville is hit with a spell that makes his legs dance. Sirius urges Harry to take Neville and run, but Malfoy grabs Harry and demands the prophecy. Harry throws it to Neville. Malfoy is knocked away by one of Harry's spells. As Harry tries to drag Neville away from the fray, the still dancing Neville drops the prophecy and it gets smashed on the stone floor. A very familiar figure bursts out of it, though neither boy can hear what she is saying. Dumbledore enters the scene now and relief floods through Harry. Dumbledore easily cleans up the still active DEs, but one pair is still battling: Sirius and his cousin Bellatrix. He taunts her and she hits him square in the chest with a curse. He falls, slowly to Harry, through the veil on the dais in the center of the room. Harry rushes to his aid but Lupin catches him. As Harry struggles to reach his fallen godfather Lupin tells him it is useless: "He's gone." Discussion Questions: 1) Before the release of the book, JKR told us that someone close to Harry would die, and in this chapter we are presented with several red herrings about who it might be (Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Neville). Might the injuries they sustained during this battle foreshadow later events? Did you think, before reading the book, that is, that Sirius would be the one to die? What kind of repercussions do you think his death will have on future plot lines? Christian allegories aside, what exactly is behind the veil? 2) Where was Mr. Goyle? Almost every other Death Eater from the resurrection scene from GOF was present during the battle, so where was he? Was he simply too incompetent to take on a mission of this importance? Or did Mr. Goyle displease Voldemort in some way? How will this affect Gregory Goyle's relationship with Draco Malfoy, whose father has just been outed as a Death Eater? Does this mean that Theodore Nott will be rising to new prominence in Malfoy's circle? 3) For that matter, where the heck was Peter Pettigrew? Did Voldemort worry that Peter's life-debt to Harry would be a hindrance to him on this mission? 4) What was Bellatrix so mad about? Was it because Harry said the name? Or because she didn't know about LV's real parantage? Do the Death Eaters really not know that Voldemort is a half-blood? How can he keep that concealed from them if Malfoy at least knows his true identity, Tom Riddle? How will this revelation affect the Death Eaters and their reverence and fear for Voldemort? 5) Azkaban clearly drove Bellatrix over the edge, but she is also quite clearly a powerful witch. What kind of spell do you think she used to take out Sirius? It wasn't Avada Kedavra, so maybe it was something that the Death Eaters only know? The spells they used during the battle were mostly nonlethal and Harry and the others seemed a good match for them. Does this bode well for the training Harry gave them in the DA? 6) This has been discussed before, but what significance, if any, do those other prophecies have? What kind of valuable information was lost when the kids broke the shelves? How foolproof are the recording procedures at the Department of Mysteries? Malfoy very specifically says that only the people to whom the prophecies pertain can remove them from the Department, not the shelves. Is this why Neville could handle the prophecy? Does he still have a part to play in this? 7) Neville showed some impressive skills and more bravery in this scene than in anything else he has done before. Is Timid!Neville gone for good? How do you think his experience of the Cruciatus Curse will affect him? If he gets a new wand what will it be made of? What part will he play in future events? If Harry is the heir, is Neville the spare? 8) Is the Time Room the place where McGonagall got Hermione's Time Turner? Is her Time Turner one of the ones that smashed in the cabinet? Do Time Turners have the ability to remember where they've been turned to? For example, can Hermione's Time Turner remember her classes and the night at the Shreiking Shack? What was being studied the Planet Room? How will the Battle in the DoM affect the work that goes on there? 9) When Ron got attacked by the brains I thought his number was up. Whose brain was it that tried to strangle him? What is the Department of Mysteries doing with the brains? Do you think Ron or Ginny know about Dolohov being the one who murdered their uncles Gideon and Fabian? How do you think they will react if they ever see Dolohov face to face? And how about that Ginny? Did you really expect her to have such guts? 10) Many people have used Harry's protectiveness to Hermione in this chapter as an indication that he likes her as more than a friend. How do you think this chapter presents the various SHIPS? Harry also stands in front of Ginny when she is threatened. Does this indicate that he has feelings for her? Or is there simply too much vague evidence? (I have no agenda with this one, just curious!) Questions, comments, thoughts? Meri 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 TheMuffinMan0311 at comcast.net Mon Jan 3 14:38:03 2005 From: TheMuffinMan0311 at comcast.net (Chris O'Toole) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:38:03 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] McGonagall Head of House for Marauders? (Re: Peter Pettigrew's House) References: Message-ID: <41D958CB.000001.03352@H-8996CPR4VQ2YL> No: HPFGUIDX 121042 -------Original Message------- From: frugalarugala Date: 01/02/05 19:51:29 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] McGonagall Head of House for Marauders? (Re: Peter Pettigrew's House) > > Jen Reese wrote: >" If all that's true, it begs the question: Why does Snape act so > partial to his own house, from what we've seen ;)? Surely he loved > seeing the Marauders punished, yet he pretends not to see his own > Quidditch team hexing players in the hallways. You'd think it would > be the opposite and he would have an over-developed sense of > justice, but no." >Frug replied: "Ah, but the Marauders weren't punished--they were winked at and >popular. And Slytherins are assumed villians, at least by the people >Harry associates with, as he was by the Marauders. His own after >school experiance has only confirmed that Slytherins are default villans and get no credit, since he didn't for his role during the >war. He was on the good guys side and is STILL seen as the evil, >greasy git, so even his own personal experiance is still that Slytherins are the underdogs and need to be protected." The Muffin Man, Actually, Frug, what I believe Jen was pointing out (though correct me if I m wrong) is that due to his childhood, constantly picked on and made fun of, Snape would be traumatized into some kind of "Vigilante-Justice-force" and do anything to stop anything happening to others that had happened to him.. no matter what house they're in. Though I do see your exellent point that he feels that the underdogs, much like how he was as a child, must be protected from those "Bullying Gryffindors". I just thought that he would have a sense of justice for any perpatrator, but I guess Snape is using his time at hogwarts to punish the entire house of Gryffindor, since he can't have direct revenge against is own childhood "Bully's" Now that I've read my whole paragraph, I just realized that this was one giant waste of space... I pretty much didnt do anything except state my opinion and then disproove it, myself... I hate when I do that. Oh well. 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 TheMuffinMan0311 at comcast.net Mon Jan 3 15:19:00 2005 From: TheMuffinMan0311 at comcast.net (Chris O'Toole) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 10:19:00 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Double standards and believing References: Message-ID: <41D96264.000001.03580@H-8996CPR4VQ2YL> No: HPFGUIDX 121043 -------Original Message------- From: Steve Date: 01/03/05 05:10:43 To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Double standards and believing --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" delwynmarch at y... "bboyminn wrote: This is Umbridge's actions vs Hermione's actions. For example, Umbridge via the Dementor attack tried to (as good as) kill Harry; which we see as bad. Hermione tried to kill Umbridge (or so some assume) via the trip to the forest and the Centaurs; which we see as good. The difference was the Umbridge acted with offensive intent. She attacked an innocent person without provocation or legal justifications. Hermione on the other hand, acted in a defensive manner. She lured a ruthless and cruel person who admitedly tried to previously do great harm to Harry (Dementor attack) and who was about to attacking him again with a curse that was illegal and probably immoral. Defense against immenent threat vs unwaranted illegal unautorized attack. Plus, we don't know that Hermione intended the Centaurs to kill Umbridge. Reasonably, in the limited time she had to form the plan, Hemione thought the Centaur adventure would buy them some time, and at worst, provide them an opportunity to escape from Umbridge. " The Muffin Man: Sorry for this short, and over-all pointless post, but one thing I'd like to add to the comment about Umbridge Vs. Hermione. I agree entirely that hermione had no intention at all of killing Umbridge. When Umbridge goes all crazy and starts shouting at the centaurs, Hermione repeatedly tried to tell Umbridge to shut up, knowing that this would agrivate the centaurs with the talk of "Half-breeds" and "Near human intellegence". And even screamed when Umbridge wipped out her wand and tied up one of the centaurs, knowing that this would lead to trouble... Due to Hermiones actions inside the forest, you can clearly guess that, although Hermione was purposefully talking loudly and making noises to attract the centaurs, she had no original intent on killing Umbridge. And I m not even sure she even meant to harm umbridge in any way, maybe she simply wanted to have the centaurs chase her away and forget they were there... 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 willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 3 16:06:26 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:06:26 -0000 Subject: Goyle, Nott and Pettigrew (Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121044 meriaugust wrote:> > 2) Where was Mr. Goyle? Almost every other Death Eater from the > resurrection scene from GOF was present during the battle, so where > was he? Was he simply too incompetent to take on a mission of this > importance? Or did Mr. Goyle displease Voldemort in some way? How > will this affect Gregory Goyle's relationship with Draco Malfoy, > whose father has just been outed as a Death Eater? Does this mean > that Theodore Nott will be rising to new prominence in Malfoy's > circle? Potioncat: We know he wasn't there, unless of course JKR was playing with us and Jugson turns out to be Goyle. And there would be some reason for our not knowing. But taking it on face value that he wasn't there: If Malfoy chose the team, he may have left one of his thugs behind to protect Malfoy Manor. I've always assumed Crabbe and Goyle work for Malfoy.(Come to think of it, that's a big assumption.) If LV chose the team, I don't have any idea. Another question is, why the heck was Nott there? Whatever his role was before, (a role he apparantly didn't do too well) he hardly seems the type for a battle! Even if LV didn't expect a battle, what did he expect Nott to do? Theo doesn't seem to be any closer to Draco in OoP...We only see him with Draco once, when Harry's article about the graveyard came out. We see the usual trio just before the end of school when Draco and Harry start to duel. But Theo isn't with them. Of course, Theo could be at St.Mungo's visiting his father. Mariaugust: > 3) For that matter, where the heck was Peter Pettigrew? Did > Voldemort worry that Peter's life-debt to Harry would be a hindrance to him on this mission? Potioncat: I wonder how much Malfoy or the other DEs trust him? Even LV knows Pettigrew's motivation is fear. Not a likely choice for an important mission at the DoM. Nice job on the discussion! From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Jan 3 16:20:22 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:20:22 -0000 Subject: Yet another DD Dursley thread (was Harsh Morality ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121045 Lupinlore: > As to the idea that DD was preserving a weapon or arranging things so > Harry would not be arrogant, IMO those are also non-starters, given a > Good Dumbledore. The only moral reason for his decision is to > preserve Harry's individual life. Sorry, but when push comes to > shove all "the good of the many" stuff just doesn't cut it. Jen: I'm not convinced Dumbledore felt he was making a Good decision when he left Harry with the Dursleys, but I am convinced at the time he felt like he was making the Right decision for both Harry and the WW. There were very compelling reasons for Dumbledore to keep Harry away from the WW until he was old enough to start making decisions for himself, i.e., 11 years old. Harry chose, completely on his own, to attend Hogwarts. And he did that without knowing anything about being prophecy boy, or that the weight of the WW was resting on him. To raise Harry in the WW was the equivalent of taking away all his choices in Dumbledore's eyes. And yes, I believe for Dumbledore that is the most heinous of crimes. Raising Harry in the WW would be truly turning him into a weapon. The chance that Harry would be manipulated into doing what Dumbledore and others expected of him was enormous that way. The DE's were shocked in OOTP that Harry had no clue about the prophecy. In their minds, Harry would already know long before age 15 that his only purpose in life was being groomed to defeat Voldemort. He was spared that cruelty by Dumbledore's choice, even though he was forced to endure another type if cruelty at the Dursleys (more on that below). I didn't state it exactly right in my previous post, but I don't believe Dumbledore *sacrificed* Harry for the good of the many. Instead, he believed both were important, that to be truly compassionate one must love the individual human beings while attempting to improve the condition of humanity at the same time. Lupinlore: > Now, I'm hoping rather against hope we are going to discover that > Petunia and/or Vernon drove an incredibly stiff bargain that prevent > DD from acting. That is, that DD was in effect restrained against > his will. I don't have warm fuzzies on that one, though. Jen: It is clear the Dursleys felt their main job in raising Harry was to knock all the magic out of him. They seem to honestly believe this is not only Good for Harry, but also their moral obligation. And when the owls start arriving with letters to Hogwarts, it's quite obvious that the Dursleys never, ever expected to have anything to do with the WW again. They are shocked, enraged, defensive and desperate in their attempts to keep Harry away from Hogwarts and magic away from everyone. In my mind it's clear the Dursleys would only accept Harry if they were able to raise him as they chose, i.e, by erasing the WW and all mention of magic forever. Jen From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 16:21:42 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:21:42 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (and Percy) (and C.S. Lewis) and Tonks and Molly, oh my In-Reply-To: <609C1B7F-5D7F-11D9-934C-000A95DC8A32@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121046 Barb Roberts wrote: > remember learning that ethics (Christian > world view) is best addressed from three > different angles. The first angle is the law In a perfect world ethics and the law would be identical, but in reality this never happens and sometimes the two are not even similar. > The second angle a person's motives As I said before I think motives are irrelevant, or nearly so. > The third, I believe, angle is the end > results arising from the choices This is the only really important one of the three because maximizing for this one is the path to a better world, and that's what's important. > we clearly see that Harry's father was spoiled. That is not clear at all, even kids who were not spoiled can do bad things. Harry's father had character flaws but we don't know the cause of those flaws. Spoiled kids tend to be a bit wimpy and although James had his faults being weak was not one of them. Eggplant From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Jan 3 16:38:35 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:38:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121047 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > > 1) Before the release of the book, JKR told us that someone close to > Harry would die, > Did you think, before reading the book, that is, that > Sirius would be the one to die? Hickengruendler: No, I didn't. The first time when I thought about Sirius, was when I read a spoiler, in which was mentioned, that Lupin told to Harry, that X is dead. Nothing was mentioned about the dead character, not even the gender, but the fact that it was Lupin who told Harry, made me automatically think of Sirius. Other than that I didn't even consider him. But one of my closest friends did. He said that for the storyline, it would make sense if Harry loses his father figure when he's around 15 or 16. > What kind of repercussions do you > think his death will have on future plot lines? Christian allegories > aside, what exactly is behind the veil? Hickengruendler: I can't put Christian allegories aside in this question, because I think that's what it is. It's the Department of Mysteries after all, and I think everything there must be seen metaphorically. The veil is IMO just a metapher for the barrier between Life and Afterlife. > 2) Where was Mr. Goyle? Almost every other Death Eater from the > resurrection scene from GOF was present during the battle, so where > was he? Was he simply too incompetent to take on a mission of this > importance? Or did Mr. Goyle displease Voldemort in some way? How > will this affect Gregory Goyle's relationship with Draco Malfoy, > whose father has just been outed as a Death Eater? Does this mean > that Theodore Nott will be rising to new prominence in Malfoy's > circle? > > 3) For that matter, where the heck was Peter Pettigrew? Did > Voldemort worry that Peter's life-debt to Harry would be a hindrance > to him on this mission? Hickengruendler: I'll put these two questions together. I think there are two explanations one withhin the storyline and one from JKR's point of view. I think that the explanation within the storyline is that Voldemort didn't think all his Death Eaters are needed and therefore he only sent a few of them to the DoM. And JKR obviously didn't want every Death Eater in Azkaban at this point, even if they will escape. Of course Goyle senior might still be brought to Azkaban, since Harry accused him in his interview and now everybody believes Harry. But I am sure the main reason Pettigrew wasn't there is because he has an important part to play in HBP and JKR couldn't have him in Azkaban at the beginning of the book. Or he wasn't there because JKR didn't want to prove Sirius innocence right now. And no, I don't think Theodore Nott will rise to more prominence in Malfoy's circle. Seeing that Malfoy and the others left the wounded Nott in the DoM, I wouldn't be surprised if Nott won't get along with Malfoy at all. > 5) Azkaban clearly drove Bellatrix over the edge, but she is also > quite clearly a powerful witch. What kind of spell do you think she > used to take out Sirius? It wasn't Avada Kedavra, so maybe it was > something that the Death Eaters only know? The spells they used > during the battle were mostly nonlethal and Harry and the others > seemed a good match for them. Does this bode well for the training > Harry gave them in the DA? Hickengruendler: I think the spells weren't lethal and the DA members were a match for them, because the Death Eaters couldn't risk to damage the prophecy. The kids are not yet in their league, but I am sure that will have changed during the climax of book 7, when Voldie and his army will attack Hogwarts and the DA will fight them, and ... *ups*, currently that's still my hope, not yet a fact. > > 6) This has been discussed before, but what significance, if any, do > those other prophecies have? What kind of valuable information was > lost when the kids broke the shelves? How foolproof are the > recording procedures at the Department of Mysteries? Malfoy very > specifically says that only the people to whom the prophecies > pertain can remove them from the Department, not the shelves. Is > this why Neville could handle the prophecy? Does he still have a > part to play in this? Hickengruendler: I don't think the other prophecies have any importance for the storyline. Of course the kids might have destroyed some important informations for the wizarding world, but not for us readers ;-). I think what Malfoy meant is that only these people the prophecy is about can remove it from the shelf. After all, he nearly told Harry to give him the prophecy. He wouldn't have done this, if he knew that Harry has to remove it from the DoM. Therefore I think Neville could touch the prophecy becaus eit was removed from the shelf. But I do think that the fact that it was Neville who was with Harry and touched the prophecy again is some foreshadowing and that Neville has some role to play concerning the prophecy. I think it meant Harry and that Harry will defeat Voldemort in the end, but I also think that Neville is still more involved in the prophecy storyline, than we currently know. > > 7) Neville showed some impressive skills and more bravery in this > scene than in anything else he has done before. Is Timid!Neville > gone for good? How do you think his experience of the Cruciatus > Curse will affect him? If he gets a new wand what will it be made > of? What part will he play in future events? If Harry is the heir, > is Neville the spare? Hickengruendler: I'll contradict you and propose, that Neville showed exactly the bravery in this scene that he has shown since book 1. In the first book, he fought Crabbe and Goyle, and now he fights the Death Eaters, although he wasn't a match for either of them. Of course the Death Eaters are more dangerous than Crabbe and Goyle, but I think Neville's bravery was the same. He showed amounts of bravery in every book, except maybe CoS, where he hardly appeared. I don't think timid Neville is gone, he still seemed to me the same in the scene in the hospital wing in the last chapter, where he hardly talked. I think the importance about the Cruciatus Curse is that he faced it. Some fans think, that Neville will sacrifice himself in the end to prove once and for all, that he's a Gryffindor, but I disagree. The real sacrifice for him was to be put under the Cruciatus Curse. This is worse for him than death, because of what happened to his parents. It wasn't the Avada Kedavra Curse where he nearly broke down in class, it was Cruciatus. Now that he faced and survived it, he will without a doubt be stronger. > 9) When Ron got attacked by the brains I thought his number was up. > Whose brain was it that tried to strangle him? What is the > Department of Mysteries doing with the brains? Do you think Ron or > Ginny know about Dolohov being the one who murdered their uncles > Gideon and Fabian? How do you think they will react if they ever see > Dolohov face to face? And how about that Ginny? Did you really > expect her to have such guts? Hickengruendler: I think they are sort of analysizing the brains, to solve the mystery of "Intelligence". But I have no idea what exactly they are doing or if JKR will ever answer this question. I did not think that Ron will die, because I thought, and still think, that Ron and Hermione are as important for the storyline than Harry and therefore won't die before the climax of book 7, if they die at all. I must admit I can't really remembering what Ginny did in this chapter, except that her ankle was broken by a Death Eater. Generally I thought her development in OotP was too rushed and unsatisfying. IMO, JKR did a much better job with Neville's or McGonagall's development. > > 10) Many people have used Harry's protectiveness to Hermione in this > chapter as an indication that he likes her as more than a friend. > How do you think this chapter presents the various SHIPS? Harry also > stands in front of Ginny when she is threatened. Does this indicate > that he has feelings for her? Or is there simply too much vague > evidence? (I have no agenda with this one, just curious!) Hickengruendler: I think this chapter doesn't present us with the ships at all. Of course Harry was frightened for Hermione's safety and was worried when she got wounded. She's one of his best friends after all. You could say that it's a Harry/Ginny moment when he stepped in front of Ginny when Bellatrix wanted to torture her. But I find those interpretations downright insulting for Harry, as if he wouldn't care for his friends but only for a possible love interest. Hickengruendler From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 3 16:40:33 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:40:33 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121048 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: Meri: > Here I think the issue should not be sticking to one's > convictions, but more along the lines of what the character values. > Percy, OTOH, puts his career and personal ambitions ahead > of his family. He insults his father, ignores his mother and all > because, like Fudge, holding on to his job is most important to him. > I applaud Percy for sticking to his guns and doing what he thought > was right. But what he did was for his own personal gain. Geoff: Percy has got every right to hold his own opinions, but,,,, that does /not/ give him the right to rubbish his father's opinions, to cause great distress to Molly, to attempt to turn Ron against Harry, to be a sycophant when Crouch tries to humiliate both Dumbledore and Harry at the Ministry hearing........ Del: > > Draco doesn't question his family's traditions : bad. Meri: > Ron might not initially question his family's values, but he > does modify them a bit. The Weasleys have passed down the some of > the same prejudices to their children (about werewolves and giants, > for instance) but he has come to learn the truth about these beings. > He is willing to learn from others, something Draco doesn't seem to > be that big on. Plus it isn't bad that Draco doesn't question his > father, it is that what his father teaches him is bad. Geoff: Draco has no siblings and has had little contact with anyone other that Lucius' friends - the Crabbes and Goyles. So he has little in the way of a benchmark against which he can his behaviour, Meri: This is a convention that happens in the real world, too. For > instance, millions, well billions of people profess faith in God, an > afterlife of some kind and many other things that are accepted as > mainstream religion, things for which there is no factual basis. Geoff: As a Christian I would disagree strongly with you over that, looking at the historical facts about Christ, Meri: > First off, Harry being a parselmouth should have anything do > do with anything. Being a parselmouth does not make one evil and > Harry did not choose to have this ability. Geoff; Agreed. But the fact is that being a Parselmouth has a history of being a talent of folk who are allied to Slytherin and his beliefs, so I can understand that it would cause folk to take a long look at Harry... From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 3 16:50:42 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:50:42 -0000 Subject: Theo Nott/MalfoyRe: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121049 >>> Hickengruendler: snip And no, I don't think Theodore Nott will rise to more prominence in Malfoy's circle. Seeing that Malfoy and the others left the wounded Nott in the DoM, I wouldn't be surprised if Nott won't get along with Malfoy at all. Potioncat: But how will Nott know? If his father is well enough to remember that, he could tell him. Assuming Theo is allowed to visit his father. (And I think that is uncertain.) But the only other way would be for one of the DA members to tell him. It is possible that Theo has some classes with DA members that Harry doesn't have. But I would think there would be a distance, particularly now. Potioncat From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 3 16:52:39 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:52:39 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121050 > > Tonks here: > > JKR is a Christian writer telling us a story with deep moral > meaning. Whenever I say this, no one believes me.< Pippin: I do! Tonks: But now I see that some of you are coming around to the fact. SO at the risk of being blown out of the waters again let me say this: > > The black and white ending.. is the ending that we are told God will judge each of us by at the end of our life. Only one.. the one that JKR has mentioned over and over... LOVE. < Pippin: Exactly. At the end of the books we are still going to be arguing over who was good and who was evil, IMO, because that has to do with our personal values, which may or may not coincide with JKR's. But I think she has made it very clear that it is important to have values and that the people you should trust most are the ones who share them. This is what Dumbledore advises us that our choices show. Not whether we are good or evil, because ultimately that choice does not rest with any human. But what our values are. No more. No less. Hermione should not have trusted the centaurs, because their choices, not their laws, should have shown her what they were. But people can only be judged by their choices if you let them choose freely. The reason Hermione should not have trusted Marietta was because she'd been forced to come to the meetings. Marietta's choices could not show what she was, because she hadn't been allowed to make them herself. Good and evil may be absolute, but they are not determinative for a Christian, are they? The harshness is obviated by the surety of salvation. Believe in the redemptive power, and your darkest sins will be washed away, even cruely to innocents--reject it and your noblest deeds will not save you. Right? (I am not Christian and this is just my general understanding of Christian beliefs, so please forgive me if I am misrepresenting them, and understand I am not trying to preach.) >From JKR's god's eye view of the story, then, Dumbledore is goodness, not because he always makes the right choices, but because he always recognizes the redemptive power, Love, as the highest one. In the Potterverse, Love isn't just the tip of the metaphysical pyramid, as Nora put it. It's the whole enchilada. Pippin From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 3 16:58:14 2005 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:58:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121051 Meri wrote: > 1) Did you think, before reading the book, that is, that > Sirius would be the one to die? What kind of repercussions do you > think his death will have on future plot lines? > Hannah: Great questions, well done Meri! I suspected either Sirius or Lupin would die, because the death of either would have a profound effect on Harry, without massively altering the set-up for the next two books. The death of Sirius makes the whole battle more personal to Harry - even though LV killed his parents, I think Harry will be worse affected by losing Sirius, simply because he was so young when his parents died. It also gives Harry reason to be angry with DD/ Snape/ perhaps other members of the Order (why didn't Lupin and co. stop Sirius accompanying them?) > 3) For that matter, where the heck was Peter Pettigrew? Did > Voldemort worry that Peter's life-debt to Harry would be a hindrance > to him on this mission? Hannah: Pettigrew is meant to be dead. LV didn't want to enter the Ministry himself for that very reason. I assume that's why they didn't use PP for the mission. If he was shown to be alive, then DD has been proved right about the whole Sirius business, adding credence to his 'LV has returned claims.' While there are other DE's to do the work (probably better), LV isn't going to risk PP getting recognised. Unless he was there, in his other form... > 5) Azkaban clearly drove Bellatrix over the edge, but she is also > quite clearly a powerful witch. What kind of spell do you think she > used to take out Sirius? It wasn't Avada Kedavra, so maybe it was > something that the Death Eaters only know? The spells they used > during the battle were mostly nonlethal and Harry and the others > seemed a good match for them. Does this bode well for the training > Harry gave them in the DA? Hannah: It's always bothered me that the Death Eaters - supposedly the most terrifying and evil wizards around - are fighting using hexes that Harry and his friends have been chucking around since the second year, often unpunished. 'Tarantallegra' for goodness sake! I never thought the spell used by Bella killed Sirius, it was just that the force of it knocked him through the veil, which did kill him. It was probably Stupefy (that has red light). > 6) Malfoy very > specifically says that only the people to whom the prophecies > pertain can remove them from the Department, not the shelves. Is > this why Neville could handle the prophecy? Does he still have a > part to play in this? Hannah: I never even noticed the significance of that. Neville definitely has a part to play, along with Harry. I still wonder if, at the end, Neville will turn out to be 'the one' after all. That would be a typical JKR twist. Perhaps Harry will sacrifice himself to allow Neville to go on and defeat LV? > 10) Many people have used Harry's protectiveness to Hermione in this > chapter as an indication that he likes her as more than a friend. > How do you think this chapter presents the various SHIPS? Harry also > stands in front of Ginny when she is threatened. Does this indicate > that he has feelings for her? Or is there simply too much vague > evidence? (I have no agenda with this one, just curious!) Hannah: I've never been very interested in SHIPPING. I don't think Harry's behaviour has much significance in terms of relationships here. He just wants to defend his friends. I think attributing his protectiveness towards one character or another to his fancying them takes something away from his concern and guilt for all of the friends he led there. From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Mon Jan 3 16:59:35 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:59:35 -0500 Subject: C. S. Lewis and Potterverse Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501031200466.SM01064@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 121052 > "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > > IIRC, C.S. Lewis made it very clear, both in Narnia and in The > > Screwtape Letters, that (in his religion), it is not at all morally > > important whether a person's belief is correct; the only moral > > importance is if the belief is sincere > > Eggplant: > I believe C.S Lewis is dead wrong; sincerity is a vastly > overrated virtue. If a person does the right thing for the > wrong reason it's still the right thing, and if they do an > evil thing for a sincere reason it's still an evil thing. > Usamah Bin Laden is not a fraud, I think he believes in every > word he says as do most of the worst monsters on this planet. > I'll take someone who is insincerely right of someone > sincerely wrong any day . Vivamus: I must have missed the post by Catlady in all the traffic lately (although I did see her excellent long comment on a number of things a couple of days back,) but I believe you are both reacting to something C. S. Lewis did not actually write. (Wait, list elves, hold that blowtorch, and we'll bend this back to canon before we're done.) While C. S. Lewis wrote strongly against what is called "cheap grace," he also wrote that it is the nature of grace to be gracious, and forgiveness is a larger blanket than most Christians are willing to accept. He absolutely stated that there is a right and a wrong side, and there is no crossing from one side to the other except by the single doorway. He also rejected in strongest terms the heresy (which we get from Schleiermacher) that it does not matter what one believes, as long as one is sincere. (See The Great Divorce for a couple of excellent illustrations of being sincerely wrong, including a "Christian" theologians' study group in hell.) (The Screwtape Letters are also fairly well-filled with attempts to get the target to sincerely follow the wrong course.) What Lewis *did* do that is quite unusual for Christian theologians, and may indeed have had an affect upon JKR's writing, is to show that there may be circumstances in which those who are not in fact "in the right" are brought in, to THEIR surpise, because their sincere relationship was with the Right even though they did not realize it. That flies in the face of most conservative interpretaions of Scripture, but not, IMO, of Scripture itself. It would definitely be OT to go into that very interesting discussion here, so let's get back to canon (and I apologize to those of differing faiths who wonder what the heck C. S. Lewis might have to do with JKR canon.) JKR expresses a value system that I think does not reflect a strictly Calvinist view of the universe, although she is, I have heard, a confessing member of the Church of Scotland. The strongest area in which I see a difference is in the emphasis upon choice. Harry has a destiny, but he won't achieve it without the free exercise of his will -- and he could still fail altogether (even though we know JKR won't let him.) Predestination is real, but is based on foreknowledge, not predetermination. C. S. Lewis opened the doorway to a larger understanding of the whole free will vs. predetermination debate with his illustrations of the Creator speaking in heart whispers more than firey skywriting. Those who hear the heart whispers are NOT always those who we think should hear them, and sometimes are those whom the rest of us think shouldn't hear them at all. In the Narnia series, for example, the young man of the pagan kingdom to the south was brought in to the stable -- not because he was sincere, but because his relationship was with the Right, even though he thought it was known by another name. (That's overly simplistic, but it does make a great deal of sense in context.) It is this understanding that I see in JKR's canon. Applying the above to canon, IF predermination were the model JKR uses for destiny, then time travel either would be impossible, or it would be impossible to affect anything (such as killing your past or future self) in a time loop. DD would not have needed to give Harry and Hermione any instructions about going back to rescue Buckbeak and Sirius. All the language throughout the books about the importance of choice would, simply, be wrong in JKR's eyes, which would make her writing that strange indeed. OTOH, IF the model were purely that of free will, there could not be such things as prophecy or destiny. One cannot know the future, because one cannot know what choices still remain to be freely made that will change destiny. Neither of those views is consistent with Potterverse, but the modified view of C. S. Lewis does fit: There is destiny, but there is also free will. It is based BOTH on a sense of destiny AND on a strong emphasis on free will. Harry and LV cannot both survive, because someone or something's essence is divided, so it is Harry's destiny to destroy LV, but if he CHOOSES not to, LV will destroy him instead. Destiny and free will, both. A small point that may be revealed in HBP that would support this is if people do, in fact, switch houses. If they do, then it means their choices are overriding where the sorting hat originally put them. Since I don't think the SH makes mistakes, that would again imply both destiny and free will. Further on this (and even closer to the original illustration) would be "good" characters who join the dark side, and "bad" characters who join the good side. Perhaps this is the very reason why Snape's true choices and DD's reasons for trusting him have been obscured for so long: JKR wants to illustrate to us (through Harry's shock) that good side/bad side are not the nice neat delineated groups that fairy tales would have us believe. Someone "good" (Seamus, Dean, Parvati, Cho?) will go to the Slytherins, and someone "bad" (Draco, Theodore?) will come to Gryffindor. Harry will have to decide whether to judge people on the accurate placing of the SH (=predestination), or on the affiliations which they have chosen (=free will). It may be that Dean/Seamus/Parvati/??? will have been placed in Gryffindor because they have courage and prized it above all, but have later decided that they want to get ahead more than anything else, and changed (by their own free will) from what they were into something else. In the same way, it may be that Ted Nott or someone else will take the very courageous free-will step of standing up ALL alone to switch to Gryffindor because his inner heart has spoken to him about the importance of courage and sound moral choices over recognition, accomplishement, and power. While I don't see any of the principal three (or Ginny or Neville) changing houses, their reactions to those who change (in both directions) could say as much as the decisions to change themselves. That SH song at the beginning of OOtP had to *mean* something, didn't it? Work together or be defeated. Vivamus, who agrees with Hub McCann that honor, virtue, and courage mean everything; that money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil, and that true love never dies. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 17:02:52 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0000 Subject: Yet another DD Dursley thread (was Harsh Morality ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121053 Lupinlore: I fail to see how the safety of the entire Wizarding World could possibly have been jeapordized to any great extent if proper safeguards were taken. (And if we refuse to take any risks at all with the safety of the Wizarding World, if the few are really to be sacrificed to the many, there is a ready answer -- just have a headsman standing by for every time the Sorting Hat calls out "Slytherin!"). Alla: WORD of agreement, of course. But you see the fact the headsman is NOT standing every time Sorting Hat shouts "Slytherin!" gives me tiny hope. Not much, though. Lupinlore: Now, some would argue that Dumbledore is too Noble and Good to threaten the Dursleys. I'm afraid that, IMO, is simple and total balderdash. There is nothing Noble or Good about standing aside and allowing a child to be abused. Others have argued he adopted this attitude to "toughen" Harry. Once again, balderdash. He would be risking the creation of another Voldemort, which is something he would not do if he is truly as wise as JKR lets on. Also he would be nowhere as Good as JKR lets on to adopt such a policy either. As to the idea that DD was preserving a weapon or arranging things so Harry would not be arrogant, IMO those are also non-starters, given a Good Dumbledore. The only moral reason for his decision is to preserve Harry's individual life. Sorry, but when push comes to shove all "the good of the many" stuff just doesn't cut it. Morality isn't a numbers game, and you can't find out what is good simply with an adding machine snips excellent examples of why good of few should not always be sacrificed for the good of many. Remember, I am not talking about Dumbledore's INITIAL decision, but about his failure to intervene in all the succeeding years of Harry's suffering. His initial decision was clearly necessary to preserve Harry's life, but any decision not to intervene thereafter runs into much murkier waters. Surely giving the boy a little support from the WW and acting to restrain the Dursleys would not have turned him into a raving maniac, nor would it have significantly imperilled the Wizarding World. As I said above, that line of reasoning leads to killing everyone sorted into Slytherin on the philosophy that its better to strangle the serpents before they can develop poison glands. snip. Now, I'm hoping rather against hope we are going to discover that Petunia and/or Vernon drove an incredibly stiff bargain that prevent DD from acting. That is, that DD was in effect restrained against his will. I don't have warm fuzzies on that one, though. Alla: I think that we MAY discover that Petunia and Vernon drove harsh bargain, because JKR did state that even though Petunia is a muggle, there is more to her than meets the eye. My bet will be that Dumbledore promiced to bind her magic somehow in order for Petunia to be able to live "normal life" as she understands it. And of course here we have the fact that there WAS correspondence between Dumbledore and Petunia. I wonder what exactly they talked about. Just as you I am not keeping my hopes up though. Alla From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 3 17:21:42 2005 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:21:42 -0000 Subject: Platform 9 3/4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121054 Mworth wrote: > How do the wizard/witch children of muggles figure out how to get > onto Platform 9 > 3/4 on their first trip to Hogwarts? Harry lucked out and found the > Wealsleys' but others may not be so lucky? I know that Hagrid tells > Harry to "stick to his ticket" but that did not help much. Hannah: JKR has said that wizards go to Muggle born children along with their letters and explain what it's all about. So they probably tell them how to get onto the platform at that time. They clearly didn't deem it necessary to send such a person along to Harry, presumably as he already had connections with the WW. Hagrid was sent as a last resort, but he obviously never thought to tell him how to do it. Also, 'stick to your ticket' is from the film only. He never says anything about the how to get the train in the book. But I guess the Ministry (?) wizards sent out conventionally to Muggle borns give a bit more explanation. Hannah From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 3 17:30:01 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:30:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: explanation Message-ID: <20050103173001.2576.qmail@web25101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121055 In message No. 121020 Julie wrote: Out of curiosity, has JKR ever stated that she is basing her books on these teachings? I thought I read somewhere that she'd addressed the question of whether she based the books on any sort of religious teaching or wrote deliberate correlations between particular religious teachings/writings and HP plot/characters (and I recall her answer being "No."). But I could easily be wrong. Hans: Naturally that is a most interesting and obvious question! The simple answer is that as far as I know her only word is that she "won't comment on the religious content of the books until the whole series is finished." I have sent Jo my Open Letter and my Essay and she has not reacted in any way. I'm pretty sure she knows about my thoughts and I suspect she's a member of my group (and this one, probably). The fact that she doesn't react is probably the most certain way of knowing I'm on the right track. Obviously she couldn't publicly admit I'm right as that would have the most overwhelming consequences. Even a person with the imagination of a slug could comprehend what it would mean to the world if Jo said, 'Harry Potter is a new version of "The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross"'. The managers of Bloomsbury, Scholastic and Warner Bros. would probably have simultaneous heart attacks. In fact the Richard Abanes people have also discovered the similarity between Harry Potter and "The Alchemical Wedding". Have a look at this: http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1486.cfm People like me are called "Satan worshippers" there. Thanks a lot. Don't read it unless you have a strong stomach. Besides that they're not too good on their facts. Fortunately not too many people take them seriously. The next point is that if Jo said publicly that she didn't base her books on "The Alchemical Wedding" or "The Coming New Man", which contains all the explanations of the symbolism of Sirius and the Chamber of Secrets, and a few other books I've mentioned in my essay, she would be quite right. Jo has told us quite frankly and openly that she had an inspiration in June 1990 and that everything developed from there. What she hasn't told us, I believe, is that her inspiration was NOT a once only event. In my humble opinion she continues to draw from the well of her inspiration, and if she didn't initially realise what the source is, I'm sure she does now. The use of the symbols is so absolutely precisely that of the teachings of Liberating Alchemy that it just isn't possible for it to be otherwise. However she needn't necessarily have read those books! I think she was inspired by those I call the Masters of Compassion, and I think "The Alchemical Wedding" and "The Coming New Man" were inspired by the same people. I believe they also inspired the people who built the Great Pyramid of Cheops, and as you probably all know, this pyramid contains the prediction that the world would change in SEPTEMBER 2001. Yes, it got it right to the very month! I believe that Harry Potter is part of the world events around 9/11 and that Jo knows this and is actively helping the people who inspired her. As you will know from previous posts I also believe the Masters of Compassion inspired the Bible and many other holy scriptures through the millennia. I doubt that Jo will ever talk about any of this. I think she'll be silent about it to the grave. However I can assure you that if she swore on her mother's grave, and had it witnessed by the Queen, the Pope and Harry Potter that what I'm saying isn't true, I wouldn't believe it. The evidence is too strong, as I hope to be able to prove in my series. Many thanks for your question! Hans ===== Hans Rieuwers see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 17:47:22 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:47:22 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121056 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > In the Potterverse, Love isn't just the tip of the metaphysical > pyramid, as Nora put it. It's the whole enchilada. Ahem. I didn't say it's the tip, I said it's at the top. :) I don't think that Love is the only value going on here, although one may make a good argument for Love being the all-embracing virtue. Much as Shklar argues that fear is the basis of all the vices, then perhaps love is the contra to fear. Do we want to consider courage to be a form of love, as it's the virtue that JKR has said she values most highly? It does seem to also be a great one throughout the Potterverse: courage to fight the basilisk, courage of some sort to turn away from Voldemort, courage to join the Order, courage to defy your family and become the black sheep? Fear is crippling, and it's one of Voldemort's prime weapons. It drives people to do things they would not normally do. In some way, it's behind many of the essentialist (but clearly wrong) pureblood ideas. It is definitely not a moral positive, in the Potterverse, to be feared--I think fairly categorically, really. Maybe Snape will figure that out, sooner or later... -Nora just set out to refine a quotation, and gets herself into rambling that might someday be better organized: hello, Yahoomort, let's search for past posts on fear... From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 17:59:56 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:59:56 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121057 Meri wrote: "I don't think it is so much bad here that Seamus sides with his mother. It's just that he ignores four years of sharing a dormitory with Harry. He knows Harry, he's friends with Harry and the moment that that got to be uncomfortable he started thinking Harry was a nutter. " Del replies: Before sharing a dormitory with Harry for 4 years, Seamus shared a home with his mom for 11 years. Seamus and Harry aren't deep friends. Seamus knows Harry about as much as Harry knows Neville, which is : not very much. Seamus did not think Harry was a nutter before Harry started insulting his mom and accusing him of believing Harry was a liar. Seamus didn't give his own opinion until after Harry had already judged him. In fact he made it quite clear IMO that he'd love to have some additional information to make up his mind. I understand that Harry was in no mood to give him that info, but the fact is IMO that Seamus had not yet made up his mind, and that it is Harry's irrational and aggressive attitude towards him that convinced him to side with his mom. Seamus's mom didn't even want him to go back to Hogwarts. The fact that Seamus did come back, and still shared a dormitory with Harry, indicates IMO that Seamus did defend Harry somewhat. Meri wrote: "Plus it isn't bad that Draco doesn't question his father, it is that what his father teaches him is bad. " Del replies: I have seen Draco being judged as irremediably evil for not questioning the morals his father taught him, many times on this board. Meri wrote: "We as readers are allowed to see this whole story from an objective perspective. And in our views of course Percy choosing Fudge over his family and Marietta betraying the DA are bad while Ernie's faith in Harry is good. We can't see things from the limited perspectives of the characters. " Del replies: We can't? Why? Meri wrote: "I don't think anyone is expected to trust Harry blindly. His friends have come to know him over the last four years, and that kind of trust isn't blind. DD is even more well known and respected and he isn't asking people to trust him blindly either. We may never know what kind of testimony he gave to the Wizengamot, but IMO he probably presented every fact he could to get people to believe him about LV. It would have been foolish of him not to do that. " Del replies: We don't know what DD told the Wizengamot. But we know for sure that the general public was *not* told the whole truth, because when they finally get to hear the whole story, quite a few people side with Harry. It *was* foolish IMO not to tell people the whole truth and yet expect them to somehow know that the little DD told them was right and true. Meri wrote: "And secondly, the circumstantial evidence that you describe that would make people think Harry murdered Cedric is just that: circumstantial evidence. " Del replies: The "evidence" about LV's return is just that too : circumstantial evidence. A single second-hand undetailed testimony and little, highly circumstancial, evidence : that's all the general public had to believe Harry. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 18:29:56 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:29:56 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121059 Nora: snip. Fear is crippling, and it's one of Voldemort's prime weapons. It drives people to do things they would not normally do. In some way, it's behind many of the essentialist (but clearly wrong) pureblood ideas. It is definitely not a moral positive, in the Potterverse, to be feared--I think fairly categorically, really. Maybe Snape will figure that out, sooner or later... Alla: I LOVE Valky's theory that Voldemort's power comes from fear to say his name. I think that even if it is not the only thing, it is hitting on something very fundamental, which would matter every much in the final conflict. What I am not quite clear on is why the fact that Harry fears fear Remus consider to be wise (he does, right? I don't have PoA with me right now) Is the courage also equivalent of wisdon in Potterverse? Alla, hoping that this post will get to the right place. From ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com Mon Jan 3 18:32:27 2005 From: ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com (ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:32:27 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umbridge and Hermione was Marrieta and ... Message-ID: <68.4c511763.2f0ae9bb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121060 In a message dated 1/2/2005 2:16:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, saraqael2000 at yahoo.com writes: Pippin: > What Hermione did, IMO, was the equivalent of trying to get the > KKK to help her deal with a corrupt, evil, black person. It'd serve > her right if they tried to lynch her too, and isn't that what > happened? Don't worry about Hermione's comeuppance -- she > got it already. With all due respect, in my opinion, likening centaurs in a children's book series to 'corrupt, evil, black' people and discussing lynchings and the KKK does an incredible disservice to the scores of innocent real human beings who were lynched and murdered by the KKK. She meant Umbridge was the black guy. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 3 18:44:05 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:44:05 -0000 Subject: Evaluating Percy (was: Marietta and Hermione (and Percy) (and C.S. Lewis) ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121061 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: << Hmmm. What does this do to a Percy? He's certainly following a set of principles & values, *extremely* consistently, but he's not likely to be labeled "innately good" by either JKR or a reader or a character w/in the story who knows him well. He's chosen the not- quite-right set of principles & values, then? >> And Meriaugust wrote: << Percy, OTOH, puts his career and personal ambitions ahead of his family. He insults his father, ignores his mother and all because, like Fudge, holding on to his job is most important to him. I applaud Percy for sticking to his guns and doing what he thought was right. But what he did was for his own personal gain. >> Catlady responded: > Yes, I believe that JKR presented Percy as following the principle > of self-interest and careerism, rather than any system of morality. > She had Percy laughing at Fudge's bad jokes and being a general > sycophant, and there is no clue that he was doing it because of > hero-worshipping Fudge. It would be different if Percy chose Fudge > over his family because he had a principle that the government is > always right or he thought Fudge was so wise and competent or he > really believed that Harry had gone mad and Dumbledore was using > him to make trouble for some selfish no-good reason. SSSusan: This is a fascinating response, Catlady, because I have been pondering a fair few Percy comments lately and thinking of issuing a post on them... only to find that your response has got me considering a new question. In short, what I *was* planning to say was this. A few people recently seem to have said: Percy turned on his family & followed Crouch & then Fudge, so he is Evil. Is this really so? Is JKR so much *just* Good vs. Evil that the only option for categorizing Percy is that he is Evil?? I rather thought of him as misguided or, well, "wrong," but not necessarily Evil. But now Catlady is pointing out that Percy might not really have been following a system of morality or principle of "rightness" (such as "The government is always right") so much as just showing a single- minded amibition in working towards his own gain & power. Hmmm. So, if Catlady is correct, does that put Percy in the Evil camp after all? Then again, there's what Barbara wrote in 121036: > I remember learning that ethics (Christian world view) is best > addressed from three different angles. The first angle is the law(s) > or principle(s) involved (and in real life the principals sometimes > conflict.) The second angle a person's motives (or "sincere > reason.") The third, I believe, angle is the end results arising > from the choices made or the situation. Any choice which violates > any of the three could be wrong. Impossible? Messy? Yes . SSSusan: Okay. So now what would people here at HPfGU do with Percy if applying these *three* angles? And what do we think JKR is presenting us in canon? Is she judging her characters on one or more than one of these angles? *Is* she primarily about motives? About end results? Or...? Thoughts? Siriusly Snapey Susan From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 18:50:24 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:50:24 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121062 Bboyminn wrote: "Del, you really seem to throw a lot of fat into the fire. I have to wonder if you were involved in the Debating Club at school, and just can't resist arguing the counterpoint for the sake of the counterpoint rather than a firm belief." Del replies: For once, I was absolutely honest :-) More precisely, I was thoroughly confused by what *really* seemed to me to be double standards. And no, I was never in any debating club :-) Bboyminn wrote: "I don't think Seamus was supporting his mother or Frudge. My read of the orginal blow-up between Harry and Seamus was that Seamus was more than willing to give Harry a fair hearing." Del replies: I actually agree with your interpretation. I should have said that Harry, his friends and many readers, *think* that Seamus sided with his mother, and they see this as bad. Bboyminn wrote: "Percy, within reason, knew Harry well," Del replies: I disagree with that premise. I don't think Percy knew Harry well at all. First, Percy is much older than Harry. Percy was already a 5th year when he met Harry. This is the same age difference between Harry and Euan Abercrombie, and Harry admittedly doesn't know Euan very well. Second, Percy never associated much with Harry while at Hogwarts. No more than Harry associates with, say, the Creevey brothers. The Twins know Harry quite well for having been his Quidditch teammates for years, Ron is Harry's best friend, and Ginny had a crush on Harry for years. But Percy never had any kind of personal relationship with Harry. Third, though Harry did spend some time at the Weasleys', Percy never associated with Harry then. In CoS, Percy spends all his time shut up in his room, presumably writing to Penelope Clearwater. In GoF, Percy is working like mad, either on his reports in his room, or at the MoM. Fourth, Percy had one pretty good reason to believe that Harry *did* enjoy the spotlight : he wasn't there to see how much Harry disliked being a Hogwarts champion. From Percy's perspective, Harry somehow managed to trick the Goblet of Fire into making him a Champion, and there's no reason to believe he doesn't enjoy the situation. Especially given the articles Rita Skeeter writes about Harry. So I would say that Percy doesn't know Harry well at all. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 19:03:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:03:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Harry again In-Reply-To: <609C1B7F-5D7F-11D9-934C-000A95DC8A32@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121063 > Barbara: snip. I may be one of minority that doesn't completely discount that Dumbledore did leave Harry at the Dursleys so as to prevent him growing up to be a pampered little prince. It's not the only reason, but it figures in the decision. In OotP, we clearly see that Harry's father was spoiled. Alla: Imagine a bit different turn of events in the story. Imagine that Harry would be so upset with Dumbledore for leaving him with Dursleys that he would tell him something along the line - "You know what, Headmaster, go fight your war without me. I might as well be better with Voldemort than with you, who surely does not care about me at all" Now, granted, Harry will never do that, Rowling will never do that(I would LOVE to see Harry try and escape from his destiny" storyline ), BUT surely Dumbledore should have thought about such possibility, did not he? That is why I believe that the only reason Dumbledore made his choice was Harry's survival, or at least that is what I want to believe. I also disagree that we clearly see in OOP that James was spoiled. I, for example, saw no such thing. I saw Bully!James , but not spoiled James and even Bully!James reasons are not quite clear to me yet. Just my opinion, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 3 19:37:52 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:37:52 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121064 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > Do we want to consider courage to be a form of love, as it's the virtue that JKR has said she values most highly? It does seem to also be a great one throughout the Potterverse: courage to fight the basilisk, courage of some sort to turn away from Voldemort, courage to join the Order, courage to defy your family and become the black sheep?< Pippin: I don't think Dumbledore left us much choice. He said what saved Harry was his "heart" --a word which means both love and courage. Though as feelings they are separate, as virtue they are united in the Potterverse, neither worthy of the name without the other. Courage without love is mere bravado, pointless and dangerous. Love without courage is mere sentiment--Fudge is a good example, ESE!Lupin may prove to be a better one. And without courage, the Christian directive to love your enemies can hardly be carried out. Nora: > It is definitely not a moral positive, in the Potterverse, to be feared--I think fairly categorically, really. Maybe Snape will figure that out, sooner or later... > Pippin: Dumbledore is feared by Voldemort. What Snape has to figure out, IMO, is that Harry has true courage, not bravado. The bravado is all he sees, and he despises it, as well he should. I don't want to be too soft on Snape, but before we castigate him for despising a child, how many of us are lucky that Draco is fictional? What Snape sees in Harry, IMO, is what we are shown in Draco: an arrogant, rich spoiled brat who doesn't deserve his popularity, is indulged far too much by certain adults, breaks rules whenever he feels like it, and utterly idolizes his hideous father, whose true nature is not at all what everyone thinks. You could argue that Snape ought to perceive what Harry (and James) were really like, but how, if JKR is as good at hiding things from him as she is from us? Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 3 19:49:19 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:49:19 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121065 Very nice work, Meri! > 1) Did you think, before reading the book, that is, that > Sirius would be the one to die? SSSusan: Absolutely NOT. I was floored by it. Fell for the Arthur thing at first, for instance. While I don't want Sirius to come back, because I don't think it would send the "proper" message about the finality & randomness of death, I do hope for some significance we've not seen yet. Otherwise, it's hard not to feel frustrated with JKR, for yanking Harry around so. I know, I know, I'm contradicting myself here when I say the "proper" message about death is that it can be random & very unfair and then complaining that Sirius' death seemed too random & unfair. But damn it, *Harry's* had enough death & unfairness, and it did make me mad that Sirius bought the farm before they had a chance to really enjoy getting to know each other as free men [Sirius proven innocent; Harry with his burden behind him]. So I hope there's more to come in terms of meaning. > Christian allegories aside, what exactly is behind the veil? SSSusan: Never-neverland, of course. :-) > 2) Where was Mr. Goyle? Was he simply too incompetent to take on a > mission of this importance? SSSusan: I vote for incompetence, arising out of excessive "thickness." Actually, I liked the idea that he was left in charge of Malfoy Manor. > 3) For that matter, where the heck was Peter Pettigrew? Did > Voldemort worry that Peter's life-debt to Harry would be a hindrance > to him on this mission? SSSusan: I saw the response that Voldy doesn't want PP known to the DEs as being alive, and that seems a possibility. So is this notion you've put forth here, Meri -? that Voldy doesn't trust Wormtail enough, because of that life debt, to put him in a position where he could assist Potter too much. > 5) Azkaban clearly drove Bellatrix over the edge, but she is also > quite clearly a powerful witch. What kind of spell do you think she > used to take out Sirius? SSSusan: Whatever it was, I hope it's not one of the unanswered questions at the end of the septology. The look of surprise on Sirius' face has always struck me as because of the type of spell she used, not because he knew she'd killed him. (That is, I agree that the spell didn't kill him but simply forced him back through the Veil.) So I'd like to know what it was that was such a surprise to Sirius. > The spells they used during the battle were mostly nonlethal and > Harry and the others seemed a good match for them. Does this bode > well for the training Harry gave them in the DA? SSSusan: Oh geez, I hope in future battles the DEs will use more convincingly nasty spells. At this point I'm holding on to the belief that they used non-lethal spells because they were told to protect the prophecy at all cost. Otherwise, the whole scene is pathetically unbelievable ? DEs, whom the WW tremble to consider, capable only of what we saw in the DoM?? > 7) How do you think his experience of the Cruciatus Curse will > affect Neville? SSSusan: Hickengruendler had the perfect response to this question in #121047. The fact that Neville endured *this* curse, of all curses, and survived it, I do agree signifies that he's done being paralyzed by his fears. > 9) When Ron got attacked by the brains I thought his number was up. > Whose brain was it that tried to strangle him? SSSusan: I wish I knew! But what concerns me most about this whole brain situation is that DD said to Harry that it "appeared" his friend had suffered no lasting damage. Rut-roh. Appeared? We all know what it means when JKR uses "appeared" and "seemed," don't we? Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 19:51:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:51:30 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121066 > Nora: It is definitely not a moral positive, in the Potterverse, to be feared--I think fairly categorically, really. Maybe Snape will figure that out, sooner or later... Pippin: Dumbledore is feared by Voldemort. What Snape has to figure out, IMO, is that Harry has true courage, not bravado. The bravado is all he sees, and he despises it, as well he should. I don't want to be too soft on Snape, but before we castigate him for despising a child, how many of us are lucky that Draco is fictional? What Snape sees in Harry, IMO, is what we are shown in Draco: an arrogant, rich spoiled brat who doesn't deserve his popularity, is indulged far too much by certain adults, breaks rules whenever he feels like it, and utterly idolizes his hideous father, whose true nature is not at all what everyone thinks. You could argue that Snape ought to perceive what Harry (and James) were really like, but how, if JKR is as good at hiding things from him as she is from us? Alla: Hmmm, I don't know, Pippin. I hate Draco as character within story quite passionately and even as avid ff reader I believe that very, very few writers managed to achieve his credible redemption, BUT in RL I would be very wary to give up on the eleven year old child , no matter how evil his parents are, therefore I consider Draco's portrayal to be one of JKR's biggest letdowns in the books. Accordingly, yes, I do castigate Snape for despising Harry. As to how he would learn about Harry's true nature? Ummmm, I don't know, Severus try TALKING and ASKING questions of Dumbledore, Minerva, Harry's friends (yeah, that would be hard, I guess). Or, try talk to Harry. Somehow I think that the teacher of the core subject should be able to figure out how to get to know one of his students. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 20:02:15 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 20:02:15 -0000 Subject: Goyle, Nott and Pettigrew (Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121067 Mariaugust: 3) For that matter, where the heck was Peter Pettigrew? Did Voldemort worry that Peter's life-debt to Harry would be a hindrance to him on this mission? Potioncat: I wonder how much Malfoy or the other DEs trust him? Even LV knows Pettigrew's motivation is fear. Not a likely choice for an important mission at the DoM. Alla: I must disagree here. I believe Peter's whereabouts will be important and JKR said that we will find out more, didn't she? IMO, Fear is pretty much a motivation for all DE (fear of Voldie, I mean), therefore I don't think it would make a difference in trust if Peter feared him a bit more than others. But where exactly he was, I have no clue. Potioncat: Nice job on the discussion! Alla: THAT I absolutely agree with. Meri, great questions! From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 20:22:26 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 20:22:26 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121068 Lupinlore wrote: "Is JKR trying to say something about complex morality in the HP saga? The more I think of it the more I think she is saying something in exactly the opposite direction. She seems to be implying that morality is harsh, Good and Evil are real, and human ideas about justice or reason or individual worth or even the right to be loved and comforted are not very important in the great scheme of things. You either support the good principle or the evil principle, there is no middle ground and there is no quibbling. JKR has said she doesn't care if she has only six fans when she is finished. I think a lot of people (including me) have assumed that means things will come to a very confused, complex, and possibly grey conclusion. I am starting to believe that, on the contrary, we will see an end that is shocking in its harshness and clarity." Del replies: You make way too much sense for my liking :-( I didn't like OoP, and I'd been wondering whether or not I wanted HBP to come out because, well, there would be only one after that and then game over and I didn't want the game to be over. But now I have another, even more compelling reason for not wanting to get to July 16. I guess HBP, being the next-to-last book, will take us down the road to the final resolution. If you're right, then this harsh morality will probably become much clearer than ever before. And then, I would definitely not want Book 7 to EVER come out... Alla wrote: "Nevertheless, does it really MATTER if she believes in grey areas or not? IMHO, she surely shows those grey areas in the books. Therefore I am not sure that we are missing the heart of her morality, when we discuss grey areas of characters' behaviour. Regardless of author's intention they are were, IMO." Del replies: I agree. But then the problem becomes separating our personal judgement from that implied by the books, which is not only a difficult thing to do, but also something many readers might not be inclined to do (as it is their right, I'm not saying this as a criticism). Salit wrote: "I think that JKR models her WWII much after our own WWII. And that one without a doubt was a black and white affair. Either you supported the pure evil personified by Hitler (aka Voldemort) or you did not." Del replies: I beg to differ. The majority of civilians in France chose a middle position. The proportion of French civilians who became either collabos or resistants is small, because many didn't feel very involved in what was happening. They didn't in any way see it as a huge Good vs Evil battle. They didn't care much about Hitler, they cared much more about the local German leading officer. In short, they cared about their own lives and how to accomodate the occupying armies without infringing too much on their own comfort, both physical and mental. For the collabos and the resistants, it was very much a black-and-white matter. Not so for the majority of the population. Salit wrote: "During more peacefull times people can proceed without making real choices, but not in war. Then you are either for me or for my enemies." Del replies: It's very interesting that you should say this, because I see the situation of the WW in OoP and of France during WWII as quite similar, in that there was no war going on officially, and the enemy wasn't easily definable (is that a word?). France capitulated in 1940, and after that it officially wasn't at war anymore. The Germans established a *French* government, which rendered the "me or my enemies" issue meaningless. From then on, being an official French patriot meant supporting the Nazis, and being a "real" French patriot meant being an insurgent against the French government. And it's only History, it's the outcome that determined which of those two groups of patriots ended up being the "true" ones. If Germany had won the war, the resistants would have been deemed traitors, and the collabos would have been celebrated. Similarly, the Fudge administration in OoP is a non-DE group leading the public into a pro-LV situation, and those who want to fight LV end up having to fight their own government. If they win, they will come out as the true heroes, but should they lose, they would be marked as traitors to their country. In both cases, there's the real enemy, and the intermediate enemy, which makes the situation a very *not* black-and-white one. Salit wrote: "He thinks he did the right thing based on the information he had on hand at the time. That's the best any of us can do..." Del replies: Ah, but this is not enough, is it :-) ? Many characters in the Potterverse do the best they can based on the information they have, but if they make a choice that doesn't lead them to follow DD, then they are wrong. That's basically what Lupinlore was explaining : it doesn't matter that people do their best, it's what they end up doing that matters, no matter how honest they are or how good their intentions were. As for DD, since he is the epitome of goodness, he *cannot* do wrong. Whatever he did was necessarily right and good. In theory. Tonks wrote: "The black and white ending.. is the ending that we are told God will judge each of us by at the end of our life. Only one.. the one that JKR has mentioned over and over... LOVE." Del replies: That's interesting, but I fail to see how this applies to the Potterverse. Love doesn't seem to me to be a leading principle in the WW, far from it. And I know that Harry is supposed to be full of love, but I just don't *see* that. Could you elaborate on this, or refer me to a past post on that subject? Tonks wrote: "We are told that Lord Voldmort... Never loved... this is what makes him the evil principle." Del replies: Whenever I think of this, I get stuck into a logic trap. If LV never loved, that means he was always evil, which in turn means he was born evil. But JKR said that nobody is born evil. So I'm confused. Can you help me out? Nora wrote: "Do we want to consider courage to be a form of love, as it's the virtue that JKR has said she values most highly?" Del replies: How would this square with what we know of LV's courage? LV is a very courageous wizard, because as far as we know, he's afraid of only 2 things (well, maybe 3 now) : death, DD, and now Harry too. And yet LV doesn't know anything about love... Jen wrote: "Lupin shows signs of cowardice, he makes poor choices at times, he rationlizes his choices. He doesn't always choose what is 'right over what is easy', therefore he is evil. For those who believe Lupin is evil, it's not a moral dilemma. But for the rest of us..." Del replies: If I understand what Lupinlore explained about the Platonic concepts of Good and Bad, it doesn't matter that Lupin shows those bad signs, because he always remains loyal to DD, which is the moral compass in the Potterverse, and so Lupin is good. Jen wrote: "And Harry does seem to struggle with complex moral issues like why a 'good' person such as Seamus doesn't believe his story. And why Dumbledore would trust a 'bad' person like Snape. And how the once- sainted James can be a good person and a bully at the same time. His moral complexity grows with his character." Del replies: I don't see him as struggling very much. He readily classified Seamus as bad for not believing him. He refuses to accept that DD has good reasons for trusting Snape, he refuses to consider that the man might not be completely evil. As for James, Harry doesn't struggle for very long, and he lets Remus and Sirius convince him quite easily, which again is congruent with a Platonic view : since James ended up fighting LV, he was good, and it doesn't matter that he did some bad things. In fact, I get a feeling that, far from getting more complex, the morality presented in the HP books is getting more simple : if one is on the side of Good, then one's faults don't matter, but if one is on the side of Evil then one's qualities, honesty and good intents are irrelevant. Pippin wrote: "You could argue that Snape ought to perceive what Harry (and James) were really like, but how, if JKR is as good at hiding things from him as she is from us?" Del replies: I loved your comparison between Draco and Harry :-) Could Snape see James for who he was? Of course he could. But there *is* the little matter of 7 years of mutual hatred. There's also the fact that James died very shortly after he and Snape started working on the same side. Honestly, if the war was to least for several more years, and Draco joined the Good side a couple of years after graduation and then got himself killed shortly after, I doubt that Harry (who is supposed to have a much better heart than Snape) would *ever* see Draco in a good light. And if Harry was confronted to Draco's son a decade later, and that son looked very much like Draco, I'm not sure Harry wouldn't instinctively dislike the child right from the beginning. Now, could Snape see Harry as he truly is? Of course he could. But there *is* the little matter of Harry acting very much like Snape thinks Dirty!Harry would act. Of course, *we* know that Harry reacts poorly to Snape because Snape himself conditioned him that way, but Snape doesn't see that. We also know that Harry often has good reasons for breaking the rules, but again Snape often doesn't know that. What he *does* know is that Harry acts very much like the brat Snape imagines him to be would act. Again, if Harry was confronted with Draco's son someday, and that son cheeked him, and often broke rules, I'm not sure Harry wouldn't see him as a reincarnation of Draco and wouldn't act towards him accordingly. I'm not saying that Snape *cannot* change his views on James and Harry, but I do think that it would require a major change of his paradigms, and he has no *reason* to change them. DD liking Harry is no better a reason for Snape to like Harry, than DD trusting Snape is a good reason for Harry to trust Snape. Both Harry and Snape are entrenched in their opinion concerning the other, just like James and Snape were in their time, or like Draco and Harry are now. The Occlumency lessons were starting maybe to change that, but the Pensieve disaster put a premature end to it. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 20:35:13 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 20:35:13 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121069 > Alla wrote: "Nevertheless, does it really MATTER if she believes in grey areas or not? IMHO, she surely shows those grey areas in the books. Therefore I am not sure that we are missing the heart of her morality, when we discuss grey areas of characters' behaviour. Regardless of author's intention they are were, IMO." Del replies: I agree. But then the problem becomes separating our personal judgement from that implied by the books, which is not only a difficult thing to do, but also something many readers might not be inclined to do (as it is their right, I'm not saying this as a criticism). Alla: Why is it a problem? As Nora said - what we want to be in the text and what is in there indeed or what we think is in there, while series are not finished, are several different things. I may not WANT something to happen, but if story logically leads to it, I can figure it out as I think anybody can.(If JKR allows us to see it, of course) Don't you agree? Again for the record I think that Lupinlore is right, although I do hope that someone will change my POV on this one. Alla From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 21:31:51 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:31:51 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121070 Alla wrote: " in RL I would be very wary to give up on the eleven year old child , no matter how evil his parents are, therefore I consider Draco's portrayal to be one of JKR's biggest letdowns in the books." Del replies: Is it a letdown, or is it consistent with the Platonic view of Good and Evil? In this view, Draco is evil because he believes his father and refuses to follow DD, so I guess it is morally right to give up on him. Just like I suppose it could be said that it is morally right to give up on a whole bunch of kids who have the wrong priorities (ambition instead of courage or loyalty). Alla wrote: "Accordingly, yes, I do castigate Snape for despising Harry. As to how he would learn about Harry's true nature? Ummmm, I don't know, Severus try TALKING and ASKING questions of Dumbledore, Minerva, Harry's friends (yeah, that would be hard, I guess)." Del replies: But then, who *ever* does anything like that in the Potterverse? People gossip a bit, but they rarely *talk* to each other. Worse, asking questions seems to be a bad thing. Seamus gets punished for daring to ask questions to Harry for example. Sirius has to fight so Harry is allowed to ask a few *basic* questions to the Order. The Weasley kids have to fight to be allowed to listen to the answers too. And DD keeps putting a limit to the questions Harry has a "right" to ask. Alla wrote: "Or, try talk to Harry. Somehow I think that the teacher of the core subject should be able to figure out how to get to know one of his students." Del replies: I think Snape is convinced he's already figured Harry out, and that Harry would lie to him if they talked. Del From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 3 21:44:55 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:44:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Harry (4) Message-ID: <20050103214455.44489.qmail@web25110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121071 Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: 'Griphook unlocked the door. A lot of green smoke came billowing out, and as it cleared, Harry gasped. Inside were mounds of gold coins. Columns of silver. Heaps of little bronze Knuts. "All yours," smiled Hagrid. All Harry's -- it was incredible. The Dursleys couldn't have known about this or they'd have had it from him faster than blinking. How often had they complained how much Harry cost them to keep? And all the time there had been a small fortune belonging to him, buried deep under London.' When the eternal thought-spark of the Universal Architect is coupled with the thirst for the living water, a cry of help emanates from the human being concerned. Because of its purity this cry reaches the ear of the Creator, and so it brings forth a reaction. This reaction is an inflow of living water into the heart of the person. The lily opens and gives birth to a new life-force. This is a foetus as it were, that eventually will be born, grow up and become the immortal and perfect soul of the Son of the Potter of the universe. The Potter made a perfect plan for the whole of creation, with all its myriads of planes and worlds of existence, and its innumerable trillions of entities and forms of life. When He "breathed out" to create life, he created a sea of life containing an uncountable number of thought-sparks each of which contained the total plan of the human being for all eternity. This vast cloud of sparks is called "The Only Begotten Son". This is to convey the idea that (original) humanity in its totality is God's Son. Part of the Potter's Plan is that everything shall be provided at all times for his only begotten son. He shall never want for anything. And this applies to every (original) human being individually. We in this fallen world all know need and want and deprivation. But as soon as the lily opens and begins to spread its glorious fragrance, we are making a genuine attempt to step back into God's Plan, and the Old Law of everything always being available for God's only begotten son operates again. The Son receives his inheritance and a spiritual treasure of undreamed of wealth is at his disposal. If the earthly personality accepts Harry as its leader, it too will share in the abundance available to the new, immortal soul. Would Harry ever let poor old Ron want for anything? No, let Ron leave his dry corned beef sandwiches and share in Harry's cauldron cakes and pumpkin pies. As I said in my post, "The Room of Requirement" (100271), there is a law which is cited in the New Testament (of the Universal Architect) as: "Seek first the Kingdom and its righteousness and all the other things you need will be given to you as well." The Harry in our heart is rich beyond our most feverish imagination. Go Harry! Hans ===== Hans Rieuwers see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From ginamiller at jis.nashville.org Mon Jan 3 21:46:30 2005 From: ginamiller at jis.nashville.org (Miller, Gina (JIS)) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:46:30 -0600 Subject: Chapter 35 Beyond the Veil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121072 On the point of Neville I don't think he showed BRAVERY as much as he showed LOYALTY. It was a brave thing to do, but he has been brave before just not outspoken with it. He stood up against his friends for his house and so forth. The key is he cared enough about Harry not to let him go on alone even if it meant he would be killed - He didn't even have a wand for crying out loud! The train of thought was Harry is my friend and if he goes so do I. I would say there was also some loyalty to his mom and dad knowing who was in there also. I really like Neville. Gina A. Miller Juvenile Court 100 Woodland Street Nashville, TN 37213 615-880-2380 GinaMiller at jis.nashville.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 21:54:46 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:54:46 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121073 > Del replies: Is it a letdown, or is it consistent with the Platonic view of Good and Evil? In this view, Draco is evil because he believes his father and refuses to follow DD, so I guess it is morally right to give up on him. Just like I suppose it could be said that it is morally right to give up on a whole bunch of kids who have the wrong priorities (ambition instead of courage or loyalty). Alla: It seems to be VERY consistent with Platonic view of Good and Evil (I only studied Plato VERY briefly during general philosophy course in college), but I don't have to like it much. :o) Del : I think Snape is convinced he's already figured Harry out, and that Harry would lie to him if they talked. Alla: 100% agreement, but he is wrong, wrong, wrong. :o) JMO, Alla From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Mon Jan 3 22:08:13 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:08:13 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121074 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > > Do we want to consider courage to be a form of love, as it's the > virtue that JKR has said she values most highly? Renee: You're definitely on to something here, I think. To quote the New Testament (1st Epistle of John, 4:18, King James version): "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear." As courage has to do with overcoming fear - casting it out as opposed to never having it to begin with - it very much looks like John is making a statement about courage as well. And as JKR values the virtue that remains after fear is cast out most highly... well, let me say I'm among the people who thinks "JKR is a Christian writer telling us a story with deep moral meaning," as Tonks (the list member) put it. Nora: > Fear is crippling, and it's one of Voldemort's prime weapons. It > drives people to do things they would not normally do. In some way, > it's behind many of the essentialist (but clearly wrong) pureblood > ideas. It is definitely not a moral positive, in the Potterverse, > to be feared--I think fairly categorically, really. Renee: It's almost as if the opposites courage vs fear function the same way as good vs evil and right vs wrong in the Potterverse. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 3 22:48:11 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:48:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's view (was Re: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121075 Pippin wrote: > What Snape sees in Harry, IMO, is what we are shown in Draco: > an arrogant, rich spoiled brat who doesn't deserve his popularity, > is indulged far too much by certain adults, breaks rules > whenever he feels like it, and utterly idolizes his hideous father, > whose true nature is not at all what everyone thinks. > > You could argue that Snape ought to perceive what Harry (and > James) were really like, but how, if JKR is as good at hiding > things from him as she is from us? > Potioncat: I think you are right. I know many on this list think that it should be obvious to Snape that Harry isn't like that. But if you look at the times Snape sees Harry and if you look at the situations Harry gets into, most of them confirm Snape's view. As for James. I think Snape always saw him like we did in the Pensieve, never noticing that he had changed. Potioncat From khinterberg at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 22:57:12 2005 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:57:12 -0000 Subject: Row 97 WAS Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121076 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > Questions, comments, thoughts? > Meri Great discussion Meri! I just wanted to add my own question. Many people have taken the fact that the prophecy was at the end of row 97 to mean that it will be fulfilled at the end of year 1997. This would place it midway through Harry's seventh year. Would Jo break with tradition about having a big, final event at the end of June of each year, and hold the "final battle" in the middle of the school year? Thoughts? khinterberg From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 23:06:21 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:06:21 -0000 Subject: Snape's view (was Re: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121077 Potioncat: I think you are right. I know many on this list think that it should be obvious to Snape that Harry isn't like that. But if you look at the times Snape sees Harry and if you look at the situations Harry gets into, most of them confirm Snape's view. Alla: Not sure about many, but to me it is not that it should be obvious to Snape that Harry is not like that, but that Snape should try harder to see Harry for who he is and the fact that it is hard for him to do so is not sufficient excuse for Snape's behaviour TO ME. Let me also raise my eyebrows in the question mark at your "if you look at situations Harry gets into, most of them confirm Snape's POV". :o) First of all not all of them, some of them confirm such view ON THE SURFACE and Snape is not willing to look deeper (bad, bad Snape :o)) Second of all are you telling me that on every Potion lesson there is an altercation between those two? In other words, surely there are some quiet moments, when Snape can at least get a hint, that MAYBE Harry is not James. Just my opinion, Alla From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 23:24:50 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:24:50 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121078 Alla wrote: "It seems to be VERY consistent with Platonic view of Good and Evil (I only studied Plato VERY briefly during general philosophy course in college), but I don't have to like it much. :o)" Del replies: I never said I liked it either :-) In fact, I strongly dislike it :-( But if it is indeed JKR's view, then what can I do? Del earlier: "I think Snape is convinced he's already figured Harry out, and that Harry would lie to him if they talked." Alla answered: "100% agreement, but he is wrong, wrong, wrong. :o)" Del replies: Hm, is he really? Let's try to imagine the scene. Let's take Snape and Harry as they are now, not some imaginary Snape and/or Harry who would have had some revelation that the other is not like they always thought he was. The first obvious thing to me is that they would have to be forced to talk, because there's no way they would do it willingly. They both think they've figured the other out and that they can't be wrong. So they would have to be forced, and they would resent it. Now what would they talk about? Not James! Everything but James! Except that James is the very reason they started hating each other so much, so it would be very awkward for them to avoid talking about him. Let's say they do find something to talk about. Are they ever going to agree about anything? Snape is a bitter man for whom most of the things that matter to Harry don't matter. That doesn't make for agreeable discussions. Next : Snape has seen things that Harry can't understand, and Harry has lived things that Snape can't fathom. And they are both notoriously bad at explaining themselves, and quite protective of their private feelings. They are *not* going to confide into each other, no way! And then let's say that either of them utters an unfortunate word or sentence that sends the other into defensive mode. Is there *any* way they could stop the automatic degradation of the discussion that would follow? They both know where the other's buttons are and how to best push them, and they both *enjoy* pushing the other's buttons. So I would say that hoping they would both restrain themselves long enough to start having a meaningful discussion is quite unrealistic. And as for Harry lying... Well, Harry does lie to a lot of people, including his best friends and DD, whenever he doesn't feel like sharing his intimate feelings. So where *ever* would he find the will not to lie to Snape, of all people? And if Snape gets the smallest inkling that Harry is lying, the talk is over. In conclusion, I would have to say that any talk between the two of them is simply impossible. It would never work. IMO only of course :-) Del From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Jan 3 23:57:45 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:57:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's view (was Re: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121079 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > I think you are right. I know many on this list think that it > should be obvious to Snape that Harry isn't like that. But if you > look at the times Snape sees Harry and if you look at the > situations Harry gets into, most of them confirm Snape's view. > > As for James. I think Snape always saw him like we did in the > Pensieve, never noticing that he had changed. Problem is, I don't think they really do--if Snape were to sit down and think them through fully. Snape's ongoing conception of Harry (among other things) also puts the lie to the SuperPerceptive!Snape idea that floats around here every once in a while: you know the one, the Snape who notes absolutely everything around him, constantly weighing ideas and always astute to the smallest changes...am I permitted a few giggles of laughter? No, I think Snape's myopia is thematic for his character; while undeniably intelligent, he is also convinced of his rightness to the point of arrogance. He absolutely cannot stand to be challenged by someone who is not his institutional superior. Information which challenges or contradicts is not welcomed: note his angry reaction to Hermione in the Shrieking Shack, where she suggests that it wouldn't hurt to at least hear them out. And, although we've argued it to death on this list, nailing a kid on the first day of class with pre-emptive strikes is being fairly convinced that your judgement of a person is immediately accurate; from that point on, the befuddled and annoyed reaction of Harry is simply filed under "I knew he was really like that". Likewise, James may well have changed and done so obviously. But to someone with Snape's mindset and particular victim complex, he's always going to be the same. But I also don't think JKR is hiding nearly as many things from us as Pippin thinks. :) She's taken pretty careful care to set up situations where Snape's judgement is right, and situations where his judgement is wrong. The thing is that the wrong ones hang together in an interesting thematic pattern of arrogance and self- conviction. We always ask the question of "What if Harry's distrust ends up hurting Snape?" Well, Snape's distrust has already partially caused one major event to go worse than it might have; what's to say his conviction of his own rightness won't cause another? -Nora dons Momus' top hat and plays devil's advocate with style (and grace, we hope) From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 00:06:01 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:06:01 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality (and fear) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121080 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Dumbledore is feared by Voldemort. You will note that the fear there is Voldemort's, directed at Dumbledore. That indicates *Voldie's* corrupt moral condition, NOT Dumbledore's. If Voldemort were not evil, he would not fear Dumbledore, n'est pas? What Harry fears is fear, which is the thing that makes vice all but inevitable. Fear makes trust and love impossible, and Voldemort does not love, we know. And of everyone in the Potterverse, he is a locus of fear, both as an object of it and someone who partakes of it deeply. > You could argue that Snape ought to perceive what Harry (and > James) were really like, but how, if JKR is as good at hiding > things from him as she is from us? See 121079 below, please, for my answer to this argument... As we know, I think the things which she hides are of a different nature than the things that you think she hides from us. :) But I'm more interested, there in the thematic resonance of Snape's failed perception...because often, Snape strikes me as, in that area, failing in the will to do so. It's in front of him. But he refuses to think through what is in front of him, because it would disrupt the categories and classifications which he has imposed on his world. That's part of what he's doing in the Shack, when he wants Black and Lupin to be be guilty so very, very badly. Likewise, he needs to see Harry the way that he does, because he's not terribly good at admitting that he's wrong. Interesting to see which way this all goes. -Nora waves around the bottle and dances...privately, in celebration From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 00:13:42 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:13:42 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121081 Pippin wrote: "Do we want to consider courage to be a form of love, as it's the virtue that JKR has said she values most highly? " Renee answered:: "You're definitely on to something here, I think. To quote the New Testament (1st Epistle of John, 4:18, King James version): "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear." As courage has to do with overcoming fear - casting it out as opposed to never having it to begin with - it very much looks like John is making a statement about courage as well." Del replies: I see it differently. I see courage as being able to force ourselves to do something we fear. But I understand John 4:18 as saying that perfect love eliminates fear (casteth out), which in turn renders courage useless. Someone who doesn't fear anything has no need for courage IMO. Renee wrote: "It's almost as if the opposites courage vs fear function the same way as good vs evil and right vs wrong in the Potterverse." Del replies: An interesting question for me is then : what does this mean concerning LV? As I said in another post, LV fears only 3 things as far as we know: death, DD, and now Harry too. Now we know that he never could face the prospect of death and did his best to escape from it, so we could say that he has no courage where death is concerned. We also know that he never dared attack Hogwarts because of DD. But then in the MoM he doesn't seem horribly scared of fighting DD. So I don't know if we can say he's got no courage where DD is concerned. As for Harry, well I think LV has barely started being scared of him. It will be interesting to see whether he will dare to go and look for Harry again. And as for his past : I would love to know if LV was able to do all the great and terrible things he did because he was afraid of them but had enough courage to do them anyway, or because he was never afraid to do them to start with. But whichever way we go, I get a bit stumped. If LV was never afraid of anything but death and DD, then that would mean that love is not the only thing that can banish fear. If on the other hand, LV was scared but courageous, then it would mean that courage is definitely not linked to love. I'm not sure I'm going anywhere there... Sorry for the rambling! Del From pjarrett at gmail.com Mon Jan 3 16:46:48 2005 From: pjarrett at gmail.com (Patrick Jarrett) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:46:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Platform 9 3/4 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3def328f05010308462f14b2cc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121082 > mworth: > How do the wizard/witch children of muggles figure out how to get > onto Platform 9 > 3/4 on their first trip to Hogwarts? Harry lucked out and found the > Wealsleys' but others may not be so lucky? I know that Hagrid tells > Harry to "stick to his ticket" but that did not help much. Patrick: I wondered this too. The best I can figure is that Harry's lack of touch with the WW is rare. Yes thepe are muggle-borns but even they seemed to know who Voldy was, among other WW knowledge. How do they know? I haven't a clue. -- Patrick, the not terribly helpful From trekkie at stofanet.dk Mon Jan 3 18:52:08 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 19:52:08 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: VWII and WWII (was Marietta and Hermione) References: <006f01c4f128$7457bf30$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <007501c4f1c5$53f54210$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 121083 ----- Original Message ----- From: "charme" To: Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: VWII and WWII (was Marietta and Hermione) > charme: > > Heh. :) I am about to say something which may be *very* unpopular. You > folks who are Molly and Ron/Hermoine shippers, don't shoot Dungbombs at me > now, ok? > > "Harry looked between them, then said, "Mrs.Weasley, you didn't believe > that rubbish Rita Skeeter wrote in Witch Weekly, did you? Because > Hermoine's not my girlfriend." > "Oh," said Mrs. Weasley, "No - of course I didn't." But she became > considerably warmer toward Hermoine after that." (GoF/US) TrekkieGrrrl: Ah but IMO that is because she's angry at Hermione for BREAKING UP with Harry - which is the rubbish referred to, and not for being his girlfriend. Molly cares so much for Harry that she gets angry at anyone who in her opinion threathnes his wellbeing, such as "breaking his heart" Personally I think he'd been happy if Harry and Hermione was a pair, but I see no reasons to believe she would oppose to a Rin/Hermione relationship either. ~TG From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 4 00:49:18 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:49:18 -0000 Subject: Snape's view (was Re: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121084 >>Nora wrote: > Problem is, I don't think they really do--if Snape were to sit down and think them through fully. Snape's ongoing conception of Harry (among other things) also puts the lie to the SuperPerceptive! Snape idea that floats around here every once in a while: you know the one, the Snape who notes absolutely everything around him, constantly weighing ideas and always astute to the smallest changes...am I permitted a few giggles of laughter? Potioncat: SuperPerceptive!Snape? Is this a cousin of our Snape? Which book is he in? Nora: > No, I think Snape's myopia is thematic for his character; while > undeniably intelligent, he is also convinced of his rightness to the point of arrogance. He absolutely cannot stand to be challenged by someone who is not his institutional superior. Potioncat: OK, this is our Snape. Nora: snip > But I also don't think JKR is hiding nearly as many things from us > as Pippin thinks. :) She's taken pretty careful care to set up > situations where Snape's judgement is right, and situations where > his judgement is wrong. The thing is that the wrong ones hang > together in an interesting thematic pattern of arrogance and self- > conviction. Potioncat: Snape does not like arrogant people...does not like people who wear their hearts on their sleeves...does not like himself. He's determined that Harry is a little snot and I still think most of the events have confirmed it to him. I'm not saying the events confirm it in truth. We all do it, hopefully not to the extent Snape does, but we have a mindset about something and events prove it. Anything that disproves it is a fluke. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 4 00:57:07 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:57:07 -0000 Subject: Snape's view (was Re: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121085 Alla asks: > Second of all are you telling me that on every Potion lesson there is > an altercation between those two? In other words, surely there are > some quiet moments, when Snape can at least get a hint, that MAYBE > Harry is not James. > > Just my opinion, > Potioncat (Hi Alla!) Well, those would be same ones where Harry can at least get a hint, that MAYBE Snape is not a git. No, to tell you the truth, Harry has enough reason not to like Snape or his class. And I doubt Snape sees anything in Harry other than his dislike of the class which Snape would perceive as arrogance or disdain. I think the very bad feeling these two have toward each other is reinforced with every meeting. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 01:06:16 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:06:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James' Two-Way Mirror after GH (Did Snape Try to Warn James at GH? ) References: Message-ID: <019e01c4f1f9$987212e0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 121086 > >> Jen Reese wrote: >> >> Jen: That's an interesting thought. How did Sirius get that second >> two-way mirror back? Like you said, he and James were probably >> keeping tabs that way and it should have been destroyed at GH like >> everything else. It's not indestructible, because we saw Harry's >> mirror break. >> >> Of course, this is one of those questions JKR would probably answer >> something like this: "Sirius nicked it out of the rubble at GH > after >> it miraculously survived the explosion." :) One of the many, many >> details in the series that can be answered, but wasn't done so in >> the actual books. > > Jill: > I am guessing that the situation with James' mirror is similar to > that of the invisibility cloak, i.e., "Your father left this in my > possession..." I think James distributed these items to those he > trusted the most before he went into hiding. (If he's already in > hiding, why would he need an invisibility cloak? :))I think James > would have given the mirror to Sirius because if he kept it and > Sirius' mirror found the wrong hands, it could jeopardize the > Potter's safety. charme: I sort of agree with Jill, I think. I've often also thought someone (maybe Hagrid?) went back to the house and picked through things so the "pleesemen" didn't find them. I wonder if the mirrors worked by first name (James, Sirius) or by Marauder name (Prongs, Padfoot.) Maybe this is how we see Sirius again? Speculation only.... > > > > > > > > > > Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html > > Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from > posts to which you're replying! > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 4 03:43:35 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:43:35 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121088 > Jen wrote: > "And Harry does seem to struggle with complex moral issues like why > a 'good' person such as Seamus doesn't believe his story. And why > Dumbledore would trust a 'bad' person like Snape. And how the once- > sainted James can be a good person and a bully at the same time. His moral complexity grows with his character." > > Del replies: > I don't see him as struggling very much. He readily classified Seamus as bad for not believing him. He refuses to accept that DD has good reasons for trusting Snape, he refuses to consider that the man might not be completely evil. As for James, Harry doesn't struggle for very long, and he lets Remus and Sirius convince him quite easily, which again is congruent with a Platonic view : since James ended up fighting LV, he was good, and it doesn't matter that he did some bad things. > > In fact, I get a feeling that, far from getting more complex, the > morality presented in the HP books is getting more simple : if one is on the side of Good, then one's faults don't matter, but if one is on the side of Evil then one's qualities, honesty and good intents are irrelevant. > Valky: No Del, it is the frame of reference you're using that is oversimplified. You speak of morality in a human character as though it should be some automated machinery turning cogs in set process. Harry's outrage at Seamus was NOT a *ready classification* at all. Harry was not classifying people into good/bad lists he was reacting emotionally to his pain and frustration, as a human would do rather than a morality machine, which, clearly, he is not. The passage to which you refer above reads: " He was sick of it; sick of being the person who is stared at and talked about all the time. If any of them knew, if any of them had the faintest idea what it felt like to be the one all these things happened to... Mrs Finnigan had no idea, the stupid woman, he thought savagely." further on in the scene neville pipes up with his grans veiw and Harry feels a "rush of gratitude toward Neville.". *A rush of Gratitude*, not a flurry of thoughts concerning Nevilles *goodness*, Neville is fulfilling an emotional need in Harry, he is not being judged by any standard of morality at all. As for Snape, why should Harry forgive him any more than he has already done. Snape chose to inflict the emotional wounds on Harry that he has done. It's Snapes choice and Snapes consequence to deal with. None of that is Harry's responsibility. Harry feels what he rightly should feel, some of his reactions are a bit unhealthy, but as a teenager he is likely to improve on those things if he tries, thats what his future is for. Harry is a young boy with an emotional need for acceptance, his reaction to many years of emotional rollercoaster from isolation to acceptance and back to isolation again doesn't lend to a conclusion that he is morally hypocritical, a judgement like that is IMO indifferent to the degree of being cruelty. A person in pain is just that, a person in pain, if we are looking for logical perfection in human emotion then we are going to find ourselves dissappointed. > Tonks wrote: > "We are told that Lord Voldmort... Never loved... this is what makes him the evil principle." > > Del replies: > Whenever I think of this, I get stuck into a logic trap. If LV never loved, that means he was always evil, which in turn means he was born evil. But JKR said that nobody is born evil. So I'm confused. Can you help me out? > Valky: But it *is* a jump from "not born evil" to "never loved", and the gap between is where your answer lies. Tom Riddle *was* born isolated, so it's logical to assume that his opportunities for love may have been delayed until later in his life. I anticipate your answer to this will be that LV might be the product of his loveless environment in his early years then, and hence he is not essentially *evil* but is instead psycholocically rendered incapable of knowing good from evil, by childhood trauma, and that you can see no other explanation. We have had this discussion before. If this is your opinion, let me say now that I differ. I may be a student of science and a lover of logic, but I do have great respect for higher truths. Love is not confined to the limits of rational thought, there is no conclusive definition for it, but it exists and its power is known and cannot be denied. If JKR says that a real Love became an option in Toms Life and he chose against it, and that he clearly knew at the time his choice was evil and that Love was good, irregardless of his tormented past. Then I, for one, will definitely believe her. From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 03:59:25 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 03:59:25 -0000 Subject: Snape's view (was Re: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > SuperPerceptive!Snape? Is this a cousin of our Snape? Which book > is he in? He's not in any of the books...but he shows up here, every once in a while. Sometimes connected to theories in which Dumbledore is controlling everything that's going on. :) > Potioncat: > > He's determined that Harry is a little snot and I still think most > of the events have confirmed it to him. I'm not saying the events > confirm it in truth. Okay--now I see your point. Thanks for the clarification, and I would agree with that construction of the statement. The problem is that Snape's perception and the truth are a little...misaligned. And yes, it is indeed hard for Snape (or Draco) to change their opinions. But there's what's hard and right, and what's easy and lax. :) I think both Harry and Snape will have to abandon the road of least resistance and actually bother to think it through. -Nora notes that she wouldn't be so annoyed by Draco's lack of thinking if he hadn't had five years to gradually start to realize that his ideology and the world do not confort to each other (and he is far more clueless than the other characters under debate) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 05:15:53 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 05:15:53 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121090 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > ( big snip) > Tonks wrote: > "The black and white ending.. is the ending that we are told God will judge each of us by at the end of our life. Only one.. the one that JKR has mentioned over and over... LOVE." > > Del replies: > That's interesting, but I fail to see how this applies to the > Potterverse. Love doesn't seem to me to be a leading principle in the WW, far from it. And I know that Harry is supposed to be full of love, but I just don't *see* that. > Could you elaborate on this, or refer me to a past post on that subject? > > Tonks wrote: > "We are told that Lord Voldmort... Never loved... this is what makes him the evil principle." > > Del replies: > Whenever I think of this, I get stuck into a logic trap. If LV never loved, that means he was always evil, which in turn means he was born evil. But JKR said that nobody is born evil. So I'm confused. Can you help me out? > Tonks here: Love is a repeated theme in the books starting from book 1. It was Harry's mother's love that saved him. DD repeatedly shows that love is very important. It is in Harry's very skin and why LV can not touch him without pain. JKR does not always hit us over the head with it, because her writing is meant IMO to be subliminal in some of its teaching. The ancient magic has to do with Love as well, I think we are not told it directly... but indirectly... in many small ways. As to your second statement. That is quite a leap from someone never loving another person to saying that they are therefore born evil. I don't follow that logic at all. Look at it this way. From a Christian perspective which we know JKR is, God created human beings and in so doing, He created them as good. When He was finished with all that he created the bible tell us that He looked it all over and it was good. Therefore no one is born evil. (Yes there is the teaching about original sin, but sin and evil are not exactly the same. Sin is separation. I think evil is something else altogether.) It is the teaching of the church and I believe JKR point as well that it is our choices that determine what we become. SO here is the logic here: born good, free will to choose ones own course, fully understanding the choice and choosing to do what is unloving and against the law (ancient magic) of Love = evil. The evil did not come first. Good came first, was corrupted by free choice, and not just one choice, but a series of choices, knowingly (this is an important point) making the choice time and again, without repentance... Tom Riddle became Lord Voldemort bit by bit over time... through a series of conscious deliberate choices. Tonks_OP From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 4 07:52:09 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 07:52:09 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121091 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Salit wrote: > "I think that JKR models her WWII much after our own WWII. And that one > without a doubt was a black and white affair. Either you supported the > pure evil personified by Hitler (aka Voldemort) or you did not." > > Del replies: > I beg to differ. The majority of civilians in France chose a middle > position. The proportion of French civilians who became either > collabos or resistants is small, because many didn't feel very > involved in what was happening. Unless I am quite mistaken, WWII affected many more people than just the French (whose behaviour during the war was hardly something to brag about). I grew up in Israel in a kibbutz formed by holocaust survivors and my parents families were relatively lucky, having managed to escape the Nazies (one to British Mandate-ruled Israel, one to London). Very few of my extended families were killed. Most kids in my class were not so lucky. Their extended families were decimated. So many had no grandparents, uncles, etc. The adults carried the emotional (and some physical) scars. And these were the lucky ones who got out (and most of the adults endured harrowing years in hiding or concentration camps, and have seen their entire families destroyed). It would not have helped any of them if they just put their head down and cooperated. They were doomed because they were Jewish. So of course my perspective on the matter is quite different than the French or yours. If you don't resist evil, you are just aiding it, and deluding yourself that it will leave you alone if you act nicely. No doubt JKR will describe many wizards in the upcoming book(s) who will choose to hide their heads in the sand and demonstrate that they are good low abiding pure blooded citizens. I think the example of Regulus Black was given to show that all that and more would still not help them in the end, or if it does, it will change them and make them evil. > Salit wrote: > "During more peacefull times people can proceed without making real > choices, but not in war. Then you are either for me or for my enemies." > > Del replies: > It's very interesting that you should say this, because I see the > situation of the WW in OoP and of France during WWII as quite similar, > in that there was no war going on officially, and the enemy wasn't > easily definable (is that a word?). France capitulated in 1940, and > after that it officially wasn't at war anymore. The Germans > established a *French* government, which rendered the "me or my > enemies" issue meaningless. As I said, as a Jew of European origin my view on this is quite different... If you were born of the wrong stock it would not have mattered what you did or who you were, you'd still be killed. In the potterverse, the same would apply to Muggleborn wizards. Hermione, who actively fights against Voldemort would be a target, but so would the average Joe, such as Justin Fletch-whatever, who never did anything more aggressive than work hard in school. Cooperating passively with Voldemort will be the same as letting him have his way with them. > And it's only > History, it's the outcome that determined which of those two groups of > patriots ended up being the "true" ones. If Germany had won the war, > the resistants would have been deemed traitors, and the collabos would > have been celebrated. Are you suggesting that there was no moral difference between the Nazis and those who opposed them and the only reason we denounce the Nazis is because they lost? That Hitler was just another one in a long list of dictators trying to rule the world? Megalomaniac tendencies don't make one a monster. Napoleon Bonaparte was not a Hitler despite similar expansionist tendencies. What made the Nazis unique was their pure blood racial ideology which in their view gave them the right to perform genocide and mass murder on a scale never before seen, and whose society was technologically advanced enough to have the means to execute it. Jews (or Gypsies) were not the only targets. Russians and others were considered sub-humans too (though not to the extent that they needed death camps, as they were more usefull as slaves)... If you can't see the difference between the Nazis and their supporters versus those who opposed them, except through the prism of who won, I really don't know what else to say to you... > Similarly, the Fudge administration in OoP is a non-DE group leading > the public into a pro-LV situation, and those who want to fight LV end > up having to fight their own government. If they win, they will come > out as the true heroes, but should they lose, they would be marked as > traitors to their country. The point is that the collaborators make it possible for the real enemy to take control and because they usually don't quite hold to their extreme ideology, they serve as a fig leaf to evil to hide the real intentions of the people they support. Morality is not something that is relative and determined by the winner, or by who gets the good headlines in the paper. > Salit wrote: > "He thinks he did the right thing based on the information he had on > hand at the time. That's the best any of us can do..." > > Del replies: > Ah, but this is not enough, is it :-) ? Many characters in the > Potterverse do the best they can based on the information they have, > but if they make a choice that doesn't lead them to follow DD, then > they are wrong. That's basically what Lupinlore was explaining : it > doesn't matter that people do their best, it's what they end up doing > that matters, no matter how honest they are or how good their > intentions were. I disagree again. Results surely matter. But intentions - and the willingness to learn from mistakes - matter even more. None of JKR's good characters are infallible. They have all been guilty of lying, stealing, insensitivity, greed, you name it. It's the fact that they are willing to lay these petty traits aside when faced with a hard choice, and they are willing to grow and learn, that sets them apart. > As for DD, since he is the epitome of goodness, he *cannot* do wrong. > Whatever he did was necessarily right and good. In theory. JKR made out Dumbledore to be the epitome of goodness, but she definitely did not make him infallible. In her world Dumbledore cannot mean wrong, but he can (and does) do wrong, as he himself readily admits. Salit From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 4 10:49:36 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:49:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: explanation Message-ID: <20050104104936.20494.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121092 Just a short addendum to my post 121055: In message No. 121020 Julie wrote: Out of curiosity, has JKR ever stated that she is basing her books on these teachings? I thought I read somewhere that she'd addressed the question of whether she based the books on any sort of religious teaching or wrote deliberate correlations between particular religious teachings/writings and HP plot/characters (and I recall her answer being "No."). But I could easily be wrong. Hans: In post 121055 I quoted Jo from memory. I have now found the actual quote. Here it is: (actually it's an indirect quote, for the LOONS) "Rowling [] said she couldn't answer the questions about the book's religious content until the conclusion of book seven." I found the quote on: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/1099-chictimes-tucker.html I found this reference on Madam Scoop, a wonderful site for finding references easily! http://www.madamscoop.org/index.htm ===== Hans Rieuwers see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 11:04:43 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:04:43 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121093 Valky wrote: "No Del, it is the frame of reference you're using that is oversimplified. You speak of morality in a human character as though it should be some automated machinery turning cogs in set process. " Del replies: No, I'm not the one doing that : that's the way things are presented in the books. More precisely, anyone who doesn't see that Harry and DD are right is evil. I've always claimed that morality is highly dependent on many things, including past experiences and emotional circumstances. But in the books, those things don't matter. The fact that Percy was overstressed and badly hurt by what his father told him, the fact that Seamus and Marrietta were stuck between conflicting loyalties, the fact that Harry looks so much like Snape's past tormentor, all those things are presented as not mattering, not being any kind of excuse, and those people are presented not only as wrong but even evil for making the wrong choices they made. I happen to disagree strongly. Valky wrote: "Harry is a young boy with an emotional need for acceptance, his reaction to many years of emotional rollercoaster from isolation to acceptance and back to isolation again doesn't lend to a conclusion that he is morally hypocritical, a judgement like that is IMO indifferent to the degree of being cruelty. A person in pain is just that, a person in pain, if we are looking for logical perfection in human emotion then we are going to find ourselves dissappointed." Del replies: I'm not the one asking for logical perfection in human emotion. I'm not the one arguing that teenagers (by definition very highly emotional people) should always make the right decision, and that if they don't then they are evil. I'm not the one arguing that adult characters whose heart fills with fear at the simple name of LV should instantly lay those fears aside and unhesitatingly accept a single second-hand testimony and a small bunch of highly circumstancial evidence as the proof that LV has been resurrected, and that if they don't, then they are not only wrong but evil. Valky wrote: "If JKR says that a real Love became an option in Toms Life and he chose against it, and that he clearly knew at the time his choice was evil and that Love was good, irregardless of his tormented past. Then I, for one, will definitely believe her." Del replies: Except that this is not what she said. She said LV never loved. This means that even as a baby, or as a toddler, or as a small child, or as an older child, or as a teenager, he didn't love. And I happen to categorically refuse the idea that kids can *choose* not to love. They can *pretend* not to love, but they cannot in any way force themselves not to love. Loving is as natural for a child as breathing. So when I hear of a child who never loved, I just know that there was something seriously wrong with that child *to start with*. Del From martyb1130 at aol.com Tue Jan 4 01:01:11 2005 From: martyb1130 at aol.com (martyb1130 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:01:11 EST Subject: Pre-Hogwarts Message-ID: <13e.9d65fe1.2f0b44d7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121094 I'm assuming that Ron and Hermione went to some sort of school pre- Hogwarts. So what do they tell the school and teachers where they previously, if they even when to school. Won't all of their friends and grandparents (in Hermione's case) get suspicious? "martyb1130" From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jan 4 11:30:59 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:30:59 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121095 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Jen wrote: > "And Harry does seem to struggle with complex moral issues like why > a 'good' person such as Seamus doesn't believe his story. And why > Dumbledore would trust a 'bad' person like Snape. And how the once- > sainted James can be a good person and a bully at the same time. His > moral complexity grows with his character." > > Del replies: > I don't see him as struggling very much. He readily classified Seamus > as bad for not believing him. He refuses to accept that DD has good > reasons for trusting Snape, he refuses to consider that the man might > not be completely evil. As for James, Harry doesn't struggle for very > long, and he lets Remus and Sirius convince him quite easily, which > again is congruent with a Platonic view : since James ended up > fighting LV, he was good, and it doesn't matter that he did some bad > things. Hickengruendler: Maybe, but Harry is a teenager. He is allowed to make rash and unfair conclusions and to be unforgiving. He's in a difficult age and I would be happy if some readers (not necessarily you) would be a bit more forgiving of Harry's mistakes as well. Especially those who think he should make the first step in his relationship with Snape. And it doesn't really matter, what Harry thinks concerning Seamus. He was a bit unfair to Seamus, that's true. But Harry is not perfect, nor was he ever meant to be. Just because Harry, the character, judges Seamus more harshly than he probably deserves, doesn't mean, that we, the readers, should, too. IMO it was clearly shown, that Harry was as responsible for the quarrell in the dormitory, than Seamus was. I can understand Harry's reaction, he had a terrible summer, but we are not supposed to agree with everything he does and says, and IMO JKR has made this absolutely clear in all of her books, especially book 5. Therefore we are not necessarily meant to agree with Harry's opinion about Seamus. Look how soon Seamus was convinced of the truth, once he got some decent informations. (Don't misunderstand me, I dislike Seamus for totally petty reasons like the screentime he took away from Neville in the movies, especially the first, and I was thrilled that Neville was on Harry's side in this scene and Seamus was not, but IMO, even through Harry's biased point of view, JKR never showed Seamus in an unfair light). Hickengruendler From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 4 11:32:34 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:32:34 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121096 > Alla wrote: > "It seems to be VERY consistent with Platonic view of Good and Evil (I only studied Plato VERY briefly during general philosophy course in college), but I don't have to like it much. :o)" > > Del replies: > I never said I liked it either :-) In fact, I strongly dislike it :-( But if it is indeed JKR's view, then what can I do? > Valky: Ohh Del, sometimes I find it hard to believe that you are a *fan* of the HP series. :P Alla wrote: "in RL I would be very wary to give up on the eleven year old child , no matter how evil his parents are, therefore I consider Draco's portrayal to be one of JKR's biggest letdowns in the books." Del wrote: Is it a letdown, or is it consistent with the Platonic view of Good and Evil? In this view, Draco is evil because he believes his father and refuses to follow DD, so I guess it is morally right to give up on him. Just like I suppose it could be said that it is morally right to give up on a whole bunch of kids who have the wrong priorities(ambition instead of courage or loyalty). Valky: Well, in my own personal opinion Draco is not really portrayed as evil at all, but rather as a kind of budding evil-could-be, gluttonous of power and with a taste for malice, and it's a satirical portrayal of the illusion of greatness that power and malice are. A poke fun at the ineptness of bad, in the light of good. Spoofing of the dark side is a major theme throughout the books, and to me Draco is part of it. Unredeemable!Draco is not the product of platonic morality dictating the course of the characters, IMHO. He doesn't just believe his father, he embraces the principle and the reward for the deeds, just like his father. Realising the emptiness of his selfish existence and following the example of an altruistic like Dumbledore are two different things, and the first *must* come before the latter, or else it is the platonic divide that we all seem to agree is pretty lame. Frankly, I don't see JKR separating them, do you? From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 11:36:31 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:36:31 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121097 Tonks wrote: "Love is a repeated theme in the books starting from book 1. It was Harry's mother's love that saved him. DD repeatedly shows that love is very important. It is in Harry's very skin and why LV can not touch him without pain. JKR does not always hit us over the head with it, because her writing is meant IMO to be subliminal in some of its teaching. The ancient magic has to do with Love as well, I think we are not told it directly... but indirectly... in many small ways." Del replies: Well, I guess JKR's writing has been too subliminal for me, because I fail to see, say, Harry's amazing love, or DD's amzing love. The only amazing love I ever saw is Lily's love. So much so that Lily's love looks to me like a light in the darkness, the light of love in an ocean of mean feelings. I mean, people in the Potterverse do love each other, but this love is so, well, normal, never nothing exceptional, that I really don't see that Love is such a big thing in the HP books. Lily's love, yes, but that's it. The only other person I associate with strong love is Molly, because of the way she tries to give Harry some maternal love, and because of her breakdown when dealing with her Boggart. But none of the other characters strike me as exceptionally loving, or as putting any particular emphasis on Love. Tonks wrote: "That is quite a leap from someone never loving another person to saying that they are therefore born evil. I don't follow that logic at all." Del replies: Actually, there was an additional step in my reasoning : the concept that "not loving" is "being evil". I'm not the one who introduced that concept by the way, but I don't remember who did. Considering that additional step, it logically follows in my mind that someone who never loved was always evil. Tonks wrote: " From a Christian perspective which we know JKR is, God created human beings and in so doing, He created them as good." Del replies: Careful, not all Christians believe that. Some actually believe that humans are born evil but can be redeemed through Christ. I'm personally on a middle ground where I believe that people are born (not God-created) in different stages of goodness and evilness. Tonks wrote: " It is the teaching of the church and I believe JKR point as well that it is our choices that determine what we become. " Del replies: She has DD say that our choices *show* who we are, which is immensely different. From such a perspective, making an evil choice doesn't make someone evil, it *reveals* that this person is evil. Hence someone who supposedly systematically made evil choices like LV, revealed through those choices that he *was* evil to start with. Tom Riddle didn't become evil through evil choices, he *showed* that he was evil through his evil choices. Enormous difference. Tonks wrote: "SO here is the logic here: born good, free will to choose ones own course, fully understanding the choice and choosing to do what is unloving and against the law (ancient magic) of Love = evil. The evil did not come first. Good came first, was corrupted by free choice, and not just one choice, but a series of choices, knowingly (this is an important point) making the choice time and again, without repentance... Tom Riddle became Lord Voldemort bit by bit over time... through a series of conscious deliberate choices." Del replies: I cannot believe that a little boy could : 1. understand the law of Love 2. deliberately choose not to love 3. know the consequences of such a decision beforehand which is what Tom Riddle would have had to do in order to *never* love. On the other hand, if we apply DD's statement that our choices show who we are, then Tom's "choice" of not loving showed that he was always evil, even as a very young boy. The only thing that doesn't square with this theory is JKR's statement that nobody is born evil. However, this is a statement of personal belief, of belief *outside* the books, that doesn't necessarily reflect the morality she used in her books. Del From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 4 11:44:04 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:44:04 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121098 Meri proposed: > Discussion Questions: > > 1) Before the release of the book, JKR told us that someone close > toHarry would die, and in this chapter we are presented with > several red herrings about who it might be (Ron, Hermione, Ginny, > Neville). Might the injuries they sustained during this battle > foreshadow later events? Did you think, before reading the book, > that is, that Sirius would be the one to die? What kind of > repercussions do you think his death will have on future plot > lines? Christian allegories aside, what exactly is behind the veil? Sigune: Oh dear no, I never for a moment suspected it might be Sirius, and I was pretty shocked. I thought it might be Arthur Weasley, then Hagrid, then Hermione (which I would have found quite unforgivable). As to the injuries, I don't believe they particularly foreshadow anything, apart from, perhaps, Ron and the brain tentacles. If that injury doesn't resurface, I don't really see what the point of mentioning it was. I'm not really sure about the repercussions of Sirius's death. The part he had to play in Harry's life was never that extensive, was it - he mainly served as a sort of living link to James, and somehow fulfilled that function better than Lupin. I don't see any easy replacement for Sirius in Harry's life; I don't believe Lupin can act as a surrogate to the surrogate father. The pattern seems to be that Harry will be more and more thrown back to himself. The veil I have a bit of a problem with - that is to say, it appears to me to be a sort of limbo rather than death, but that probably has something to do with the fact that we most often get to picture something like an afterlife, which contrasts (to me) rather starkly with the emptiness behind the veil (or is that just me again?). > 2) Where was Mr. Goyle? Almost every other Death Eater from the > resurrection scene from GOF was present during the battle, so where > was he? Was he simply too incompetent to take on a mission of this > importance? Or did Mr. Goyle displease Voldemort in some way? Sigune: Heh heh. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Mr Goyle has defected from both Lucius Malfoy and dear Voldie? That's what I would make of it, and it would be a nice twist, but I'm not sure JKR will take her (occasional) subversions of black/white that far - she certainly does a bad job on Draco Malfoy in that department, so why Goyle, of all people? :). > 3) For that matter, where the heck was Peter Pettigrew? Did > Voldemort worry that Peter's life-debt to Harry would be a > hindrance to him on this mission? Sigune: Please *do* correct me if I missed something, but does Voldie KNOW about the life-debt? It seems imprudent on Peter's part to mention it, at least in my humble opinion; and Pettigrew's keen instinct of survival would reasonably have kept him from informing his master that he has such a powerful bond with said master's enemy. As to Voldie not sending him in, then, I suspect he had another task in mind for Peter, about which we will hopefully find out in book six. Pettigrew is useful in several ways; we've had this kind of discussion before about Snape; I should hope that Voldie has the brains to set particular servants to tasks they are good at, so Peter might have had something better to do than chase a few kids around the MoM. > 4) What was Bellatrix so mad about? Was it because Harry said the > name? Or because she didn't know about LV's real parantage? Do the > Death Eaters really not know that Voldemort is a half-blood? How > can he keep that concealed from them if Malfoy at least knows his > true identity, Tom Riddle? How will this revelation affect the > Death Eaters and their reverence and fear for Voldemort? Sigune: Yes, that one has me a bit puzzled. I distinctly remember Voldie saying (I think it was Diary!Tom in CoS) that his obsession with pure blood was a thing of the past - whereas we have been lead to believe that the blood issue was the one that gathered the DE's around him - it's the Salazar Slytherin thingy. So now that blood is no longer the main focus, what keeps all these purebloods slaving away for him? Well, Mr Goyle seems to have decided Voldie's no longer worthwhile; who will be next? ;)... Bellatrix is a real 'Toujours Pur' type; I think that, yes, she's mighty upset at what she considers a terrible insult to her venerated master. But I think that she, for one, never can believe Harry's right about Riddle. The other, somewhat saner DEs, might, however. Interesting. BTW, I've never quite understood how Voldie's parentage isn't more widely known. You'd think that a bunch of people who obsess over pure blood would have some genealogical background or had done some research on their Great Leader. (But then again, did anyone ever do that for Hitler and walk up to him saying he wasn't being very consistent?) Hm. I suppose that people like Macnair, for example, will just use *any* excuse to use violence against others, and there might be more DEs of his kind why couldn't care less about the label or ideology under which they fight. And Malfoy seems to have decided to keep Voldie's origins to himself, which opens perspectives in terms of speculation about his motives. > 6) This has been discussed before, but what significance, if any, > do those other prophecies have? What kind of valuable information > was lost when the kids broke the shelves? How foolproof are the > recording procedures at the Department of Mysteries? Malfoy very > specifically says that only the people to whom the prophecies > pertain can remove them from the Department, not the shelves. Is > this why Neville could handle the prophecy? Does he still have a > part to play in this? Sigune: This is totally irrelevant, of course, but I privately enjoyed the smashing of the prophecies. These things are *so* infuriating. I have already expressed my aversion to prophecies in earlier threads: they're useless, you can't understand them until they've been fulfilled, they're always being misinterpreted, and no matter how much I like the character of Dumbledore, I lost some of my esteem for him when he started rambling about one. Duh. He should know better. It's not because Voldy's obsessed with them that it's a good idea to act according to prophecies which may or may not be about the thing you think they are about. They're not valuable information; they only lead people astray and depress them by suggesting their fate is pinned. So good riddance. Neville - well, I don't have any definite theories, but I *do* suspect there is a nice, important role for him somewhere. Now that you mention it: how was Malfoy going to remove the prophecy from the Department? Would Voldie come anyway, as it was about him and he could thus handle it? > 7) Neville showed some impressive skills and more bravery in this > scene than in anything else he has done before. Is Timid!Neville > gone for good? How do you think his experience of the Cruciatus > Curse will affect him? If he gets a new wand what will it be made > of? What part will he play in future events? If Harry is the heir, > is Neville the spare? Sigune: If JKR sticks to the system of Celtic trees she explained on her website, Neville's wand should be fashioned out of the same wood as Harry's, holly. I do hope Timid!Neville isn't gone for good - I would find that psychologically unrealistic, even though I think the battle at the DoM and his confrontation with Bellatrix has made him stronger. > 9) When Ron got attacked by the brains I thought his number was up. > Whose brain was it that tried to strangle him? What is the > Department of Mysteries doing with the brains? Sigune: Personally I don't think it's specifically important whose brain it was - although, if the attack *does* leave traces, it might actually prove interesting (sorry - I can't help thinking about a fic where a Memory Charm backfired and Kreacher and Gilderoy Lockhart ended up which each other's memories...:-) I suppose what they study in the Brain Room is Thought - one other elusive thing, next to Death and Time and (possibly, presumably) Love - stuff you cannot grasp. Hm. It does make me wonder about the planets - the origin and movements of the Universe? > 10) Many people have used Harry's protectiveness to Hermione in > this chapter as an indication that he likes her as more than a > friend. How do you think this chapter presents the various SHIPS? > Harry also stands in front of Ginny when she is threatened. Does > this indicate that he has feelings for her? Or is there simply too > much vague evidence? (I have no agenda with this one, just curious!) Sigune: Nah, nah. It's his 'saving-people-thing' - he's protective of all his friends; they are the only 'family' he has, besides the Dreadful Dursleys - and he protected even Dudley, didn't he? Yours severely, Sigune From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jan 4 12:01:26 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:01:26 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121099 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Del replies: > No, I'm not the one doing that : that's the way things are presented > in the books. More precisely, anyone who doesn't see that Harry and DD > are right is evil. I've always claimed that morality is highly > dependent on many things, including past experiences and emotional > circumstances. But in the books, those things don't matter. The fact > that Percy was overstressed and badly hurt by what his father told > him, the fact that Seamus and Marrietta were stuck between conflicting > loyalties, the fact that Harry looks so much like Snape's past > tormentor, all those things are presented as not mattering, not being > any kind of excuse, and those people are presented not only as wrong > but even evil for making the wrong choices they made. I happen to > disagree strongly. Hickengruendler: In all respect, but I happen to disagree with about everything you wrote. I already gave my opinion about Seamus in my previous post. I stand by it and just want to add, that there were several scenes, where Seamus wanted to talk too Harry before they made up. IMO, the books made it obvious that Seamus just needed more informations, and that he is not solely to blame for the rift between him and Harry, and I must admit, that I am surprised that anyone thinks he is presented as downright wrong or even evil. From that point of view, Ernie Macmillan in CoS was also evil. Surely, from Harry's point of view Ernie's behaviour was annoying. But what Ernie knew was that Harry could speak Parseltongue, that he had an unhappy childhood because of the muggles (which was basically Tom Riddle's motive) and that everyone who annoyed Harry was a victim. Add to this that Justin is his best friend and that he was worried for him, and his behaviour becomes absolutely understandable. He also had the guts to apologize, something that Seamus as well. Or another example. Ron surely wasn't right to suspect Harry that he threw his name in the GoF. But does that mean that he was portrayed as evil, just because he didn't believe Harry? Surely not. And I see no difference between these scenes and Seamus' behaviour in book 5. The Marietta and Percy situation are more difficult. Basically, I think Marietta's betrayal was by far the worst out of the three, simply because of the consequences it could have had for all the DA members, including her best friend. But nonetheless I agree with you here, that the jinx punishment was too harsh, especially because it was still on Marietta's face at the end of the year. However, it is not true that Marietta or her reasons are totally dismissed. Cho defends her and explains the difficult situation in which Marietta was. I know that Cho is not the fandom's favourite character, but she is by no means evil, and I see no reason why we, the readers, should dismiss her defense of Marietta. Especially because Harry's counter arguement was really weak. Yes, Ron's father is also in the ministry, but he happens to be on Dumbledore's side, therefore Ron and his silblings wouldn't have to feat any punishment if they were part in an Anti-Ministry group, Marietta would. I still think Marietta is mostly to blame for what she did, especially because she knew that the group was harmless, but I also think that we are not supposed to see her as the world's biggest monster. And Percy is not presented as unsympathetic because he doesn't believe Harry, but because he left his family and refused to speak with them. But again, JKR gave some reasons, for example the one you mentioned, that Arthur was not very fair too him. Of course he was shown in a very bad light in book 5, I don't deny it, but so was Snape in book 3. Percy's good side were regularly shown in the earlier books, where we saw more of him, and JKR obviously likes him enough to wish him a Happy Birthday on her website. Therefore I am convinced, that when all is said and done, Percy will be seen in a more sympathetic light, than he currently is. Hickengruendler From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 4 12:28:24 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:28:24 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121100 > Valky wrote: > "No Del, it is the frame of reference you're using that is > oversimplified. You speak of morality in a human character as though it should be some automated machinery turning cogs in set process. " > > Del replies: > No, I'm not the one doing that : that's the way things are presented in the books. More precisely, anyone who doesn't see that Harry and DD are right is evil. Valky: I'm sorry, Del, but I have no idea what you mean by that. I don't recall that happening, precisely. Del: > The fact that Percy was overstressed and badly hurt by what his father told him, the fact that Seamus and Marrietta were stuck between conflicting loyalties, the fact that Harry looks so much like Snape's past tormentor, all those things are presented as not mattering, not being any kind of excuse, and those people are presented not only as wrong but even evil for making the wrong choices they made. I happen to disagree strongly. > Valky: I see your point, but I don't think that the books misrepresented these people so much as you say. Percy had been behaving like a jerk for years, especially in his holier than thou attitude towards his family. Most of the interpretations of Percy are based on the development of his character, and not essentially on his defection from the Weasleys to Fudge. Basically, we all saw it coming a mile off, and whatever Arthur would or wouldn't say to him was always going to be entirely inconsequential. Percy's choice was made long ago, and his loyalty to his career was the natural progression we expected. Arthur simply made it easier, or harder depending on which side of the ESE fence you like to sit, for him to follow through with it. Seamus is easy, the book IS sympathetic to him, he was portrayed as a good friend embattled in his loyalties, he wasn't portrayed as evil at all. Our sympathy is, of course, with Harry, because he is continually being wronged and it's out of his control. We aren't divulged the entire life story of Seamus Finnigan, so we only see him suffering a small injustice in comparison to the hopelessness of Harry's whole summer. When "Seamus Finnigan and the Injustices of 1995" is published I am sure that the tables will turn and the onesidedness of it all will lean the other way. ;P Marietta OTOH broke a promise, and she *is* portrayed pretty unsympathetically, by the book. She was an unfortunate pawn in the story wandering in above her depth, but for the most part, Harry and co veiwed her deed is evil, which I will concede isn't really fair, under the circumstance. However, in wartime which we face in the next two books the code of honour among small rebel groups, such as DA, will count for much more, and people like Marietta won't have the excuse of not knowing what they are about to do. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 12:43:18 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:43:18 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121101 Salit wrote: "Unless I am quite mistaken, WWII affected many more people than just the French (whose behaviour during the war was hardly something to brag about)." Del replies: I would appreciate if you refrained from insulting a people you apparently don't know personally. But anyway my point was only to contest the rule you had arbitrarily established that in a war things are black or white. A single exception is enough to disprove a rule, and the French (and many other people in several other occupied countries by the way) are that exception, hence your rule is not valid. That's what I was aiming at. Salit wrote: "It would not have helped any of them if they just put their head down and cooperated. They were doomed because they were Jewish." and "If you were born of the wrong stock it would not have mattered what you did or who you were, you'd still be killed." Del replies: I completely agree. This is *precisely* the difference between the French and the Jews : the Nazis were bent on killing the Jews no matter what, while they were very willing to let the non-Jew (and non-Rom, non-Slav, non-homosexual, non-whatever-they-didn't-like) French live. This led to very different reactions between the Jews and the "all right" French : the first ones *had* to react, while the second could pretend that things were OK enough at first. Similarly in the WW, LV and his DEs are supposedly mainly after the Muggles, the Muggleborns, the half-bloods and whoever defends them. This would lead the purebloods to inaction, since they are not *directly* threatened. And from the look of things, it seems like the purebloods are still quite in control of the government. So it would make sense that the government wouldn't be inclined to react to LV's presence because they don't feel as threatened. Though I must admit that after VWI, I don't really see how they can still fool themselves, but hey, that's a very human thing to do. Salit wrote: "So of course my perspective on the matter is quite different than the French or yours. If you don't resist evil, you are just aiding it, and deluding yourself that it will leave you alone if you act nicely. " Del replies: How do you know my perspective ? I actually happen to agree with you. But I also happen to understand why other people would react differently. Salit wrote: "Are you suggesting that there was no moral difference between the Nazis and those who opposed them and the only reason we denounce the Nazis is because they lost?" Del replies: Yes and no. There would still be people to denounce what the Nazis did, but they wouldn't be anywhere as supported by the general public as they are now. Salit wrote: "What made the Nazis unique was their pure blood racial ideology which in their view gave them the right to perform genocide and mass murder on a scale never before seen, and whose society was technologically advanced enough to have the means to execute it." Del replies: How many people consider the Catholic church and the European kingdoms it supported as scum for the way they treated the American Indians? Millions of Indians were killed because they were "sub-humans", and yet hardly anybody cares, because the Indians lost. How many people consider the Romans monsters because of the way they treated the Jews in 70AD? They killed hundreds of thousands of Jews in Jerusalem, and yet hardly anybody considers the Roman monsters, because the Romans won. Like it or not, but the winners DO get to rewrite History. There are always people to contest their views, but it doesn't change the fact that the winners' view often remains the official view, even when it is blatantly false. Salit wrote: "If you can't see the difference between the Nazis and their supporters versus those who opposed them, except through the prism of who won, I really don't know what else to say to you..." Del replies: Wherever did I say I couldn't see the difference? As someone who was born decades after the events in a non-totalitaristic country, I was given enough information to make up my mind that the Nazi mentality was evil, and their way of enforcing it even worse. But I'm not sure I would have thought the same thing if I had lived in some rural part of France in 1941, for example. Salit wrote: "The point is that the collaborators make it possible for the real enemy to take control and because they usually don't quite hold to their extreme ideology, they serve as a fig leaf to evil to hide the real intentions of the people they support." Del replies: Exactly. This makes it harder for the general public to figure out what the real enemy is actually up to. That was precisely my point. Salit wrote: "Morality is not something that is relative and determined by the winner, or by who gets the good headlines in the paper." Del replies: I disagree, at least on the short term. With hindsight and more information, the truth becomes easier to figure out. But in the middle of a situation, we often accept for the truth what we are being presented with by the stronger contestant, or by the papers. In the WW, people couldn't figure out during VWI who was a DE, who was being controlled, who was a good guy : they didn't know who to trust. Trusting a DE or distrusting a good guy were not necessarily signs of moral corruption, because people didn't necessarily see things as they truly were. It's only after the end of the war, when trials were held and the evidence was presented on all sides, that things became clearer. And even then, not all the truth was uncovered, or Lucius Malfoy would have spent a decade in Azkaban. Salit wrote: " Results surely matter. But intentions - and the willingness to learn from mistakes - matter even more. None of JKR's good characters are infallible. They have all been guilty of lying, stealing, insensitivity, greed, you name it. It's the fact that they are willing to lay these petty traits aside when faced with a hard choice, and they are willing to grow and learn, that sets them apart." Del replies: I would tend to agree, if I didn't feel that this is not the way things are presented in the books. Those traits you mentioned are not presented as being bad as long as their owners are on the side of Good, while good qualities become irrelevant in people who are on the side of Evil. As for being willing to lay those traits aside, or being willing to grow and learn, I don't see that in any particular set of characters, whether the good ones or the bad ones. Salit wrote: "JKR made out Dumbledore to be the epitome of goodness, but she definitely did not make him infallible. In her world Dumbledore cannot mean wrong, but he can (and does) do wrong, as he himself readily admits." Del replies: That's precisely the crux of my problem. DD can and does do wrong, and yet the only Good thing to do is to believe him and follow him without hesitation. Whoever doesn't do that is wrong. Bummer. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 12:53:28 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:53:28 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121102 Hickengruendler wrote: "Just because Harry, the character, judges Seamus more harshly than he probably deserves, doesn't mean, that we, the readers, should, too. (snip) but we are not supposed to agree with everything he does and says, and IMO JKR has made this absolutely clear in all of her books, especially book 5." Del replies: Now that's funny, because I feel just the opposite way. I've always felt that by putting us almost inside Harry's head, JKR's intention is to make us agree with Harry pretty much all the time. This is even one of the main reasons reading OoP was unpleasant for me : because I found myself disagreeing with Harry way too often, separating myself from him too much to be able to read about his reactions without repeated twinges of annoyance. I do think that we the readers are supposed to agree with Harry. Especially considering the target public of the books : kids the same age as Harry. They are (as a group) by definition as irrational as Harry, so they wouldn't see anything wrong in the way Harry acts and reacts. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 13:17:30 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 13:17:30 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121103 Valky wrote: "Ohh Del, sometimes I find it hard to believe that you are a *fan* of the HP series. :P" Del replies: Being a fan of something doesn't necessarily mean enjoying all parts of it. And frankly, the top of my fan-ness was after PoA. Since then, I've been less of a fan with each book. Ah well... Valky wrote: "Realising the emptiness of his selfish existence and following the example of an altruistic like Dumbledore are two different things, and the first *must* come before the latter, or else it is the platonic divide that we all seem to agree is pretty lame. Frankly, I don't see JKR separating them, do you?" Del replies: No I don't see her separating them, which is precisely what bothers me. I don't think Draco considers his life to be empty, and as a consequence he doesn't see the need for a more altruistic lifestyle. I was discussing something similar with my husband yesterday. He was bothered by those people in our church that say that they are so glad they have the Gospel, because otherwise their life would be so empty. That's fine but it becomes problematic when they also say that they wish other people would accept the Gospel, because this way their lives wouldn't be so empty. We feel that it's a very insulting thing to do, to pretend that someone's life is empty because they don't have some higher spiritual knowledge and cause, or, even worse, because they don't have *our* higher spiritual knowledge and cause. We can think that their lives lack *in one area*, but that doesn't mean their lives are empty, even if we feel that this one area is the most important of all. Similarly, I feel that Draco's life is indeed quite empty and lonely without real Love, real friends, and a higher cause similar to mine. But I strongly doubt that Draco realises that. In fact, I suspect that he considers such things as Love and Higher purposes to be unnecessary and even cumbersome. As such, I don't see how he could join the side of Good out of an inner desire to serve its cause. He would have to do it for reasons that would be consistent with his inner priorities : he would have to have a *material interest* in it. Del From griffin782002 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 13:39:52 2005 From: griffin782002 at yahoo.com (sp. sot.) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:39:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Platform 9 3/4 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050104133952.48619.qmail@web52704.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121104 mworth1019 wrote: How do the wizard/witch children of muggles figure out how to get onto Platform 9 3/4 on their first trip to Hogwarts? Harry lucked out and found the Wealsleys' but others may not be so lucky? I know that Hagrid tells Harry to "stick to his ticket" but that did not help much. -mworth Griffin782002 now: I wonder if those representatives that visit Muggle families with magical children exept informing the parents about their children's unusual abilities, also tell them about the platform. Griffin782002 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 13:41:04 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 13:41:04 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121105 Hickengruendler wrote: "In all respect, but I happen to disagree with about everything you wrote." (snip) "IMO, the books made it obvious that Seamus just needed more informations, and that he is not solely to blame for the rift between him and Harry, and I must admit, that I am surprised that anyone thinks he is presented as downright wrong or even evil." (snip) "Therefore I am convinced, that when all is said and done, Percy will be seen in a more sympathetic light, than he currently is." Del replies: This is quite a funny situation, Hickengruendler, because we actually seem to agree very much in our personal judgements of the characters. I agree with everything you said in defence of Seamus, Ernie, Ron, Marrietta and Percy. My point, and it's not an easy one to explain clearly, is that I get the distinct feeling that the books do not promote such more-objective judgements as you and I make. I get the clear feeling that whatever Harry thinks or feels is right, even when he is wrong, simply because he is the hero on the side of Good. As Lupinlore explained, I feel that the characters' motives and circumstances don't matter, it's only their actions that matter. If their actions support the side of Good then they are good, but if their actions don't support the side of Good (for example, if their actions hurt Harry), then they are bad. I personally DO NOT agree with such a view of things. But I do get the distinct feeling that this is the morality that is applied in the Potterverse. For example, when you say that the books clearly show that Harry was as responsible as Seamus for the rift between them, I would say yes and no. The *facts* given in the books do show that Harry has his share of responsibility. But the *judgement* passed by the narrator denies this responsibility. The narrator clearly judges Seamus and his mother for being entirely responsible of what happened, and relents only when Seamus apologises to Harry. As you said, the narrator does tell us that Seamus tries to talk to Harry, but then immediately he gives us "good" reasons for Harry not to talk to him, which in effect means that the narrator agrees that Seamus didn't deserve a second chance. The narrator is partial to Harry, and because of that things are not at all presented in an objective way. The readers *can* try and make their own judgement, but if they don't want to or simply can't, then they *will* adopt the narrator's opinions. Which is why I say that I think JKR does intend the readers to condemn whoever goes against Harry. I have a feeling I didn't make myself any clearer, somehow... Del From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 4 13:54:53 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 13:54:53 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121106 > Hickengruendler wrote: "Just because Harry, the character, judges Seamus more harshly than he probably deserves, doesn't mean, that we, the readers, should, too. (snip) but we are not supposed to agree with everything he does and says, and IMO JKR has made this absolutely clear in all of her books, especially book 5." > Del replied: 'Now that's funny, because I feel just the opposite way. I've always felt that by putting us almost inside Harry's head, JKR's intention is to make us agree with Harry pretty much all the time. This is even one of the main reasons reading OoP was unpleasant for me : because I found myself disagreeing with Harry way too often, separating myself from him too much to be able to read about his reactions without repeated twinges of annoyance. I do think that we the readers are supposed to agree with Harry. Especially considering the target public of the books : kids the same age as Harry. They are (as a group) by definition as irrational as Harry, so they wouldn't see anything wrong in the way Harry acts and reacts.' Sigune offers two Knuts: Well, that seems to be the Parting of the Ways in this discussion, then :-). I agree with Hickengruendler, and OotP is my favourite book in the series, even though I couldn't at all agree with Harry's perspective most of the time. Book 5 bravely deconstructs all the fluffy feelings both Harry and the reader might hitherto have entertained about the wizarding world with its funny ways of dressing and mailing and living in general. Harry has to come to terms with a Brave New World that isn't as ideal as he could have hoped - it can no longer be squarely opposed to the Muggle world as represented by the Dursleys. It's no longer black and white. I have no problem dissociating myself from Harry even though the point of view is his; the technique of the narrative is still to 'show'. What I like about OotP is that JKR doesn't smooth out the turmoil of the teenage brain (:-), but presents it to us, making clear what a flawed hero Harry is; and for me, it is his flaws that make him interesting. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with being annoyed with Harry. I was, too. But the only thing that mattered to me was that his behaviour made sense within the boundaries of "Harry Potter, Age 15, Apprentice Wizard, The Boy Who Went Through Four Adventures Previously And Bears The Marks" - and it did. Of course you can have the children's books/adults' books discussion again; but no matter in what category you place the series, they will be read by people outside that category, and that is a good thing, IMHO. If children can entirely sympathise with Harry, that's OK with me; but if HP is an enduring series they might come back to it as adults and find their opinion has changed. That's what's called growing up. And I don't think for one moment that we as adult readers are obliged to keep in mind that this is a children's series and that we should tailor our opinions to the fact. The great thing is that the books *can be* read by all ages, and that we have room for difference of opinion; otherwise the books would be a bore. This said, Del, I share your fear concerning to two last books, to some extent. JKR has created (in my opinion) a very rich universe in which we as readers are invited to participate; but the question remains if she will be able to keep it up. If her endings aren't open enough, many of us will be severely disappointed... So I find myself both eager and reluctant to read the final two books. Yours severely, Sigune From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 14:00:20 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:00:20 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121107 Valky wrote: "Percy had been behaving like a jerk for years, especially in his holier than thou attitude towards his family." Del replies: Hey, this is a *perfect* example of what I'm trying to explain. Simply put : Percy had IMO *not* been behaving like a jerk, that's only the *impression* we get of him because he annoys Harry and Ron. What did he ever do that was so awful? He enforced the rules ? As a Prefect, that was his duty. He encouraged everyone to study? What's wrong with that? He was proud of his accomplishments ? He learned that from his mother, and there's nothing wrong with being proud of your accomplishments. He counseled his younger siblings, even when they didn't want to? That's the duty and privilege of the older siblings. He bossed people around? Everyone in the Potterverse and in RL does that, just some are more diplomatic about it than others. So, in what ways did Percy ever act as a jerk? In my eyes, he only started acting like a jerk in OoP, but because I can easily imagine what kind of emotional stress he was under, I wouldn't classify his jerk-y behavior in OoP as a natural trait of his. Valky wrote: "When "Seamus Finnigan and the Injustices of 1995" is published I am sure that the tables will turn and the onesidedness of it all will lean the other way. ;P" Del replies: That's the problem : the one-sidedness. Where there's one-sidedness, there's unfair judgment. Saying that the books are one-sided but that they don't pass unfair judgment on secondary characters is a bit of a contradiction in my mind. The HP books do pass judgements on the characters : Harry, being the hero, is good, and everyone else is judged on whether they are sympathetic to Harry or not. It's not what the characters do that matters, it's whether their actions make Harry happy or not. Del From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jan 4 14:19:02 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:19:02 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > My point, and it's not an easy one to explain clearly, is that I get > the distinct feeling that the books do not promote such more- objective > judgements as you and I make. I get the clear feeling that whatever > Harry thinks or feels is right, even when he is wrong, simply because > he is the hero on the side of Good. > > As Lupinlore explained, I feel that the characters' motives and > circumstances don't matter, it's only their actions that matter. If > their actions support the side of Good then they are good, but if > their actions don't support the side of Good (for example, if their > actions hurt Harry), then they are bad. > > I personally DO NOT agree with such a view of things. But I do get the > distinct feeling that this is the morality that is applied in the > Potterverse. > > For example, when you say that the books clearly show that Harry was > as responsible as Seamus for the rift between them, I would say yes > and no. The *facts* given in the books do show that Harry has his > share of responsibility. But the *judgement* passed by the narrator > denies this responsibility. The narrator clearly judges Seamus and his > mother for being entirely responsible of what happened, and relents > only when Seamus apologises to Harry. As you said, the narrator does > tell us that Seamus tries to talk to Harry, but then immediately he > gives us "good" reasons for Harry not to talk to him, which in effect > means that the narrator agrees that Seamus didn't deserve a second chance. > > The narrator is partial to Harry, and because of that things are not > at all presented in an objective way. The readers *can* try and make > their own judgement, but if they don't want to or simply can't, then > they *will* adopt the narrator's opinions. Which is why I say that I > think JKR does intend the readers to condemn whoever goes against Harry. > > I have a feeling I didn't make myself any clearer, somehow... > > Del Hickengruendler: You did make yourself clearer. If I understood you right, you said that because the narrator is partial to Harry, everybody who does something that hurts Harry (no matter what their motives were or if they meant to hurt him), is automatically seen as bad. I can see where you are coming from, but I don't necessarily agree with this. I think JKR expects from us, to see beyond Harry's point of view in giving us the other characters' motives. I searched for Canon to back this up, and found this quote from JKR. "Ron has to deal with his jealousy - he's made friends with the most famous boy in his year and that's not easy, it's not easy to be in that situation." It's from here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/tv_film/newsid_1634000/1634400.stm I know that it's probably not the very best quote, since it concerns Ron, who is generally a very positive character. It would be more interesting to read JKR's opinion about Percy and Marietta, but she never said anything about their behaviour in book 5, other than that Percy was acting out of free will. But this quote clearly shows, that she understood Ron and emphasized with him during the fight with Harry in GoF, and that she expets from us, to do this as well. Therefore I'm willing to believe, that she expects us to do so with other characters as well. Especially since it wasn't really Seamus, who started the fight with Harry, since she showed Percy's concern for his family members in the earlier books (and likes him enough to wish him a "Happy Birthday" on her website), and since she put some defense for Marietta in her books, even if Harry didn't agree with it. Therefore I think she expects from us, that we see the other character's point of view and their situation as well. Of course even if this is her intention, there's still the question if she succeeds delivering this message in her books. I think she does, if only because so many of the users here tend to feel sorry for Marietta or to understand Percy. Hickengruendler From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 4 14:27:29 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:27:29 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121109 Del replies: > > No, I'm not the one doing that : that's the way things are > > presented in the books. More precisely, anyone who doesn't see > > that Harry and DD are right is evil. I've always claimed that > > morality is highly dependent on many things, including past > > experiences and emotional circumstances. But in the books, those > > things don't matter. The fact that Percy was overstressed and > > badly hurt by what his father told him, the fact that Seamus and > > Marrietta were stuck between conflicting loyalties, the fact that > > Harry looks so much like Snape's past tormentor, all those things > > are presented as not mattering, not being any kind of excuse, and > > those people are presented not only as wrong but even evil for > > making the wrong choices they made. I happen to disagree strongly. Hickengruendler: > In all respect, but I happen to disagree with about everything you > wrote. I already gave my opinion about Seamus in my previous post. > I stand by it and just want to add, that there were several scenes, > where Seamus wanted to talk too Harry before they made up. IMO, the > books made it obvious that Seamus just needed more informations, > and that he is not solely to blame for the rift between him and > Harry, and I must admit, that I am surprised that anyone thinks he > is presented as downright wrong or even evil. SSSusan: Yes! Thank you for this remark. I'm not sure how we seem to have got to the place of saying *all* the characters are either good [believe Harry & DD] or **evil.** Isn't there room for uncertainty about most of the characters at this point? For someone who makes lots of bad choices but isn't actually evil? For someone who doesn't believe Harry but isn't actually evil? How 'bout that person as simply uninformed, misguided or wrong? Now, if there is *A* moment of choice -- side with The Order or Voldy & the DEs; choose to do something to help or choose to turn away and do nothing -- then I can see saying someone has chosen evil. But Seamus? As Hickengreundler said in his prior post, Seamus *wanted* to know more, was mostly likely quite willing to listen to Harry, but he hit Harry at the wrong moment and didn't get the info he wanted. So he blew Harry off. Is that EVIL? Um, not in my book. It was an unfortunate situation, that's all, and Harry deserves much of the blame for it, so how can Seamus be evil? I don't think JKR meant for us to think he was. As for Percy, I'm still reserving judgment. For me much depends on where he goes from here, what we find out about his intentions [has he been acting based on some moral system in which he fully believed? has he been acting soley out of greed and ambition?] To say we know for sure that Percy is evil doesn't make sense to me, nor do I think JKR has "told" us, "Oh, yes, definitely. Can't you see? Percy is evil!" No, I think we're *meant* to be struggling with "the issue of Percy" at this time: what to make of him; where he'll go; what his motivations are; where his loyalties truly lie. Some of the characters are evil. But to try, at this point in the story, to class every character as either good or evil is just not sensible imo. I mean, *who says* these things [extenuating circumstances, mitigating factors, incomplete information] don't matter? I mean, WE'RE here talking about all of them, evaluating whether any existed in Marietta's case, in Hermione's case with DJU & the centaurs, etc. Are you saying, Del, that JKR has written the books in such a way that it's CLEAR that she's telling us there's no gray? If it were that clear, we wouldn't be trading posts about who's good, who's evil, who's "not there yet," who's misguided, who's justified in X circumstance,.... I think JKR's end points are very black and white: Harry & DD & The Order's cause are Good; Voldy & the DEs are Evil. But not every character and behavior has been classified as Good or Evil based solely on whether s/he/it aligns with Harry/DD or Voldy. We're not even SURE about some characters and their alignments! Siriusly Snapey Susan From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Tue Jan 4 14:36:36 2005 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:36:36 -0200 Subject: Fw: [HPforGrownups] Re: Yet another DD Dursley thread Message-ID: <007401c4f26a$cd7b46c0$0301010a@harrypotter> No: HPFGUIDX 121110 From: "M.Clifford" To: Lupinlore: > My problem is his inaction for ten years > thereafter. Surely once it became apparent that the DE threat was at least momentarily at bay there were more appropriate arrangements > that could have been made. Or given that he feared Voldemort's > return (and I readily grant he had no way, as far as we know, of > predicting when that might be) surely he had it within his power > to force the Dursleys to behave more appropriately, not to mention > he had it within his ability to provide more support for Harry from > the Wizarding World. > > Valky: > Here I partially agree with you, Lupinlore. But I am sure that DD > *must* have had his reasons for needing to keep his distance. > If it was essentially, just Dumbledore rationalising the possible > cost of losing guaranteed protection for Harry weighed against one > or two trivial matters in the Dursley household, and it may well > have started that way.... and as the years passed each *minor* > transgression by the Dursleys was weighed and measured to be not > relative to the importance of Harry's life, before too long they > added up and nine to ten years had passed.... by which time of > course help was on it's way for Harry...... well if it was > essentially this, it kind of makes sense. Dumbledore never intended > to let it go on, but action just kept being rationalised away by the > greater need for ensuring the boy stayed alive. Elanor Pam: ...I wonder if Dumbledore simply didn't know Harry was having it tough at the Dursley. You can argue that Ms. Figg would have told him, but, truth be told, second-hand relation of this kind of fact isn't nearly as impacting :/ And we don't know how Ms. Figg would relate things to Dumbledore - it's possible that she had strict orders to not make any kind of contact unless it was an emergency (like the dementor attack), and, as a neighbour, didn't actually know the extent of Harry's mistreatment (as I think she'd probably warn Dumbledore if she knew the conditions Harry lived in - not so much about sleeping in a cupboard, but the conditions of said cupboard). I frankly don't believe Dumbledore knows everything that is happening, I think he mainly goes with the flow, and if he knew Harry shared his socks with spiders he'd send Petunia a letter while Vernon was at work. Just my two cents. Elanor Pam From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 14:54:25 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:54:25 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121111 Del replies: huge snip. That's precisely the crux of my problem. DD can and does do wrong, and yet the only Good thing to do is to believe him and follow him without hesitation. Whoever doesn't do that is wrong. Bummer. Alla: I still think it is consistent with Platonic-cristian morality as we discussed earlier. Dumbledore carries many roles in the books. As human being he is indeed imperfect, BUT as personification of the Principle of GOOD, he is just form and therefore indeed PERFECT, therefore indeed the only good thing is to follow himas PRINCIPLE of GOOD without hesitation, but we can question his decisions as human being. Am I making sense? Alla From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 16:06:06 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:06:06 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121112 Hickengruendler wrote: "I think JKR expects from us, to see beyond Harry's point of view in giving us the other characters' motives. I searched for Canon to back this up, and found this quote from JKR." (snip) " Therefore I think she expects from us, that we see the other character's point of view and their situation as well. Of course even if this is her intention, there's still the question if she succeeds delivering this message in her books. I think she does, if only because so many of the users here tend to feel sorry for Marietta or to understand Percy." Del replies: I don't think she manages to deliver this message in her books very well at all. If she did, there wouldn't be any need for her to explain and defend the characters. We would have no need for outside-the-books comments. IMO, if an author has to clarify something in interviews, that means that he/she did not do a good job of explaining that thing in his/her book to start with. I don't get a feeling that there are so many people here who feel sorry for Marrietta or who understand Percy. And chances are that there would be even less of us if we hadn't read a defense of those characters on this or another similar board... Del From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 16:44:41 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:44:41 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121113 "delwynmarch" wrote: > I agree with everything you [Hickengruendler] said in defence of Seamus, Ernie, Ron, Marrietta and Percy. That's quite a mixed bag, Ron acted poorly for about a month in book 4 and Seamus for a little longer in book 5, but both were loyal friends before and after so we can cut them some slack. In book 2 Ernie MacMillan was one of the first to unjustly accuse Harry of attacking other students, although he later apologized. In book 5 Ernie was one of the first to publicly say he believed Harry completely and even helped stop Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle from ambushing Harry on the train home. I like that, we all make mistakes but unlike many Ernie learns from them. Marrietta and Percy are a different matter entirely, we're not just talking about being rude and saying nasty things, we're talking about committing acts that are evil, there is just no other word for it. I won't repeat what I said about Marrietta; as for Percy, there is something seriously wrong with the man, and I'm not just talking about being pompous. Percy happily took part in a proceeding that attempted to put a boy into the hell hole they call Azkaban, a boy who saved his sister's life and was the best friend of his brother. Perch didn't visit his father in the hospital when he was near death or even ask about him, he called Umbridge "delightful" for heavens sake and she was as foul a human being as you will find on the planet. After all the disastrous mistakes Percy has made he has no future in the ministry, if he ever wants to be an important wizard, and he most certainly does, he will have to look to another organization to make him one, the Death Eaters. It amazes me that people still ask if Percy will turn to the dark side when he already has. I think the only reason people say there is still hope for him is because his last name is Weasley, if it was Smith everyone would recognize he is beyond redemption. Ron understands what sort of person his brother is, he thought Percy would throw family members to the dementors to advance his career. I found this quote from Goblet Of Fire, and remember this was before he did even more odious things in Order Of The Phoenix : "Wonder if Percy knows all that stuff about Crouch?" Ron said as they walked up the drive to the castle. "But maybe he doesn't care . . . It'd probably just make him admire Crouch even more. Yeah, Percy loves rules. He'd just say Crouch was refusing to break them for his own son." "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said Hermione severely. "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the way of his career .. . Percy's really ambitious, you know. ..."" Harry may be civil to him in the next book but regardless of how much he apologizes Harry would be a fool to ever trust Percy again. His family may forgive him, they may even still love him, but they they would be fools to ever trust Percy again. They'd be crazy to let him join the Order Of The Phoenix or even to tell him something they wouldn't want to see on the front page of the Daily Prophet. If Arthur Weasley is ever made Minister Of Magic, (book 7?) the first thing he'll do is fire his son. There is another reason I think Percy will become a death eater, it will just make a better story. Not all adult monsters were evil little devils when they were kids, many were cute little tykes (look at Hitler's baby photos, he's adorable), it would be interesting to examine that transformation in literature. Eggplant From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 4 16:53:17 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 16:53:17 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121114 > Valky wrote: > "Percy had been behaving like a jerk for years, especially in his > holier than thou attitude towards his family." > > Del replies: > Hey, this is a *perfect* example of what I'm trying to explain. > > Simply put : Percy had IMO *not* been behaving like a jerk, that's > only the *impression* we get of him because he annoys Harry and Ron. > Valky: Well, no actually, I mostly got the impression of Percy acting like a jerk from the things *he* said with a bit of reinforcement from what not only Ron but also Fred and George had to say in commentary. Especially in GOF and POA, which I don't have here, _sigh_ , so I can't offer quotes. IIRC in POA Fred or George say something to the effect of how insufferable Percy has been since he recieved his Head Boy badge and early in GoF we see a hint of Percy beginning to show condescension toward his family. I wish I had the quotes. The funny thing is that we are lead away from thought of judging Percy at this time, not towards it. Molly brushes of the subtle insults, proposing excuse after excuse for Percy's behaviour. The narration doesn't allow us to dwell long on Percy being a jerk to his family, and this is necessary to set up the "surprise" defection of Percy in OOtP. > Valky wrote: > "When "Seamus Finnigan and the Injustices of 1995" is published I am sure that the tables will turn and the onesidedness of it all will lean the other way. ;P" > > Del replies: > That's the problem : the one-sidedness. Where there's one- sidedness, there's unfair judgment. Valky: Well I don't know that I'd put it that way. To me, where theres one-sideness in a HP novel theres a hidden twist waiting around the corner to pounce. JKR's ability to misdirect the reader, even the adults, and surprise them so well, it's all part and parcel of that. I would hate for her to throw that away, for anything. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 4 17:28:48 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:28:48 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121115 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Del replies: > > huge snip. > > That's precisely the crux of my problem. DD can and does do wrong, and yet the only Good thing to do is to believe him and follow him without hesitation. Whoever doesn't do that is wrong. Bummer. > > > Alla: > > I still think it is consistent with Platonic-cristian morality as we discussed earlier. > > Dumbledore carries many roles in the books. As human being he is indeed imperfect, BUT as personification of the Principle of GOOD, he is just form and therefore indeed PERFECT, therefore indeed the only good thing is to follow himas PRINCIPLE of GOOD without hesitation, but we can question his decisions as human being. Am I making sense? > Pippin: You know, some people ::waves at Nora:: are going to spill their coffee when they read this, but I think this Platonic morality business is needlessly complex. I think Dumbledore is good according to the old-fashioned Golden Rule. "Do unto others..." Now of course that leaves us having to explain why he tolerates the behavior of Snape and the Dursleys and so on. Again, the standard answer: "He believes in free will." The trouble is, most of us don't. A belief in a deterministic universe in which our behavior is wholly governed by physics, heredity and behavioral conditioning doesn't seem to leave much room for it. Obviously people can make us do things--we're constantly bombarded by messages, including those from JKR herself, trying to influence our behavior. Surely Dumbledore with all the magic at his disposal can do as much. But on the metaphysical level, we can argue that we haven't made people moral just because we've made them behave. In Dumbledore's world, IMO, this is how free will operates. No one can make people be good. It's metaphysically impossible, like bringing back the dead. He *knows* he can't. Forced goodness is a guaranteed imitation. On the other hand, and this is where the Potterverse understanding of free will diverges from the classical definition, it *is* possible to make people be bad. Dumbledore knows that too. So he uses force very gingerly, only as a last resort and only in direct defense of the innocent. He doesn't use force at all except under very specific conditions: when only he can help, and when he believes permanent damage will occur if he doesn't. Other people in the Potterverse haven't reached Dumbledore's stage of enlightenment, and think they *can* make people be good and even that it is their moral duty to do so. Hence Hermione tries to manipulate the House Elves into seeking freedom and tries to curse people into being loyal to the DA. Crouch Sr. and Snape also enforce Draconian penalties (okay, maybe we can't make people be good, but we can sure as hell make 'em sorry) and Sirius tries to force Kreacher to be loyal to the Order. All of them fail. Dumbledore is goodness, that is, IMO, he makes all his decisons according to the Golden Rule, limited by his concept of free will. He is also limited by his occasional inability to imagine himself completely in someone else's reality. In OOP, he failed because he assumed that Harry had his patience, and Snape had his resilience. Dumbledore's limitations make him imperfect, but he is still good, as far as he is able. Even when he is wrong, he is making his choices, as someone said up thread, according to good principles, for sincere reasons and with an expectation of good consequences. That is the most one could expect of a human being. It's funny how we ask the same questions about Dumbledore as we do about God. Why does he let evil exist? Does he have a plan? If he knows so much, and he's so powerful, why does he let bad things happen? But Dumbledore is not God and is not responsible for everything that happens, even at Hogwarts. Del, I don't think the narrator is the voice of goodness. The narrator speaks from Harry's point of view and from Harry's stage of moral development, which is normal for his age. People are either on his side, in which case they're good, or they're not, in which case they're at the very least part of the problem. But I don't think that's the way JKR or Dumbledore see things. Harry is still learning to recognize his own limitations; he isn't ready to accept that other people, especially those he is meant to respect, have limitations just as he does. I think the images of breakage which recur in OOP are a metaphor for how, if goodness is innate, people can still turn to evil. Human goodness is held within a fragile vessel, like a potion bottle or a prophecy orb or a bowl of essence of murtlap. If the vessel is damaged, the essence can vanish or drain away. When Harry was destroying Dumbledore's possessions, what he really wanted to break was himself. He wanted to get rid of his inner goodness, because that is what made him feel pain when bad things happened to others. From Dumbledore's/JKR's point of view, anyone who is still capable of feeling that pain and responding to it is not wholly evil. But it is possible, in the Potterverse, to destroy that capacity or to utterly deny it. That denial, I think, was Voldemort's last act as a human being. Pippin From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 4 17:43:26 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:43:26 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121116 *snips really excellent discussion of Dumbledore* >When Harry was destroying Dumbledore's possessions, what >he really wanted to break was himself. He wanted to get rid of >his inner goodness, because that is what made him feel pain >when bad things happened to others. From Dumbledore's/JKR's >point of view, anyone who is still capable of feeling that pain and >responding to it is not wholly evil. But it is possible, in the >Potterverse, to destroy that capacity or to utterly deny it. That >denial, I think, was Voldemort's last act as a human being. Do you know what I thought when reading this? This is the most reasonable explanation I have heard yet of why Draco might be redeemable. If he were a second Tom Riddle he wouldn't care about his father or anyone else being in Azkaban except insofar as it affected him or his plans. (And in fact Draco does have something Tom Riddle didn't have -- something even Dudley has -- i.e., parents who care about him, whatever faults said parents may have. Maybe that'll make the difference.) Janet Anderson From kcawte at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 4 18:06:42 2005 From: kcawte at ntlworld.com (Kathryn Cawte) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:06:42 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pre-Hogwarts References: <13e.9d65fe1.2f0b44d7@aol.com> Message-ID: <005701c4f288$27e2de30$69206bd5@kathryn> No: HPFGUIDX 121117 "martyb1130" > I'm assuming that Ron and Hermione went to some sort of school pre- > Hogwarts. So what do they tell the school and teachers where they previously, if they > even when to school. Won't all of their friends and grandparents (in > Hermione's case) get suspicious? > K Well in Ron's case I doubt he went to a muggle primary school so he would either have gone to a wizarding primary school (in which case no explanations would be necessary) or was taught at home. As for Hermione - in England everyone (well almost everyone) changes school at 11, so no one would be suspicious that she disappeared. Her parents could always say that she was going to a public school (and I doubt anyone would be suspicious bearing in mind how studious and intelligent she is). Actually there was a news report the other day about how many children have been 'lost' by LEAs (local education authorities). i.e. they are not in school but there is no record of it due to them moving or whatever - so I don't even think there would have to be an explanation to them. K From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 18:09:44 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:09:44 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121118 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Tonks wrote: > " From a Christian perspective which we know JKR is, God created human beings and in so doing, He created them as good." > > Del replies: > Careful, not all Christians believe that. Some actually believe that humans are born evil but can be redeemed through Christ. I'm > personally on a middle ground where I believe that people are born > (not God-created) in different stages of goodness and evilness. Tonks here: Ah, Del I suspect that you might be a member of Slytherin house? Or at least the Devil's advocate in these debates. When I said that it was the teaching of the *Church* I am referring to the traditional orthodox teaching of the Eastern and Western Churches before the time of Calvin, and continuing today (except for those Protestants who follow the teaching of Calvin). But even Calvin would not say that people are born EVIL. Fallen and in need of redemption is not the same as EVIL. To say that someone is evil is a serious statement and not to be done lightly. There are only a few truly evil people in the HP books. Most are ordinary people who muddle things up now and then, and even when what they do is plainly wrong, they are not evil. Personally I think that there is even hope for Tom Riddle. Perhaps the *in essence separate* that DD sees in his smoke rings is a reference to the state of TR/LV. Maybe Tom has not total become LV and there is still hope for him. But it will take a sacrificial death to save him. I am probably way off the beam on this one, we will see. By the way, I like the 4th book best and the 5th over the simple, more for children, that I see in books 1-3. IMO there is more serious moral teaching in book 4. Also book 4 shows the true naked reality of REAL EVIL. Tonks_op From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 18:21:39 2005 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:21:39 -0000 Subject: Pre-Hogwarts In-Reply-To: <005701c4f288$27e2de30$69206bd5@kathryn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121119 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kathryn Cawte" wrote: " > > I'm assuming that Ron and Hermione went to some sort of school pre- > > Hogwarts. So what do they tell the school and teachers where they > previously, if they > > even when to school. Won't all of their friends and grandparents (in > > Hermione's case) get suspicious? > > > > Sandy I don't know if JKR ever said about HG, tho I figure she was top of her class at some elementary school. As for the Weasleys, they were homeschooled, according to JKR world book day online chat (which I found at Mugglenet): kai: Where do wizarding children go to school before Hogwarts? JK Rowling replies -> They can either go to a Muggle primary school or they are educated at home. The Weasleys were taught by Mrs. Weasley. K From EyeMelodius at hotmail.com Tue Jan 4 18:41:03 2005 From: EyeMelodius at hotmail.com (annunathradien) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:41:03 -0000 Subject: VWII and WWII (was Marietta and Hermione) In-Reply-To: <007501c4f1c5$53f54210$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121120 > > charme: > > > > Heh. :) I am about to say something which may be *very* unpopular. You > > folks who are Molly and Ron/Hermoine shippers, don't shoot Dungbombs at me > > now, ok? > > > > "Harry looked between them, then said, "Mrs.Weasley, you didn't believe > > that rubbish Rita Skeeter wrote in Witch Weekly, did you? Because > > Hermoine's not my girlfriend." > > "Oh," said Mrs. Weasley, "No - of course I didn't." But she became > > considerably warmer toward Hermoine after that." (GoF/US) > > TrekkieGrrrl: > > Ah but IMO that is because she's angry at Hermione for BREAKING UP with > Harry - which is the rubbish referred to, and not for being his girlfriend. > Molly cares so much for Harry that she gets angry at anyone who in her > opinion threathnes his wellbeing annunathradien: However, Molly *knew* that Rita Skeeter is hardly a reliable source for information. Molly herself had pegged Rita as a liar (for making up stories about Arthur earlier in GOF). Yet Molly believed the stories about Hermione the 'scarlet woman' playing Harry's heart like a fiddle? Why? Why is Rita a liar when she's bad-mouthing Arthur, but apparently not when she's bad-mouthing Hermione? It does make you wonder. I'm not saying Molly is an evil person or something, but, I do think she and all the Weasleys have displayed on occassion a sort of inherent, casual racism. A Wizarding World status quo of distrust of things/persons not like them. I kind of always saw Molly as a free- thinking, gentile pauvre Southern woman with an abolitionist husband just prior the break-out of the American Civil War. She's revolutionary in she'll invite *lesser* races into her home and break bread with them (despite what the other gentile might say) ... yet she still has that antiquated, inherent way of thinking ingrained in her. Passed down to her from god knows how many generations past. Even a "free-thinking Southerner with an abolitionist husband" has her limits. Muggleborns amalgamating into her family? I could see Molly not particularly keen on the idea. One might wonder how or to what degree her behavior/mindset may change once the war is in full swing. Will she stick with her husband's ideals or will she squeeze the protective noose all the tighter around her family (her familiar circle)? ~annunathradien From nienna_anwamane at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 4 11:34:48 2005 From: nienna_anwamane at ntlworld.com (joanne) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:34:48 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pre-Hogwarts References: <13e.9d65fe1.2f0b44d7@aol.com> Message-ID: <005a01c4f251$683e4280$f5606b51@talyn> No: HPFGUIDX 121121 "martyb1130": >>I'm assuming that Ron and Hermione went to some sort of school pre- Hogwarts. So what do they tell the school and teachers where they previously, if they even when to school. Won't all of their friends and grandparents (in Hermione's case) get suspicious? << I'm sure I read somewhere that the Weasley's like most purebloods were home schooled. I don't think they have infant school in the WW. Hogworts has to have MW face to it a prestigious private school to stop the authorities from being suspicious. Nienna I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman- Homer Simpson From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 4 19:03:11 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:03:11 -0000 Subject: Percy was Re: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121122 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > After all the disastrous mistakes Percy has made he has no future in the ministry, if he ever wants to be an important wizard, and he most certainly does, he will have to look to another organization to make him one, the Death Eaters.< Pippin: What about The Order of the Phoenix? We know Dumbledore has a spy in the Ministry, because somebody had to have told him about the change in the time of the hearing for him to show up with Mrs. Figg in tow. It can't be Shacklebolt, because he didn't tell Arthur about the change. It can't be Tonks, because she was off duty at GP. Making it a character we never heard of would make it impossible to guess -- no fair. JKR said she was afraid Percy was acting of his own volition, which is no problem -- it just means he has free will (see my published works.) A devious answer, I admit. Dumbledore gives us a clue. He calls it a lucky mistake that he got there three hours early. A lucky mistake? That's a "felilx culpa", right? A sin that leads to a blessing, like Percy's quarrel with his dad. As for the letter to Ron? IMO,its actual purpose was to draw Harry's attention to the fate of Sturgis Podmore. Voldemort's reaction to that was no doubt responsible for the pain Harry felt in his scar. Pippin From manawydan at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 4 19:07:27 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:07:27 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evaluating Percy References: <1104800261.16790.65695.m22@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003a01c4f290$a3a61700$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 121123 SSSusan wrote: >Okay. So now what would people here at HPfGU do with Percy if >applying these *three* angles? > >And what do we think JKR is presenting us in canon? Is she judging >her characters on one or more than one of these angles? *Is* she >primarily about motives? About end results? Or...? I think that JKR is giving us a different perspective on the situation from our own. Percy isn't principled or good or evil, he's just responding to a different set of circumstances from those that we think are important. First of all, I don't think he regards Voldemort's return as a serious threat. Why? Remember that he was a very small boy (4 or so) when Voldemort was overthrown the first time. Old enough for him to be a dark shadow in the background in his babyhood but every since, I don't think he's spared a thought for him. Secondly, I don't think he regards Harry very seriously either. When they met, Percy was old enough (even disregarding his own self importance) to see Harry as nothing more than his little farty brother's little farty friend. After Percy left school, I'm sure he didn't give Harry another thought. When Percy _did_ leave school and went into the big wide world, he joined the Ministry, something which would have immersed him in a completely different culture. Suddenly he's associating with a group of people, some of them _very_ much older than he is, and he has to work hard to fit in. He's focused on his future, not on his past. When we meet Mr Crouch's Junior Assistant, he never mentions the Hogwarts days, he's full of cauldron bottoms and what he sees his future as being. Of course, within a year of starting with the Ministry, he's in the most serious trouble that a junior civil servant could be - he's under investigation for possible complicity in the kidnap and murder of his head of department. Let's not underestimate the seriousness of this. Percy knows what Dementors are like, he met some of them the year before. He could well have ended up with much closer acquaintance with them. At best, he's guilty of very serious breaches of the Rules, something which is a big deal for the Ministry and almost certainly for Percy personally. Meanwhile his family are wrapped up in other stuff. Percy, being a self centred kind of person, really doesn't want to know (I think) about that stuff, and given his situation, can we really blame him? Finally, all that pent up stress burst out and he broke with his family (personally I blame Arthur's totally insensitive response to the fact that his son had got off the charges and been given a second chance). Ever since, Percy's been completely immersed in the Ministry culture, and specifically those people who were in Fudge's inner circle. He had constant messages to the effect that LFBLFF!Harry isn't serious, that he's attention seeking, that there's no threat, and who's to tell him otherwise? He's also very aware that he's been given a second chance, and that if he fouls it up this time, he could well send up out on his ear. Once again, a very strong impetus not to step out of line. That, I think, is how Percy ended up where he did. We don't see it from his perspective, of course. We see someone who's turned his back on the good guys, who cuts his mam dead and sends back his xmas present, etc, etc. We see Comic!Percy (the slapstick side of him) fawning and splashing ink about. And we see stiff necked, rigid, dignified Percy, who won't back down easily or apologise. I'll be interested to see how learning that Harry was right and seeing yet another mentor (Fudge) disappearing over the horizon will affect Percy. Still redeemable, I think, but not necessarily. More likely to go out in a blaze of glory than to make it through to the end Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From amdorn at hotmail.com Tue Jan 4 15:25:22 2005 From: amdorn at hotmail.com (amdorn) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 15:25:22 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121124 Happy New Year to everyone. I don't know if this is considered the appropriate venue for this E- Mail, but I guess I'll just have to wait and see. As tradition predicates, resolutions are made and then frequently broken. But in order to make resolutions, people must look at some aspect of themselves that they wish to change for the better. Occasionally, people look to their greatest fear for personal growth at this time of year. Therefore, in the spirit of the New Year, I thought it would be interesting to find out what the people in this group feared the most with regards to Harry Potter. So I pose a question to everyone . . . What is your "Harry Potter" greatest fear? Someone recently told me that her greatest fear is whether Harry will have his "Happy Ever After." But I had to disagree. Personally, my greatest fear has nothing to do with the multiple plot lines in the Harry Potter series. My greatest fear is motivate only by selfish means. When I started reading the Harry Potter series, I began with the first book. Upon finishing the Philosopher's Stone, I craved more. Some indescribable aspect of the last chapter of the book created an insatiable curiosity. I immediately read the next three books with a hunger I had never experienced before. At least for the written language. After waiting rather patiently for the fifth book to be published, I immediately purchased a copy and devoured the Order of the Phoenix in one weekend. The shear magnitude of words I had to read in order to reach the end was staggering. Yet, when I turned the last page I felt bereft. I once again yearned for more. I then entered Pottermania on-line and have been addicted since. I can honestly say that when the sixth book is released, I will be spending several hours ignoring all possible distractions, while happily wading through all of JK Rowling's red herrings, plot points, and intricate descriptions. By now, you are probably wondering why I told you all this information. Well, it directly relates to my greatest fear. I stand/type before all of you to say that my greatest fear is that I will get to the end of the seventh book and still crave more. That my thirst will not be quenched. I know that after the seventh book there will more than likely not be more Harry Potter books to be published. But what if I get to the end of this fantastic journey and don't feel like my craving has been satisfied? What if I finish the epilogue and all of the loose ends have not been sufficiently tied? What if, JK Rowling, in her infinite Potter wisdom, somehow makes the end of the seventh book like the rest? Will I have to go to "rehab" for Harry Potter fans? If I was JK Rowling, I would worry about this too. I don't envy her task. I think it will have to be one helluva epilogue to complete this Herculean task. I guess all I can do is have faith that when the end comes, I won't pull my hair out. Tell me, what do you fear the most? Amdorn From trekkie at stofanet.dk Tue Jan 4 15:48:55 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:48:55 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Platform 9 3/4 References: <20050104133952.48619.qmail@web52704.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002501c4f274$e6274d40$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 121125 > mworth1019 wrote: > > How do the wizard/witch children of muggles figure out how to get > onto Platform 9 > 3/4 on their first trip to Hogwarts? Harry lucked out and found the > Wealsleys' but others may not be so lucky? I know that Hagrid tells > Harry to "stick to his ticket" but that did not help much. > Griffin782002 now: > > > I wonder if those representatives that visit Muggle families with magical > children exept informing the parents about their children's unusual > abilities, also tell them about the platform. TrekkieGrrrl: Is it generally accepted knowledge that muggleborns are visited by someone from the WW? When Petunia speaks about Lily's letter she merely says that her parents were proud the day her letter came, nothing about them ever being visited by wizards. But perhaps things were explained more thoroughly in the letters to muggleborns, and because Harry was supposed to know about the WW, it didn't say anything about the things that were regarded common knowledge for a wizard kid. Yet, Dumbledore must have known Petunia's stance on wizards, even McGonagall says they're the "worst sort of muggles" - so he ought to know that Harry would NOT be trained or told about magic and the Wizarding World. And Dumbledore writes the Hogwarts letters? Or does he? ~TG From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jan 4 19:20:50 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:20:50 -0000 Subject: Percy was Re: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121126 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" > wrote: > > After all the disastrous mistakes Percy has made he has no > future in the ministry, if he ever wants to be an important wizard, > and he most certainly does, he will have to look to another > organization to make him one, the Death Eaters.< > > Pippin: > What about The Order of the Phoenix? We know Dumbledore > has a spy in the Ministry, because somebody had to have told > him about the change in the time of the hearing for him to show > up with Mrs. Figg in tow. > > It can't be Shacklebolt, because he didn't tell Arthur about the > change. It can't be Tonks, because she was off duty at GP. > Making it a character we never heard of would make it > impossible to guess -- no fair. > > Pippin Hickengruendler: IMO, there are two other possibilities that come to my mind. The first is the headmaster who has his other portrait in the MoM. Sorry, I've forgotten his name, but Dumbledore sends him to alarm somebody after Arthur was attacked. As we later learn, Arthur was attacked in the MoM, therefore the headmaster must have his second portrait there. He's a possibility. Not necessarily a likely one, since the MoM is big, and it would be a big coincidence if he heard anything, but a possibility nonetheless. The other, and IMO most likely possibility, is Griselda Marchbanks. In the chapter where Umbridge was announced High Inquisitor, she retires under protest from the Wizengamot. Meaning she was a member of the Wizengamot until then and probably one of the two old witches, who welcomed Dumbledore. Even if she's not a member of the Order, I still can see her telling Dumbledore, if the time and the place of Harry's trial are changed, just because she might have suspected, that Dumbledore wanted to help Harry. Related to this possibility, there's also Tiberius Odgen who left the Wizengamot together with Marchbanks and also the second old witch, who welcomed Dumbledore at Harry's trial (if we assume Marchbanks was the first). Hickengruendler From ginamiller at jis.nashville.org Tue Jan 4 19:34:03 2005 From: ginamiller at jis.nashville.org (Miller, Gina (JIS)) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 13:34:03 -0600 Subject: my greatest fear.... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121127 I suppose my greatest fear is something of what Stephen King fans felt when he was hit by that van that almost killed him - that Book 7 will never BE finished!! I have thought of not reading Book 6 or any previous Potter Books again until 7 is written (a bit paranoid I know) but this series is very addicting to a point that is somewhat fantastically alarming. For example - my fianc? and I am flipping channels when I come to "Robin Hood and the Prince of Thieves" Now, normally I would have changed the channel, but I hear a very familiar voice and when I see "Little John" I scream - "Hagrid"!!!! And I continue to watch a few minutes longer. My fianc? looks at me and shakes his head, but says nothing. Then I hear another familiar voice and low and behold if the good ole sheriff doesn't appear and I scream "Professor Snape"!!!! At this point my fianc? tries to take the remote from my excited hands yelling "That is not Hagrid and that is not Snape - this is Robin Hood for God's sake will you stop! We continue to fight over the remote with him yelling it's Little John and the Sheriff and we are not watching this!" To which I reply pouting as he takes the remote and I slump into the couch corner with arms crossed, "They will always be Hagrid and Snape to me". Apparently he felt so sorry for how pathetic I had become he lays the remote down and allows me to watch it while asking if there is a Harry Potter AA and what I plan to do when the books are gone. Yes, I too fear the end. What will there be to look forward to with no Marauder mysteries, no Molly screaming at Fred and George, NO PEEVES for Heaven's Sake No Peeves! While I hope it doesn't all end as a dream, a big time turning event, or deux ex machine I dread most as you already stated the emptiness of it all..... Gina [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 19:36:08 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:36:08 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121128 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amdorn" wrote: > > > I stand/type before all of you to say that my greatest fear is that I will get to the end of the seventh book and still crave more. That my thirst will not be quenched. I know that after the seventh book there will more than likely not be more Harry Potter books to be published. But what if I get to the end of this fantastic journey and don't feel like my craving has been satisfied? What if I finish the epilogue and all of the loose ends have not been sufficiently tied? What if, JK Rowling, in her infinite Potter wisdom, somehow makes the end of the seventh book like the rest? Will I have to go to "rehab" for Harry Potter fans? (snip) > > Amdorn Tonks here: Now rehab for HP fans sounds like a great idea. We could have meeting and then go sneak off to reread a chapter or two!! I like the idea of leaving us craving for more. The reason I say that is that for me (and many other) the Potter books do cause a craving from the very depth of my soul to be part of that world. I think that is good... because.. well.. I will tell you later. ;-) Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 4 19:36:41 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:36:41 -0000 Subject: Percy was Re: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121129 > > Hickengruendler: > > IMO, there are two other possibilities that come to my mind. The first is the headmaster who has his other portrait in the MoM. Sorry, I've forgotten his name, but Dumbledore sends him to alarm somebody after Arthur was attacked. As we later learn, Arthur was attacked in the MoM, therefore the headmaster must have his second portrait there. He's a possibility. Not necessarily a likely one, since the MoM is big, and it would be a big coincidence if he heard anything, but a possibility nonetheless.< Pippin: The wizard says there's no portraits in the corridor where Arthur was injured. That doesn't entirely rule it out, of course, but it means that the portraits can't spy on the wizengamot directly. > Hickengruendler: > The other, and IMO most likely possibility, is Griselda Marchbanks. < Pippin: I assume from Fudge's stammering comment "you -er--got our --er-- message" that the wizengamot had been told that Dumbledore would be notified of the change, and the message was expected to get "lost" on the way. He would hardly be likely to let known allies of Dumbledore in on that plan, so she wouldn't have thought she needed to notify him. Pippin From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jan 4 19:57:36 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:57:36 -0000 Subject: Percy was Re: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121130 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: directly. > > > Hickengruendler: > > The other, and IMO most likely possibility, is Griselda > Marchbanks. < > > Pippin: > I assume from Fudge's stammering comment "you -er--got our > --er-- message" that the wizengamot had been told that > Dumbledore would be notified of the change, and the message > was expected to get "lost" on the way. He would hardly be likely > to let known allies of Dumbledore in on that plan, so she > wouldn't have thought she needed to notify him. > > Pippin Hickengruendler: She might not have trusted Fudge to play fair and decided to notify Dumbledore as well, just to be sure. And while writing this, I just thought about another possibility: Amelia Bones. She seems like a very fair woman, and might have been dissatisfied that Fudge wanted to trial Harry in front of the whole Wizengamot. Therefore she thought that Harry might need somebody to defend him and notified Dumbledore. That leaves IMO three realistic possibilities (if we exclude the portrait, which I agree doesn't seem very likely): Percy, Marchbanks and Bones. And while I hope that it was Percy, my money is on Marchbanks. If only because I think that Percy is there to show us that rifts between families can be healed, and don't have to end like the one in the Black family did. But if Percy where a spy for the Order from the very beginning, there would be nothing that needs to be healed, since there never was a rift. I think eventually both sides will forgive each other (and yes, I think the other Weasleys are partly responsible for Percy's behaviour). But I hope it won't be after something terrible had happend. And, by the way, I disagree with eggplant's opinion about him, and especially the statement that he tried to help putting Harry in Azkaban, which IMO is an interpretation only based on what Harry thought the MoM might do to him. But I think my opinion about this is obvious from my previous posts. Hickengruendler From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 4 19:59:09 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:59:09 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121131 >>Gina wrote: snip For example - my fianc? and I am flipping channels when I come to "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves"...snip... > At this point my fianc? tries to take the remote from my excited hands yelling "That is not Hagrid and that is not Snape - this is Robin Hood for God's sake will you stop! snip Potioncat: (this part is movie OT) Sorry, your fiance is half right. It isn't Hagrid, but it is Snape. For some more "reel" Potter moments, watch "Sense and Sensibility" (at least 5 actors) or "The Borrowers" (but you'll never look at Draco or Arthur the same way again) or get the CD, "When Love Speaks" I've lost count of HP actors on it. >>Gina snip While I hope it doesn't all end as a dream, a big time turning event, or deux ex machine I dread most as you already stated the emptiness of it all..... Potioncat: Well...as much as I want to find out what happens next, I'm not looking forward to the end of this group. I can see it now "Harry Potter for Grown-ups book discussion group" where the List has specific new books to read and to discuss as they relate to the HP books. My HP fear? While reading PoA over the holiday I began see Snape in a new light...erm new dark. My fear is that he will betray Dumbledore. Potioncat wondering how you get the accent mark over letters... From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 20:00:15 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:00:15 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121132 Gina: > I suppose my greatest fear is something of what Stephen King fans felt when > he was hit by that van that almost killed him - that Book 7 will never BE > finished!! Finwitch: Me - I think it is same to me - that Book 7 won't be finished. But at least the epilogue of the last 'Harry Potter' book HAS been written. I suppose they could publish her notes & the epilogue is it's not... I don't worry about how the series ends - there's always fanfiction, you know... Finwitch From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 4 20:28:01 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:28:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050104202801.84641.qmail@web52001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121133 amdorn wrote: Tell me, what do you fear the most? Luckdragon: My greatest fear at the end of the series is that Harry will wake up one day, look in the mirror, and seeing no scar on his forehead will realize it was all a dream. 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 4 20:33:30 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:33:30 -0000 Subject: Percy was Re: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121134 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: . And while I hope that it was Percy, my money is on Marchbanks. If only because I think that Percy is there to show us that rifts between families can be healed, and don't have to end like the one in the Black family did. But if Percy where a spy for the Order from the very beginning, there would be nothing that needs to be healed, since there never was a rift.< Pippin: Oh, I think the quarrel with Arthur was genuine and painful. My theory is Arthur and Molly have no idea that Percy had second thoughts after he parted with them and went to Dumbledore. They're not terribly good actors. That gives us plenty of opportunity for soap. Imagine if Harry figures out what Percy is up to, but can't tell Molly and Arthur -- or Ron. Pippin From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 20:47:27 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:47:27 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing/ about Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121135 -- Del wrote: ... So I would say that Percy doesn't know Harry well at all. Not Harry, no. What about his younger siblings? Percy knows that *they* know Harry personally, better than the Minister, anyway. Logically, that means that he ought to hear *them* first. (I suppose logic isn't Percy's strong point). So at least Percy had some extra information about Harry available. And um - didn't Percy deny Voldemort's return even when Minister Fudge (after insisting it's not true for so long) admitted it? I'm don't know what it is that Percy believes - if not the worst of everyone - but I think he believes it blindly and stubbornly. Guess it all began - within the big family, he is a loner. Bill&Charlie - Fred&George - Ron&Ginny. 'Shut up, Perce' said Bill. (and this is just about all we witness Bill or Charlie to interact with Percy. Bill said it twice, I think). Fred&George are mocking him in just about everything he achieves (except for that famous Christmas Jumper), we never saw Ron/Ginny interact with him much, either. Parents tried to compensate (Molly in particular -- 'perfect Percy' said the twins). I don't think Percy was following Fudge. He's taking orders from someone who threatened to hurt Penelope Clearwater and was even more convinced and forceful than Fudge about that (false) belief about Harry. (Umbridge, I think.. He DID tell Ron he had met her, did he not?) Finwitch From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jan 4 20:58:31 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:58:31 -0000 Subject: Double standards and believing/ about Percy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121136 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > And um - didn't Percy deny Voldemort's return even when Minister > Fudge (after insisting it's not true for so long) admitted it? > Hickengruendler: Nope. We don't hear anything about Percy at the end of the book. The last we seem of him is when he leaves Dumbledore's office in the chapter "The Centaur And The Sneak". After this, he is not mentioned at all. Therefore we don't know that how he reacted about the news. My personal guess is that he believes in Voldemort's return and regrets his behaviour, but won't return to his family right now, either because he is too proud or because he's too ashamed, or both. But the book doesn't give anyinformations at all, HBP hopefully will. From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 21:01:08 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:01:08 -0000 Subject: Loyalty and goodness Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121137 Connect this onto the thread that's going now; I'm on too slow of a connection to hunt out the normal linkage (full of shame, I know). Coming to mind is an idea that seems to have been omitted so far, so far as I can tell: yes, it is generally true that loyalty to Dumbledore is the right thing, and approved of by whatever authorities are running the metaphysical world. This is often critiqued. Think about it this way, though: what is DUMBLEDORE following? I surmise, from JKR's comments, that he is doing his imperfect and human best to follow the Good. Dumbledore is probably the oldest and most powerful figure on the side of the Good in the story. To follow him and follow him *truly* is to follow him because he follows the Good. He is not perfect and he makes mistakes, or he finds the path obscure and becomes somewhat lost; OotP proves that, IMO. Harry and the rest of the Order are right to follow Dumbledore because Dumbledore owes his allegiance not to himself (side note: I don't understand the 'DD is selfish!' ideas I see occasionally--he's old, he's powerful already--really, does he have that much to personally gain? I don't think he's ever presented as aiming for personal gain.), but to the higher principles. With some bobbles in the road, for sure, to follow one is to follow the other. The truest loyalty is not blind. Now is Harry's time to learn that he must really see for himself...but I don't think his vision is going to take him away from the White Hats in fits of petulance and desire to get rid of it all, as postulated at times here and in a thousand fics. Nope. Time to dig deeper under it all. -Nora notes that the motliness of the Order, in contrast to the uniformity (enforced with masks as well!) of the DEs, is likely their greatest strength From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 21:54:53 2005 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 21:54:53 -0000 Subject: Platform 9 3/4 In-Reply-To: <002501c4f274$e6274d40$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121138 > > Griffin782002: > > > > > > I wonder if those representatives that visit Muggle families with magical > > children exept informing the parents about their children's unusual > > abilities, also tell them about the platform. > > > TrekkieGrrrl: > > Is it generally accepted knowledge that muggleborns are visited by someone > from the WW? When Petunia speaks about Lily's letter she merely says that > her parents were proud the day her letter came, nothing about them ever > being visited by wizards. But perhaps things were explained more thoroughly > in the letters to muggleborns, and because Harry was supposed to know about > the WW, it didn't say anything about the things that were regarded common > knowledge for a wizard kid. > > Yet, Dumbledore must have known Petunia's stance on wizards, even McGonagall > says they're the "worst sort of muggles" - so he ought to know that Harry > would NOT be trained or told about magic and the Wizarding World. And > Dumbledore writes the Hogwarts letters? Or does he? > Tammy: JKR said that a representative is sent out in the case of the muggle-borns, so yeah, that's a known thing. In Harry's case, he's not officially a muggleborn, so a representative wouldn't be sent to him. I'm not foolish enough to think that Dumbledore didn't know that Harry had no knowledge of his magical ability, Dumbledore's been watching Harry for years - he had to know. I think Dumbledore, and not for the first or last time - overestimated Hagrid's ability to size up a situation and react to it appropriately. And it's Prof. McGonagall that writes the letters, not DD. -Tammy From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Jan 4 22:05:32 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 22:05:32 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121139 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Renee: To quote the New > Testament (1st Epistle of John, 4:18, King James version): "There is > no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear." As courage has to > do with overcoming fear - casting it out as opposed to never having it > to begin with - it very much looks like John is making a statement > about courage as well." > > Del replies: > I see it differently. I see courage as being able to force ourselves > to do something we fear. But I understand John 4:18 as saying that > perfect love eliminates fear (casteth out), which in turn renders > courage useless. Someone who doesn't fear anything has no need for > courage IMO. > > Renee: Well, I see it like this: Someone must make a sacrifice, but is afraid to do so. But love for the person the sacrifice must be made for eliminates the fear, and what's left is the courage to make the sacrifice. (If you want, you can read "Lily" instead of someone, etc.) > > Del: > An interesting question for me is then : what does this mean > concerning LV? As I said in another post, LV fears only 3 things as > far as we know: death, DD, and now Harry too. Renee: But isn't LV's fear of death the basic motivation for everything he feels and does? The other two are derivative, I think: he fears DD and Harry because they may eliminate him. From bethanycurrie at aol.com Tue Jan 4 19:50:53 2005 From: bethanycurrie at aol.com (curriebethany) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:50:53 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121140 Amdorn: Tell me, what do you fear the most? Gina: For example - my fianc? and I am flipping channels when I come to "Robin Hood and the Prince of Thieves" Now, normally I would have changed the channel, but I hear a very familiar voice and when I see "Little John" I scream - "Hagrid"!!!! And I continue to watch a few minutes longer. My fianc? looks at me and shakes his head, but says nothing. Then I hear another familiar voice and low and behold if the good ole sheriff doesn't appear and I scream "Professor Snape"!!!! Bethany: I, too, fear the end of the series. I suspect no matter how much JKR writes about the HP universe, none of us will ever be satiated. (Otherwise we wouldn't take Harry outside of the books and play with him in chat rooms, fan fiction, RPGs, and other outlets!) I am, however, very impressed with how much JKR's writing has improved between books 1 and 5 -- I bet she has an excellent ending for book 7 ready for us. Thanks, Gina - now I need to go rent a mediocre movie just to see Hagrid and Snape in it. :) I bet I'm not the only one, either. I do the same thing with everything I watch. It's just never enough! We are all kidding about Harry Potter AA ("HPAA"), but I wouldn't be surprised if we're all in it some day. Our significant others will have to have "interventions" and take our books, movies, toys, and chat rooms away! *gasp!* The joke's on them, because at HPAA we would all discuss the books in secret anyway. :) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 23:05:08 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:05:08 -0000 Subject: Loyalty and goodness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121141 Nora wrote: "Think about it this way, though: what is DUMBLEDORE following? I surmise, from JKR's comments, that he is doing his imperfect and human best to follow the Good. Dumbledore is probably the oldest and most powerful figure on the side of the Good in the story. To follow him and follow him *truly* is to follow him because he follows the Good. He is not perfect and he makes mistakes, or he finds the path obscure and becomes somewhat lost; OotP proves that, IMO. Harry and the rest of the Order are right to follow Dumbledore because Dumbledore owes his allegiance not to himself (...) but to the higher principles. With some bobbles in the road, for sure, to follow one is to follow the other." Del replies: I would love things to be this way. My main problem with this idea is that DD never *refers* to his higher principles. He doesn't mention them, he doesn't teach them, he doesn't encourage others to follow them on their own. He's like a prophet who would never mention God, a prophet who would appear to be the source of wisdom and truth instead of pointing to God. So even if he is indeed following some higher principles, he doesn't *look* like he is. He looks like he's doing his best on his own. Now I agree that most wizards would do well to follow such a wise wizard, but I can understand that some might not see any reason to follow just another human being, and that many might think their own wisdom is just as good as DD's. Especially if they are not Gryffindors and their priorities and goals were never quite like DD's. Del From amdorn at hotmail.com Tue Jan 4 20:24:42 2005 From: amdorn at hotmail.com (amdorn) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:24:42 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121142 > Finwitch: > > Me - I think it is same to me - that Book 7 won't be finished. But at > least the epilogue of the last 'Harry Potter' book HAS been written. > I suppose they could publish her notes & the epilogue is it's not... > > I don't worry about how the series ends - there's always fanfiction, > you know... > > Finwitch Amdorn now: I love fanfiction. It is a great outlet for the expectation and angst associated with waiting for the next book. And I read as much as possible. But, I have not found a single writer that can completely and convincingly duplicate JK Rowling's style. Actually, I don't expect anyone to be able to replicate her style. It's almost like the students of famous painters of the Renaissance that have work which was, up until recently, mistaken to be originally created by those famous artists. These student artist's are amazingly talented in their own right, but it's just not quite the same. Amdorn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 23:18:51 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:18:51 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121143 Amdorn: What is your "Harry Potter" greatest fear? huge snip. Alla: I have several, some of them are not as great as others. Most certainly I share the fear that at the end we will discover that Harry dreamt about all of it. To me it will be one of the most cheating endings I can imagine. To think that this rich world does not really exist... (I know, I know :o)) I WILL be dissappointed. Hmmmm. Sorry for keep talking about plot based fears (or more like Harry-based :o)), but here is one more. I am also afraid that at the end Harry will lose his magic. Not because of no magic anymore per se, but if that would mean separating him from WW, where he has people who love him. I dread such ending, will find it to be very cruel and would rather have Harry die and reunite with his loved ones behind the Veil, even though I prefer him to survive at the end. :o) I am not afraid that book seven will never be finished, not sure why. Maybe I should be afraid of it. Funnily enough I am not afraid that I will be wanting more at the end, because I have read some AMASING FF stories, which I found ... no, not better than the original in a general sense, but with much more development of my favourite adults and I am sure that fans will keep writing them. Oh, and yes, I am definitely afraid that we won't find that many topics for debate after saga ends. I DEFINITELY don't want this list to dissappear. Alla, who cannot come up with more fears right now, but maybe later. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 4 23:35:53 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:35:53 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121144 Gina wrote: "Then I hear another familiar voice and low and behold if the good ole sheriff doesn't appear and I scream "Professor Snape"!!!! " Del replies: Ah, no :-) I'm afraid for me Snape was first and foremost Nottingham's sherriff. I just LOVED him in that role!! He easily stole the starring role from Costner, in my eyes. My own personal fear is simply that I won't like the ending. There could be a number of reasons for that. I know the ending can't satisfy every fan, but selfishly I hope not to be one of those who will be dissatisfied :-) Del From sunnylove0 at aol.com Tue Jan 4 23:45:42 2005 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:45:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Your greatest fear . . . Message-ID: <1c9.223d693d.2f0c84a6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121145 In a message dated 1/4/2005 12:15:53 PM Mountain Standard Time, amdorn at hotmail.com writes: What is your "Harry Potter" greatest fear? 1) That Lockhart will get out of Saint Mungo's (I hate Lockhart. ickickick) 2) That Lupin will be evil (sorry Pippin!) 3) That Snape will have been a faithful DE and have no redemptive pattern whatsoever 4) That we will never find out what makes Snape tick 5) That Harry will die in Book 7 6) That Theodore Nott joins the DE's 7) An end of the world ending ( like Wagner's The Ring) 8) Hermione marries either Harry or Ron (or Harry marries Ginny) 9) Most of all, that Harry ends up like Frodo and wastes away from depression Amber P.S. a better question: what do you hope to see? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 5 00:30:28 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:30:28 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: <1c9.223d693d.2f0c84a6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121146 Del said: > My own personal fear is simply that I won't like the ending. There > could be a number of reasons for that. Amber said: > 1) That Lockhart will get out of Saint Mungo's (I hate Lockhart. > ickickick) > 2) That Lupin will be evil (sorry Pippin!) > 4) That we will never find out what makes Snape tick > 5) That Harry will die in Book 7 SSSusan: It's becoming increasingly difficult to choose one thing as I read others' comments. I especially like Amber's #1 & #2, but I don't think they'd be my *worst* fears. #4 might be! I suppose it's not a very "mature" way of looking at things, but I really DON'T want any of the trio to die, either. I understand that JKR could do it in a way that it makes perfect sense and is almost beautiful, but I still just don't want it to happen. The St. Elsewhere thing ? "It was all just a dream" ? would be nasty, too. In fact, the idea that JKR would present any kind of super-cheesy ending after managing to write about stuff like Love and Courage and Loyalty so NON-cheesily is also a bit of a fear, but I really think in my heart she *won't* disappoint. So I guess I'm left with two things: 1) that something will happen to JKR and Book 7 will never come; and 2) that a HUGE portion of the readership will be disappointed with the ending for some reason. I mean, I don't care if a handful (or two or three) of people are ticked off, but if there is really widespread disappointment, it might be hard to take, especially if I didn't happen to be one of the ones disappointed. (Does that make sense??) Siriusly Snapey Susan, suddenly leaning away from her final thought and back to Amber's #4 Del said: > Ah, no :-) I'm afraid for me Snape was first and foremost > Nottingham's sherriff. I just LOVED him in that role!! He easily > stole the starring role from Costner, in my eyes. SSS adds: We found something we agree on wholeheartedly, Del! :-) From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Jan 5 02:11:31 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 02:11:31 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121147 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Pippin: > You know, some people ::waves at Nora:: are going to spill their > coffee when they read this, but I think this Platonic morality > business is needlessly complex. I think Dumbledore is good > according to the old-fashioned Golden Rule. "Do unto others..." > > Now of course that leaves us having to explain why he tolerates > the behavior of Snape and the Dursleys and so on. Again, the > standard answer: "He believes in free will." > > The trouble is, most of us don't. A belief in a deterministic > universe in which our behavior is wholly governed by physics, > heredity and behavioral conditioning doesn't seem to leave > much room for it. Obviously people can make us do > things--we're constantly bombarded by messages, including > those from JKR herself, trying to influence our behavior. Surely > Dumbledore with all the magic at his disposal can do as much. > > But on the metaphysical level, we can argue that we haven't > made people moral just because we've made them behave. > > In Dumbledore's world, IMO, this is how free will operates. No > one can make people be good. It's metaphysically impossible, > like bringing back the dead. He *knows* he can't. Forced > goodness is a guaranteed imitation. Hmmm. I can see your point. Yet if JKR is really saying this, I must say I personally find it terribly silly. Such a philosophy is a pure recipe for anarchy. After all, why on Earth do you have laws except to force people to behave? And there is the problem. Law and force isn't necessarily about *redemption*, it is about *protection.* In my view, and it is only my view, Dumbledore should not worry about redeeming the Dursleys or Snape, so far as that goes I agree with this line of reasoning. But he *should* worry about protecting Harry (and also Neville and others). To say he does not do so because he knows he can't force Snape, for instance, to be good is to miss the point. He should not force good behavior for the sake of Snape or the Dursleys. However, he *should* force good behavior for the sake of the persons bad behavior injures. Not to do so is to say that the wounds the Dursleys and Snape inflict on Harry are not as important as the wounds Dumbledore might inflict on the Dursleys or Snape by forcing them to behave. If JKR is indeed saying that, then once again, there are seven books that will make good kindling. Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 02:12:23 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 02:12:23 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121148 SSSusan: It's becoming increasingly difficult to choose one thing as I read others' comments. I suppose it's not a very "mature" way of looking at things, but I really DON'T want any of the trio to die, either. I understand that JKR could do it in a way that it makes perfect sense and is almost beautiful, but I still just don't want it to happen. Alla: Let's be immature together then, Susan! :o) I also do NOT want any of the trio to die,especially Harry, but I would love a long life for Ron and Hermione too. ;) But, as I said in the prior post I dread Harry's loosing his magic and being separated from his loved ones even worse. :( Oh, yes. ESE!lupin. THAT is a great example of HPFGU!induced fear. :o) It definitely used to be of of mine for quite some time. :o) I am happy to report though that during last few months this particular fear significantly decreased. It can go up again, when Pippin posts her new and improved ESE!Lupin. :) For some strange reason I am absolutely sure that we WILL find out what makes Snape tick. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 02:27:43 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 02:27:43 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121151 Lupinlore: In my view, and it is only my view, Dumbledore should not worry about redeeming the Dursleys or Snape, so far as that goes I agree with this line of reasoning. But he *should* worry about protecting Harry (and also Neville and others). To say he does not do so because he knows he can't force Snape, for instance, to be good is to miss the point. He should not force good behavior for the sake of Snape or the Dursleys. However, he *should* force good behavior for the sake of the persons bad behavior injures. Not to do so is to say that the wounds the Dursleys and Snape inflict on Harry are not as important as the wounds Dumbledore might inflict on the Dursleys or Snape by forcing them to behave. If JKR is indeed saying that, then once again, there are seven books that will make good kindling. Alla: I agree of course (it seems our thoughts are always identical on this issue :o)) Do you think the fact that after fifteen years ( they sure were not in a hurry :)) Order finally warned Dursleys signals at least SOME change? Do you think it is possible at all that Dumbledore WILL force Snape to calm down a bit in HBP or all of it is wishful thinking on my behalf? Alla From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 02:46:22 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 02:46:22 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121152 Amdorn wrote: What is your "Harry Potter" greatest fear? vmonte responds: 1. That book 7 will take three more years to come out. (I love HP but I need to know the ending already.) 2. Harry losing his powers would not be good. 3. Fred and/or George dying would not be good. 4. Snape turning out to just be a poor misunderstood soul would annoy me. 5. Harry, Ron, or Hermione dying would stink. 6. ESE!Lupin would upset me. 7. Dumbledore being double crossed by Snape would upset me. 8. Any romantic scenes involving Bellatrix would freak me out! :) 9. Ginny giving up her life to repay Harry would be sad. 10. Neville sacrificing himself to save Harry would be sad. 11. The Draco/Hermione dynamic also frightens me. vivian From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 5 02:55:16 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 02:55:16 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121153 In 121148, Alla said: > But, as I said in the prior post I dread Harry's loosing his magic > and being separated from his loved ones even worse. :( vmonte also said: > 2. Harry losing his powers would not be good. SSSusan: Now, at the risk of showing what really awful fanfic I would be "capable" of producing, I will argue [not for the first time here] that I don't think this would necessarily have to be so totally awful for *Harry* to lose his powers. Here goes. Harry, valiantly choosing to sacrifice his own life in order to kill Voldy (somehow!?!) at the end, steps into a Voldycurse of some sort and miraculously finds that -- by his very willingness to sacrifice himself out of love for those others who've been fighting along with him & supporting him all these years (DD, Hagrid, Hermione, Ron, Lupin, deadSirius, Neville, the Weasleys) -- he has managed both to live and to reduce Voldy to dust. [Yay!] He has also managed to remove all magical ability from himself in the process. [Boo!] At first he's horrified, depressed, thinks he'll have to leave the WW. But then he sees the *benefit* of it -- yes, the benefit! -- that no longer, ever, will the WW turn to HIM, expect HIM, to be their savior, because clearly, without magical power, he couldn't possibly do anything to save them. But the WW *will* still love him, appreciate what he did, what he sacrificed for them. So he'll still have their respect and admiration. AND he'll choose to stay in the WW -- with Ginny, of course . There will be things he can't do, like fly :-( but he'll have his Weasleys & Hermy & Ginny to do the routine magic for him, so he'll still be included in the life and the world. Well. It could work for me anyway. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 03:02:04 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:02:04 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121154 Potioncat wrote: My HP fear? While reading PoA over the holiday I began see Snape in a new light...erm new dark. My fear is that he will betray Dumbledore. vmonte responds: Oh, Really? Do tell us what makes you think that? Potioncat wrote: Potioncat wondering how you get the accent mark over letters... vmonte responds: When you find out let me know. I'm still trying to figure out how to underline and use italics on this site. :) From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 5 03:13:23 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:13:23 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121155 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amdorn" wrote: Snip > > I stand/type before all of you to say that my greatest fear is that I > will get to the end of the seventh book and still crave more. That my > thirst will not be quenched. I know that after the seventh book there > will more than likely not be more Harry Potter books to be > published. But what if I get to the end of this fantastic journey > and don't feel like my craving has been satisfied? What if I finish > the epilogue and all of the loose ends have not been sufficiently > tied? What if, JK Rowling, in her infinite Potter wisdom, somehow > makes the end of the seventh book like the rest? Will I have to go > to "rehab" for Harry Potter fans? If I was JK Rowling, I would worry > about this too. I don't envy her task. I think it will have to be > one helluva epilogue to complete this Herculean task. I guess all I > can do is have faith that when the end comes, I won't pull my hair > out. > > Tell me, what do you fear the most? > > Amdorn imamommy: I love these books, and no matter how we tear them apart on this group, I still love them. My greatest fear is that I will read the sixth and seventh book and say, "Oh. That stunk." Please don't misunderstand me. I think I could be ok with just about any plot twist, almost any ship (that JKR would *really* put in, anyway), any ending to the Snape saga, and any method of defeating Voldemort...as long as she writes it so that it still works for me. Now, I know some of you hit this point already, with OoP. But I really, really hope I don't. I hope I don't get to the end and feel very disillusioned. I want to still have the deep emotional connection to the books that I do now. Loosing that connection is my greatest HP fear. imamommy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 03:15:10 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:15:10 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121156 SSSusan: But the WW *will* still love him, appreciate what he did, what he sacrificed for them. So he'll still have their respect and admiration. AND he'll choose to stay in the WW -- with Ginny, of course . There will be things he can't do, like fly :-( but he'll have his Weasleys & Hermy & Ginny to do the routine magic for him, so he'll still be included in the life and the world. Alla: Nice scenario, Susan. What I am really dreading is Harry's separation from WW and his loved ones, NOT loss of his powers per se. I don't know though - I think if he survives, he will be able to fly :) Remember what JKR answered to the question whether Harry would ever become a Headmaster? She said that she cannot see him in the academic career, because he had seen too much action (paraphrase). So, suppose she had in mind that Harry survives - that to me means either Auror or Quidditch Player. :) Alla From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 03:16:37 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:16:37 -0000 Subject: Harry llikes too much action (greatest fear) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121157 SSSusan wrote: snip Harry, valiantly choosing to sacrifice his own life in order to kill Voldy (somehow!?!) at the end, steps into a Voldycurse of some sort and miraculously finds that -- by his very willingness to sacrifice himself out of love for those others who've been fighting along with him & supporting him all these years (DD, Hagrid, Hermione, Ron, Lupin, deadSirius, Neville, the Weasleys) -- he has managed both to live and to reduce Voldy to dust. [Yay!] He has also managed to remove all magical ability from himself in the process. [Boo!] snip But the WW *will* still love him, appreciate what he did, what he sacrificed for them. So he'll still have their respect and admiration. AND he'll choose to stay in the WW -- with Ginny, of course . There will be things he can't do, like fly :-( but he'll have his Weasleys & Hermy & Ginny to do the routine magic for him, so he'll still be included in the life and the world. vmonte responds: I like the part where Harry and Ginny get together. :) By the way... Didn't a fan ask JKR whether Harry was going to become a professor (or was it headmaster) at Hogwarts? Didn't JKR say something like 'normal life would not suite Harry because he likes too much action.' Vivian From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 5 03:19:44 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:19:44 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121158 >SSSusan: >I suppose it's not a very "mature" way of looking at things, but I >really DON'T want any of the trio to die, either. I understand that >JKR could do it in a way that it makes perfect sense and is almost >beautiful, but I still just don't want it to happen. > > >Alla: >Let's be immature together then, Susan! :o) >I also do NOT want any of the trio to die,especially Harry, but I >would love a long life for Ron and Hermione too. ;) Move over, I'm "immature too." I want all the good guys to survive happily and the bad guys to either die, repent, or be neutralized so they can't hurt anyone. If I want to read stuff where a lot of people die and and the bad guys win, I can buy the *New York Times.* :/ My wishes: We find out what really happened at Godric's Hollow. We find out why Snape left the Death Eaters and why Dumbledore trusts him. Neville's parents get, or start to get, their minds back, and somehow convey something important to him(starting with the fact that they know who he is). We find out who's going to SHIP with whom (I don't care if it's Harry and Ginny, Ron and Hermione, Sirius and Remus, or Filch and Mrs. Norris, as long as it's *settled.*) My fears: Dumbledore or Hagrid will die. (Yes, I'd hate the "It was a dream" scenario too, but I don't believe it will happen, whereas I strongly suspect that either Dumbledore or Hagrid if not both will be dead before the end of the series.) Lupin turns out to be evil. (I don't believe this and never did, but I'd really hate it if it turned out to be true.) Any solution in which Dumbledore turns out to be Ron, Voldemort turns out to be possessed by an Evil Spirit from Beyond Time, or Harry goes back in time to Godric's Hollow. Janet Anderson From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 5 03:31:21 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:31:21 -0000 Subject: Harry likes too much action (greatest fear) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121159 > vmonte responds: > I like the part where Harry and Ginny get together. :) > > By the way... > > Didn't a fan ask JKR whether Harry was going to become a professor > (or was it headmaster) at Hogwarts? Didn't JKR say something > like 'normal life would not suite Harry because he likes too much > action.' SSSusan: Well, yeah, JKR did say that.... But surely Harry could find an EXCITING non-magic-requiring job, eh?? Um, like, racing cars? Or, well, okay, I'm drawing a blank. But surely one of the more creative types among us can bail me out with a suitable occupation/hobby for our non-magic-but-loves-action Harry?? :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 03:32:50 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:32:50 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Hermione (was JKR's Messages ) (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121160 Carol earlier: > > One more point in support of Del. Harry refuses to explain, either to Cho alone or to the DA, how Cedric died. > > There's only the half-truth, stated by Harry and echoed by Dumbledore, that Voldemort murdered Cedric. Bodiless Vapormort, whom the DA members may or may not know was formerly inside Quirrell's head, murdered a TWT champion? The DA members don't know that Wormtail resurrected Voldemort, much less that Babymort ordered Wormtail to "kill the spare." Marcela responded: Only that you and Del forget about the Quibbler interview on > Valentine's Day. By then, Harry was able to talk about what > happened when Voldemort came back. > Perhaps Jo's intent was to show us that Harry was not 'ready' yet to > give explanations, and that if they wanted to believe him and DD, it > was fine with him, but he also stated that those whom were not > satisfied with DD's word were welcomed to leave the Hogs Head > meeting. None left. > Just trying to put things into perspective here. BTW, Marietta must > have had a chance to read the Quibbler interview, since Cho knew > about it, she was very proud of Harry's courage to 'open-up' in > public. > Carol again: I have a feeling that Harry named the Death Eaters in Voldemort's circle but he apparently didn't tell Rita Skeeter "everything," as OoP implies. I don't think he revealed the truth about Peter Pettigrew, for example. Not only does Luna still think that Sirius Black is Stubby Boardman, as she would not if Harry had revealed the truth about Wormtail's identity and history, but he apparently hasn't even told Rita or anyone else about Wormtail having murdered Cedric on Voldemort's orders. If he had told the full truth, he would not still be unwilling to talk to the DA about Cedric's death or answer Zacharias Smith's questions about how he died. (Zacharias doesn't refer to the article, only to DD's words at the end of last year.) Which leads me to wonder--did the article mention Wormtail's role at all? Did it mention Babymort and his transformation through a potion and incantation into the full-fledged Voldemort? Did it even mention the TWT cup that had been turned into a portkey and the role played by the now "demented" Barty Crouch Jr.? What exactly *did* it reveal other than the names of the Death Eaters who were present? Not much, apparently. Notice also that the DA students know very little about Harry's activities in previous years. And if we look at DD's end-of-the-year speeches, which usually end in awarding Harry points without any detailed explanation, we can see that they in fact know very little. I'm not sure that anyone besides the Gryffindors even knows that Voldemort was in the back of Quirrell's head or that the memory of Tom Riddle, a manifestation of Voldemort, was responsible for the basilisk. In fact, they're just now learning that Harry killed a basilisk in second year. One additional point. Just reading the Quibbler article didn't convince more than half of the readers who wrote to Harry that he was telling the truth. The same was undoubtedly true for the students at Hogwarts. (Consider the reputation of the Quibbler and the kinds of articles it generally publishes.) Only a few students publicly stood up and indicated that they believed Harry, and one of them was "Loony" Lovegood. I'm betting that half the students still believed the Daily Prophet over the Quibbler, if only because the Prophet's version of events seemed so much more plausible. And Marietta Edgecombe would certainly have been one of those students. Carol, who wishes that JKR had printed the Quibbler article From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 03:38:33 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:38:33 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121161 > Alla: > > Nice scenario, Susan. What I am really dreading is Harry's > separation from WW and his loved ones, NOT loss of his powers per se. > > I don't know though - I think if he survives, he will be able to > fly :) > > Remember what JKR answered to the question whether Harry would ever > become a Headmaster? She said that she cannot see him in the > academic career, because he had seen too much action (paraphrase). > > So, suppose she had in mind that Harry survives - that to me means > either Auror or Quidditch Player. :) > > > > Alla Antosha Or... a parent. :-) Plenty of action there. I would actually welcome a book 7 conclusion in which Harry succeeded, lost his powers, but found a happy, peaceful, fulfilling life surrounded by people who loved him. That would be okay by me. (Then again, I've already written a fic cycle that begins with that premise....) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 03:52:40 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:52:40 -0000 Subject: Lupin's boggart (was: Remus and Sibyll sitting in a tree) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121162 Potioncat wrote: > >> So, why in OoP is it still called an orb? > > > Renee: > And why it is still called an orb in OoP? Perhaps because it's not > really a full moon - it doesn't make Lupin transform. Or because to > Harry, it's never more than an orb; after all, it's not his boggart. Carol adds: And if we look at dictionary definitions again, according to Merriam Webster, the "sperical body" definition is especially applicable to "celestial sperical bodies"--moons and planets, in other words. But of course the crystal ball suggestion by Lavender (or was it Parvati?) was a red herring to steer us away from the full moon idea, which would have given away a key element of the plot of PoA. Carol From stonehenge.orders at verizon.net Wed Jan 5 04:09:39 2005 From: stonehenge.orders at verizon.net (kjirstem) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 04:09:39 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121163 > SSSusan: > Harry, valiantly choosing to sacrifice his own life in order to kill > Voldy (somehow!?!) at the end, steps into a Voldycurse of some sort > and miraculously finds that -- by his very willingness to sacrifice > himself out of love for those others who've been fighting along with > him & supporting him all these years (DD, Hagrid, Hermione, Ron, > Lupin, deadSirius, Neville, the Weasleys) -- he has managed both to > live and to reduce Voldy to dust. [Yay!] > > He has also managed to remove all magical ability from himself in > the process. > > But the WW *will* still love him, appreciate what he did, what he > sacrificed for them. So he'll still have their respect and > admiration. AND he'll choose to stay in the WW -- with Ginny, of > course . There will be things he can't do, like fly :-( but > he'll have his Weasleys & Hermy & Ginny to do the routine magic for > him, so he'll still be included in the life and the world. > kjirstem: Harry losing his magic as a result of defeating Voldemort seems like a possibility to me, but I tend to think that the result could be MemoryCharmed!Harry back in the muggle world. That wouldn't be worst ending (though unhappy for Harry), we might be left uncertain whether the whole thing happened but it would be better than the "it was only a dream" scenario. And then the rest of his life strange strangers in cloaks would come up to him at odd times and shake his hand. My worst fear is just that the ending of the last book will be a huge unsatisfying let-down. If that happens I'll lose the pleasure of re-reading the books over and over again. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 04:28:55 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 04:28:55 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121164 Kjirstem: Harry losing his magic as a result of defeating Voldemort seems like a possibility to me, but I tend to think that the result could be MemoryCharmed!Harry back in the muggle world. snip. Alla: Why would they Memorycharm Harry? Surely he can be allowed to stay in WW even without his powers, unless he wants to leave on his own? Sorry, I prefer such thing not to happen. :o) Now, if only JKR would listen to me. :o) Was it "Darkness rising" where main characters are made to forget their adventures at the end? Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 04:30:24 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 04:30:24 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amdorn" wrote: > Tonks here: My greatest fear is that the series will end too quickly. I can wait a couple of years for the end... as long as it comes. I don't want it to be over too soon, for many reasons, one of which is there would be nothing else to talk about and we will all have to go back to being boring Muggles!! Tonks_op From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Wed Jan 5 04:38:22 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 23:38:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Your greatest fear . . . References: Message-ID: <008f01c4f2e0$65785ec0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121166 >SSSusan: > >I suppose it's not a very "mature" way of looking at things, but I > >really DON'T want any of the trio to die, either. I understand that > >JKR could do it in a way that it makes perfect sense and is almost > >beautiful, but I still just don't want it to happen. > > > > > >Alla: > >Let's be immature together then, Susan! :o) > >I also do NOT want any of the trio to die,especially Harry, but I > >would love a long life for Ron and Hermione too. ;) > >Janet said - >Move over, I'm "immature too." I want all the good guys to survive happily > and the bad guys to either die, repent, or be neutralized so they can't hurt > anyone. If I want to read stuff where a lot of people die and and the bad > guys win, I can buy the *New York Times.* :/ > Kethryn now - I hope the three of you have room on the "immature" bench cause I am joining you (look, we can play Spades now). I do not want any of the primary trio to die, the secondary trio...well, I nominate Luna (who is just too over the top for me). I honestly want Harry, Hermione, and Ron to live happily ever after ~ shadowed by nightmares, sure, but not dead, dismembered, diminished, desouled...or any other foul thing you can think of. Maybe that isn't very realistic but, hell, it's a fantasy novel for crying out loud. If I wanted reality, I would read a newspaper. Besides we already saw the whole death at the end of the story line with LoTR (and I cry buckets every single time I see that scene at the end) and I honestly don't think that it can be done better at this point. Then again, we also saw the live happily ever after with Star Wars (the original 3 not those horrid atrocities Lucas is currently fosting off on us) so that has been done as well. I think that JKR can write it better so I am pushing for that ending. If the whole series ends up being a dream/drug sequence and it never happened, I will be furious. Absolutely coldly furious...Snape won't have a single thing on me at that point. I would love to find out exactly what happened at Godric's Hollow and I want that Pensive scene explained (which I personally think that JKR must explain it, there was too much going on for the half assed explanation we got from Remus and Sirius for that to be it). I really want JKR to find a way to explain that scene without making James into a jerk off bully and Snape into a looser. I want the patterns of behavoir that set up the whole scene...so I guess I want the prestory but I will settle for a decent explanation. I would really hate it if JKR left that pensive scene alone after OoTP... I would hate it if all the questions (as in major plot points) were not answered. I would hate it if none of the Weasley's died...I know I said that this was fantasy but not killing one of them off would stretch the believability of the story for me just a shade too far...there are way too many of them and they are all too close to Harry not to have one of them bite the bullet. If Harry looses his powers, count me infuriated. I mean, honestly, wth would be the point in that? If Bellatrix kills Neville... That's all for now, I better stop. Kethryn who is starting to make herself angry at the thought of some of what she has mentioned. From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 04:40:50 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 04:40:50 -0000 Subject: Loyalty and goodness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121167 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > Del replies: > I would love things to be this way. My main problem with this idea > is that DD never *refers* to his higher principles. He doesn't > mention them, he doesn't teach them, he doesn't encourage others > to follow them on their own. Well, no, there's not a laundry list: hardly good literature, that. But there are lots of principles put forth in his actions. The much-debated end of book one can be read as the reward of the active principles of doing good things (Trio and Neville), against those who got there primarily by the misfortunes of others (the Slytherins, who remember, made a show of thanking the Gryffindor kids for losing their House points. IIRC.). Dumbledore castigates Fudge for upholding the blood principle, while he takes care to allow a werewolf to attend school--and it is emphasized that Lupin only got his chance because of *Dumbledore*. See below about house elves--it's a related issue. He generally leaves the kids to work out their own issues rather than interfering and fighting their own battles for them, both amongst each other and with the faculty. He leaves Harry to choose to take action against the snake on his own. He treats house-elves better than anyone else in the WW, and I have no doubts that his comments at the end of OotP are a statement of ontological reality for the WW. He actually states "Innocent until proven guilty", not exactly a common WW idea. He's actively regarded as a defender of the rights of the Muggleborn, and as such is a prime target for crypto-fascists such as Lucius Malfoy, and quasi-reactionaries such as Fudge. And he's attracted a strong circle of people who really seem to believe in him. I could catalogue all of his other bon mots, but that would take too much time, and I'm both sleepy and lazy. But I disagree that he is not teaching the children--I think his examples and actions point towards a path. Not a flawless one and not one always easily seen, but there for those who are going to take the effort to open their eyes and not wallow in complacency--those who will do what is hard, rather than what is easy. He strikes me as an incarnation of many of the problems of liberalism, particularly with the problem of restriction of individual behavior. (That applies very well to the parallel debate about Snape and the Dursleys, methinks.) > I can understand that some might not see any reason to follow just > another human being, and that many might think their own wisdom is > just as good as DD's. Especially if they are not Gryffindors and > their priorities and goals were never quite like DD's. Perhaps the operative word here is 'think'? Most of the priorities and goals we've seen from others are pretty nasty. Not uniformly, but largely. I don't think Rowling's cosmology is so forgiving towards the DE ideology, or even much of the general populace. And she's really not playing with a morally relativistic world; DD's goals are, frankly, better than Voldemort's. End stop. And, ::waves at Pippin::, the Golden Rule can easily be considered a less abstract and coherent version of the Kantian categorical imperative. Not that JKR strikes me as a Kantian... -Nora notes that even cheap Riesling can be decently good Riesling... From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 5 05:46:39 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 05:46:39 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > He has also managed to remove all magical ability from himself in > the process. [Boo!] [deleted] > But the WW *will* still love him, appreciate what he did, what he > sacrificed for them. So he'll still have their respect and > admiration. I think this will be a really horrible outcome. From one of the most powerfull wizards in WW he'll turn into a squib. Moreover a squib who knows what it was like to be a full fledged wizard. As for the WW attitude, well... For a year or two, at best, he'll be admired and talked about, then everyone will move on but he will get stuck with - what? He has no education to fit him in the non-magical world. He has no abilities that make him functional in the WW. Or do you foresee his future as Filch's replacement? Let's not forget the wizarding world condescending attitude towards squibs. They are considered shamefull to their families (as Ron had said in SS (paraphrased) "Mom has a cousin who is an account but we don't talk about him"). Harry will end up being viewed with pity and curiosity, but admiration will be short lived at best. I can't imagine JKR being as mean as that to her main character. No, either Harry dies or ends up with his full powers (perhaps minus the extra skills he got from Voldemort, e.g. parceltongue). Salit From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 06:13:15 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 06:13:15 -0000 Subject: Dilys Derwent (Was: McGonagall and DD' roles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121169 Lupinlore wrote: > > I may be wrong about this, as I don't have access to OOTP right now, but I believe that Dilys Derwent was Head of St. Mungo's AFTER she was Headmistress of Hogwarts. Like I say, I could have things backwards. > > > Potioncat responded: > Having been wrong before, I decided I'd better go back and check. I > don't recall where it's written in the books, but here's a link to > the Lexicon: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/wizards-d-g.html > > She was a Healer from 1722--1741 and a Headmistress from 1741--1768. > Potioncat Carol notes: Having just reread OoP, I can tell you that it's in the "St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies and Injuries" chapter, Am. ed. p. 485. Harry sees the sign under Dilys's portrait in the waiting room. Carol From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 07:31:25 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 07:31:25 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . .Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121170 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amdorn" wrote: > > > Happy New Year to everyone. > >> Tell me, what do you fear the most? > > Amdorn I've had nightmares about this for months now, and am happy to share it with someone at last...my worst fear is that Peter Pettigrew is the Half-Blood Prince.. **heavy sigh** I said it..don't believe it, but hopefully posting it here will remove it from my dreams. Doddie(Who is happy that she may have a pettigrew free night for once!) From trekkie at stofanet.dk Wed Jan 5 00:00:56 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 01:00:56 +0100 Subject: my greatest fear.... References: Message-ID: <001201c4f2b9$a1829e20$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 121171 Gina: For example - my fianc and I am flipping channels when I come to "Robin Hood and the Prince of Thieves" Now, normally I would have changed the channel, but I hear a very familiar voice and when I see "Little John" I scream - "Hagrid"!!!! And I continue to watch a few minutes longer. My fianc looks at me and shakes his head, but says nothing. Then I hear another familiar voice and low and behold if the good ole sheriff doesn't appear and I scream "Professor Snape"!!!! TrekkieGrrrl: Uhm.. It's not Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) who plays Little John in Prince of Thieves... It's Nick Brimble. But of course the movie is worth watching for Rickman's sheriff alone :o)) MY biggest fear is also a mix of either the series ending in general or the series NOT ending because something happens to JKR. I've also devoured the books in one go every time a new one was out, and I know that I'll probably take a few days off work when HBP comes out, so that I can read it in peace and quiet. But until then (and after) we have to resort to fanfiction I guess. ~TG who somehow doesn't WANT book 7 to come either. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 00:04:27 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:04:27 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121172 Betsy: Hey! Back from no-computer-land, and *finally* finished catching up with the posted back-log of all I missed. So now I'm jumping in! Del, I so completely disagree with the "harsh morality" you lay out as the foundation of the series. One of the big attractions of the Harry Potter series for me was the fasinating shades of grey JKR manages to paint with the various characters. Yes, the books boil down to a fight between good and evil. But, especially for a children's series, JKR does a marvelous job of showing the many faceted sides of human nature. There is no harsh morality in the heart of Potterverse. At least not from JKR's end. Some of the *characters* may have their own harsh morality, but that point of view is treated rather dimly by the author. (See the tragedy that is the House of Crouch.) >>Hickengruendler wrote: >"I think JKR expects from us, to see beyond Harry's point of view in giving us the other characters' motives.< >> Del replies: > I don't think she manages to deliver this message in her books very well at all. If she did, there wouldn't be any need for her to explain and defend the characters. We would have no need for outside- the-books comments. IMO, if an author has to clarify something in interviews, that means that he/she did not do a good job of explaining that thing in his/her book to start with. > I don't get a feeling that there are so many people here who feel sorry for Marrietta or who understand Percy. And chances are that there would be even less of us if we hadn't read a defense of those characters on this or another similar board...< Betsy: I would argue that the proof is indeed in the pudding. There are *tons* of readers who support and love characters the narrator would have us think are unworthy. There are many who truly believe Percy is a good person badly treated by his family. The readers firmly behind the idea of a redeemed!Draco are legion. (And not all of them are unduly influenced by Tom Felton. ) And do I really have to bring up Snape supporters? All of these readers can quote you chapter and verse *from* cannon to support their point of view. They are not making stuff up whole cloth. They like these characters not in *spite* of Potterverse, but *because* of what JKR puts in the books for them to grab hold of. Just follow the HP Essay link from the HPFGU Portkey and look up the "bad" characters for some great examples. If the characters were as black and white, if the Potterverse was as unforgiving, as you're saying it is, I don't think the books would be nearly as interesting. Nor as mysterious. Betsy From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 5 10:49:32 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 10:49:32 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121173 Amdorn wrote: <<<>>> Sigune: I can have very, very much as long as it's well-written and has an acceptable logic of its own. Snape can, as far as I'm concerned, go over to the Dark side again, if it makes sense in his Slytherin ethic. Dumbledore can die; I wouldn't be happy about it, but he's old, and his death might have a plausible function in the plot. Harry can die or lose his magic ? it can be made acceptable to me, and I am comfortable with endings that aren't too rosy if they contain some irony (cruel or otherwise). The `It Was All A Dream' thingy is of course entirely unacceptable ? such a threadbare plot device would be truly unworthy of JKR, which is why I have no real fear that we might be faced with such an ending. SSSusan: <<>> Alla: <> Janet Anderson: Sigune: Me, I'm only worried about Hermione. I really, really don't want her to die, not just because I like her but mainly because she is the only female character in a leading part. Must be the feminist in me . vmonte proposed: <7. Dumbledore being double crossed by Snape would upset me.> Sigune: Actually, I would like that one. I would be very curious to know how he pulls it off. <8. Any romantic scenes involving Bellatrix would freak me out! :)> Sigune: Definitely! O_o But I don't think it's likely to happen ;-). <9. Ginny giving up her life to repay Harry would be sad.> <10. Neville sacrificing himself to save Harry would be sad.> Sigune: I don't hold much with the sacrifice bit myself. It's vastly overrated. I mean, who knows what a mess the people you sacrifice yourself for might make of their lives? Janet Anderson wrote: We find out why Snape left the Death Eaters and why Dumbledore trusts him.> Sigune: Yes, more Snape ? but not too much and not too many details, so that my imagination doesn't stop dead ? would ruin much of my reading pleasure. In fact, I think I don't want to know the exact details about anything much, so the discussions can continue. Just winding up the main issues will do for me. Janet Anderson continued: Any solution in which Dumbledore turns out to be Ron, Voldemort turns out to be possessed by an Evil Spirit from Beyond Time, or Harry goes back in time to Godric's Hollow.> Sigune: Wholehearted agreement from me here. Right: my single greatest fear: SNAPE DYING ? with as a worst case scenario: Snape dying while sacrificing himself for Harry. ICK! YUCK! I'd rather he went to Voldie again or kissed Lucius's boots or ran off to set up a household with Draco. Really. Yours severely, Sigune From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 02:06:29 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 02:06:29 -0000 Subject: Hermione as PR (Was Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121174 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > Chapter Discussion: Chapter 35, Beyond the Veil > The kids try to barricade themselves in an office, but another pair > of DEs take them down with well placed Impedimenta spells. Harry > stuns one of them with the Full Body Bind, but the other, silenced > by one of Hermione's spells, casts one at her and knocks her > unconscious. Betsy: I think the spell Hermione casts can be seen as part of a trend. I've been kicking around the idea that in their supporting roles, Ron and Hermione are falling into very specific positions to assist Harry in his task. Ron is the soldier or knight (see his defense of Harry to Seamus in chpt. 11 of OotP), and Hermione is Harry's PR guru. She's been responsible for stopping bad press on Harry (GoF) getting his side of the story out (OotP), and getting a grassroots organization together (the DA) to get to know Harry and further disseminate his take on the state of the WW. Hermione is also the person with her ear to the ground, able to give Harry a good overview on the general thoughts of his fellow students. The fact that she uses a silencing spell in the battle at the MoM fits in with her self- appointed role. Or that's my take on it, anyway. :) Betsy From apzdcmsw at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 5 03:06:08 2005 From: apzdcmsw at yahoo.ca (Matt) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:06:08 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121175 Alla said: > I have several, some of them are not as great as others. > (snip) > I am also afraid that at the end Harry will lose his magic. Not > because of no magic anymore per se, but if that would mean separating > him from WW, where he has people who love him. > I dread such ending, will find it to be very cruel and would rather > have Harry die and reunite with his loved ones behind the Veil, even > though I prefer him to survive at the end. :o) > (snip) Matt: My biggest fear has always been that in order to stop Voldemort, Harry will need to make a choice to sacrifice himself. Some major connection was established between the two when Voldemort cursed Harry all those years ago, and perhaps the only way to finally finish off Voldemort is for Harry to die as well. Thus, my fear is that in order to kill Voldemort, Harry will need to die as well. This would be an unfortunate end indeed. Alla :) made me think of a new fear however, that Harry will somehow be unable to use magic in the end due to a last fight with Voldemort. I think this would be a very tragic end as well, very similar to Frodo in Lord of the Rings, who was unable to return to a normal life after the struggles with the ring, and had to see all his friends happy again but unable to join them. I don't know which of the above would be worse though, they are both pretty grim endings! Matt - MSW From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 11:25:23 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 11:25:23 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121176 Tonks here: My greatest fear is that the series will end too quickly. I can wait a couple of years for the end... as long as it comes. I don't want it to be over too soon, for many reasons, one of which is there would be nothing else to talk about and we will all have to go back to being boring Muggles!! vmonte responds: I'm actually looking forward to the end of the series. And I don't think that I'm going to be disappointed either. Whatever ending JKR writes, she will pull it off with style. It would also be refreshing if she surprised us with a scenario NO ONE, on this or any site, thought of. I love surprise endings! I'm also not worried about her fans being disappointed with the books. It's fun to theorize, make up scenarios, and discuss possible unknown villians. (And I've enjoyed, and tried to be respectful of other fans ideas.) But in the end we are not the writer of these books, JKR is. I'll take my chance and respect what she has to offer me. I'm looking forward to returning to my muggle life. Vivian From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Jan 5 04:34:58 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 04:34:58 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121177 My biggest fear is OBHWF. My second greatest fear is Harry losing his powers. I cannot imagine any ending which would leave me satisfied that would have that as an ingredient. Harry's given up too much for the world, he doesn't need to give up his power too. From hiho at io.com Wed Jan 5 06:56:24 2005 From: hiho at io.com (fuschia14minuit) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 06:56:24 -0000 Subject: Come out Petunia (long) In-Reply-To: <018e01c4ef63$275e51b0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121178 charme: > Thanks, Vivamus. Petunia may be ugly naturally and changed just her hair > color, eyes, and maybe the shape of her nose (like Tonks did with her hair > and nose in OoP.) Depends on how much Petunia could change, if she is one, > huh? I'm not married to the theory and only give it about a 40% probability > it could be the case and like I said, only JKR knows. :) I can't wait to > find out what it is with Petunia... Hi. Although I just joined up on this list I'm going to jump right in. :) Interesting idea. I have thought of another thing, that Petunia might be a squib. That would explain the distasteful attitude toward anything magical, and why she might have married an oaf like Vernon Dursley. I got the impression that Petunia's and Lily's parents were muggles, but can't remember if the book actually states that. An idea further out in left field: what if both parents were squibs? (It could happen) That would explain why they were so happy that Lily was a witch, and why Petunia so resented her. Off topic, she reminds me of Hyacinth on Keeping Up Appearances, both in temperament and with the sisters all named after flowers. cheers, M From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 5 13:36:01 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:36:01 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121179 phoenixgod: > My biggest fear is OBHWF. SSSusan: Hee! Sap that I am, this wouldn't bug me, but I know you're not alone in detesting it! phoenixgod: > My second greatest fear is Harry losing his powers. I cannot > imagine any ending which would leave me satisfied that would have > that as an ingredient. Harry's given up too much for the world, he > doesn't need to give up his power too. SSSusan: I've seen several people who have remarked that they'd just NOT like this scenario, and I see their point (though, for me, I can still see it working out). So I'd like to ask phoenixgod and others who just do not want to see Harry lose his powers, would you be okay with his losing his life instead? In other words, in your minds, would death be a better fate for Harry than life w/o his magic? I absolutely agree with phoenixgod that Harry's given ENOUGH, which is why my REAL preference is for him to live *and* still have his powers, but I'm a little afraid to believe too strongly that it'll happen. So I'm curious, *if* it's gotta be loss of life or loss of powers, which you'd select? I took a quick peek and didn't see anything, but have we ever had a poll at HPfGU to see how many think: a) Harry will die; b) Harry will live but lose his powers; or c) Harry will live and keep his powers intact? Might be interesting to see how many believe JKR will give us a "happy" ending. Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 5 13:37:20 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:37:20 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121180 > Potioncat wrote: > > My HP fear? While reading PoA over the holiday I began see Snape in > a new light...erm new dark. My fear is that he will betray > Dumbledore. > > vmonte responds: > > Oh, Really? Do tell us what makes you think that? Potioncat: Here are two sections that made me wonder. It's nothing the Snape opposition hasn't been saying all along, but for some reason, it hit home when I read it this time. I'm not fully converted, but my faith in Snape is shaken! PoA "The Servant of Lord Voldemort" (chp 19) Snape speaking, "Ive told the headmaster again and again that you've been helping your old friend Black into the castle, Lupin, and here's the proof. Not even I dreamed you would have the nerve to use this old place as your hideout--" ... "Two more for Azkaban tonight," his eyes now gleaming fanatically.I shall be interested to see how Dumbledore takes this...he was quite convinced you were harmless, you know Lupin...a *tame* werewolf--" Then in "Owl Post Again" chp 22 Harry and Hermione over hear Sanpe and Fudge. Snape is speaking and Harry hears him in mid sentence, "...only hope Dumbledore's not going to make difficulties," Snape was saying. "The kiss will be performed immediately?" In the first case, Snape has been telling DD about Lupin all along and is eager to be proven right. But he shows no regret for the pain this will cause DD. In the second case, he really seems to want Black punished and hopes DD won't interfere. I could argue here that Snape is only pretending, as a way of finding out Fudge's motives. But in the first case, there's little doubt of Snape's opinion. Another view I've changed in this episode, is Snape's motives for going into the Shrieking Shack. I thought he was saving the trio. It is pretty clear from the timeline and from what he says: he saw Lupin in the tunnel and went after him. Snape did not know the kids or Black were there. Now, I'm not really sure why he followed an un- medicated werewolf into the tunnel... Still, on the positive side, Snape looks positively gentle when Harry sees him putting the injured on stretchers. Tell me why, why didn't Lupin or Black put Snape on a stretcher? Potioncat From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 13:53:02 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:53:02 -0000 Subject: Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Re: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121181 Potioncat: Another view I've changed in this episode, is Snape's motives for going into the Shrieking Shack. I thought he was saving the trio. It is pretty clear from the timeline and from what he says: he saw Lupin in the tunnel and went after him. Snape did not know the kids or Black were there. Now, I'm not really sure why he followed an un- medicated werewolf into the tunnel... Alla: Oh, dear. Welcome back to the Light side. :o) I NEVER bought Snape going to the Tunnel, because he wanted to save the kids as his primary motivation. Revenge, revenge and revenge again. I am not sure though that he did not know that the kids were there. Are you saying that he could not see them on the Map? Because then, I will abandon "saving life motive" even as secondary motivation, which I happened to hope he has. Now, why did he follow werewolf in the tunel indeed? Maybe he thought he knew how to fight werewolf succesfully? Hmmm, makes you wonder about some past events. :) About Snape betraying Dumbleodre... Not sure. Him wanting revenge against Remus and Black, not caring who will be hurt in the process, Dumbledore included, fits pretty well in the picture of Snape holding his old grudges, without him betraying Dumbledore. Just my opinion, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 5 14:28:01 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:28:01 -0000 Subject: Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Re: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121182 >> Alla: > Oh, dear. Welcome back to the Light side. :o) I NEVER bought Snape > going to the Tunnel, because he wanted to save the kids as his > primary motivation. Revenge, revenge and revenge again. > > I am not sure though that he did not know that the kids were there. > Are you saying that he could not see them on the Map? Because then, > I will abandon "saving life motive" even as secondary motivation, > which I happened to hope he has. Potioncat: chp 17 Lupin appears in the Shrieking Shack saying he saw Black pull Ron into the tunnel.(on the Map) chp 19 Snape says, "I saw you running along this passageway and out of sight." (on the map) Therefore, he saw Lupin go out of sight. The trio, Scabbers and Black would already have been out of sight. So he only saw Lupin. What I can say, is that Snape, who has suspected Lupin all along, sees him going to the Shrieking Shack where he used to go for transformations. If Lupin has violated the "contract" so to speak, Snape may feel justified in going after him. He was afterall, a danger to the school. The essay he assigned the DADA class was "...on the ways you recognise and kill werewolves." Keeping in mind, the empahsis was on the werewolf in wolf form vrs a true wolf. Now I wonder, did Snape want to prepare students in case they met up with Lupin in the moonlight? Or was he hoping someone would kill Lupin without knowing who it was? >>Alla: > Now, why did he follow werewolf in the tunel indeed? Maybe he > thought he knew how to fight werewolf succesfully? Hmmm, makes you > wonder about some past events. :) Potioncat: I should have put that part of your post above my comments. I wonder if Snape was prepared to kill the werewolf? (in werewolf form.) >>Alla: > About Snape betraying Dumbleodre... Not sure. Him wanting revenge > against Remus and Black, not caring who will be hurt in the process, Dumbledore included, fits pretty well in the picture of Snape holding his old grudges, without him betraying Dumbledore. Potioncat: Well, I like this explanation better than mine. You and I do switch roles from time to time, don't we? From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 14:28:31 2005 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:28:31 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: <1c9.223d693d.2f0c84a6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121183 > amdorn at h... writes: > > What is your "Harry Potter" greatest fear? > > Sandy: Amazing how we all had such fears lurking below the surface, isn't it? Like many, I think my greatest fear is not liking the ending. I'll be especially upset if it's some pat ending that makes us slap our foreheads and say "it really was a children's series." And while I want a positive ending with all my favorite characters surviving and facing a long and rewarding life, I don't want anything that can be summarized as "and they lived happily ever after." I don't want anything that involves time turners, either. My next greatest fear is simply that it will be over. (I'm one of the few who spent early December hoping the rumors about a release date were wrong, because the sooner book 6 comes out, the sooner it's over.) I also fear that I will find that DD and Hermoine and I have misplaced our trust in Snape, and that Ron might be right about poisonous toads and their spots. I'd dislike this turn of events on a number of levels, but especially if you believe choice is a major theme, because Snape is our example that you can make up for a bad choice early in life (to some degree, anyway) by the choices you make later. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 5 14:39:56 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:39:56 -0000 Subject: T.H. White and JKR Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121184 Does anyone know if JKR has ever mentioned T.H. White as an author she's read? I can't find anything in QuickQuotes. I picked up "The Book of Merlyn" and "The Once and Future King" the other day. I was skimming through them to find something about owls and magic. I read both of these books years and years ago. At any rate, in "Once and Future King" I was struck at how much Dumbledore resembles White's Merlin. In the section I was reading, Merlin is talking about how confusing it is to know what is going to happen when you don't know what has happened. (Merlin lives backwards in time.) Although we know DD's memory is as good as it ever was... (;p) It reminded me of DD's use of the timeturner. In "The Book of Merlyn" I was struck by the discussion of morality tha seemed to echo the ongoing thread here. Potioncat (now going over to the Lexicon to see how the Potterverse spells Merlyn.) From entropymail at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 14:59:10 2005 From: entropymail at yahoo.com (entropymail) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:59:10 -0000 Subject: T.H. White and JKR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121185 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Does anyone know if JKR has ever mentioned T.H. White as an author > she's read? I found this at Guardian Unlimited: >>Rowling has described Wart from TH White's The Sword In The Stone as "Harry's spiritual ancestor" (http://books.guardian.co.uk)<< So, not only is she familiar with White's work, but she acknowledges the comparison between it's main characters. I would be surprised if the *wasn't* very familiar with Merlin before she wrote the HP books, and if Dumbledore wasn't (at least to some extent) based on White's version. :: Entropy :: From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 5 15:10:16 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:10:16 -0000 Subject: T.H. White and JKR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121186 Entropy wrote: > I found this at Guardian Unlimited: > > >>Rowling has described Wart from TH White's The Sword In The Stone as "Harry's spiritual ancestor" (http://books.guardian.co.uk)<< snip Potioncat: I took a look, she also called C. S. Lewis a genius! Here is the link to that quote: http://books.guardian.co.uk/authors/author/0,5917,412962,00.html From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 5 15:11:26 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:11:26 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121187 > Potioncat: > Here are two sections that made me wonder. It's nothing the Snape opposition hasn't been saying all along, but for some reason, it hit home when I read it this time. I'm not fully converted, but my faith in Snape is shaken! > > > In the first case, Snape has been telling DD about Lupin all along and is eager to be proven right. But he shows no regret for the pain this will cause DD.< Pippin: He thinks he's talking to Death Eaters. Why give them the satisfaction of knowing they've hurt Dumbledore? Potioncat: > In the second case, he really seems to want Black punished and hopes DD won't interfere. I could argue here that Snape is only pretending, as a way of finding out Fudge's motives. But in the first case, there's little doubt of Snape's opinion.< Pippin: Snape's already said that he doesn't believe Black's story. There would be no reason for him to change his mind at this point except loyalty to Dumbledore. So is he conveying his true feelings, or casting doubt on his loyalties for the benefit of Fudge's DE cronies? Note that when trouble *is* made, he doesn't accuse Dumbledore of making it. Not at all. Potioncat: > > Another view I've changed in this episode, is Snape's motives for going into the Shrieking Shack. I thought he was saving the trio. It is pretty clear from the timeline and from what he says: he saw Lupin in the tunnel and went after him. Snape did not know the kids or Black were there. Now, I'm not really sure why he followed an un- medicated werewolf into the tunnel...< Pippin: Because he found Harry's most precious possession abandoned on the ground in front of it. Harry would never leave the cloak behind if he had a choice. He does know it's Harry's. "Very useful, Potter. I thank you." (quoting from memory.) Potioncat: > Still, on the positive side, Snape looks positively gentle when > Harry sees him putting the injured on stretchers. Tell me why, why didn't Lupin or Black put Snape on a stretcher?< Pippin: The same reason they tried to kill Pettigrew. Because Sirius is vindictive and slightly deranged, and Lupin is ESE! Pippin From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Jan 5 15:18:19 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:18:19 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121188 > > Potioncat wrote: > > > > My HP fear? While reading PoA over the holiday I began see Snape in a new light...erm new dark. My fear is that he will betray Dumbledore. > > Valky: Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Short answer - NO Long answer - well to start, it's certainly in him to lose sight of the light, fall to the temptation of a little evil voice beckoning, egging him on, shake off the dust of and slip back into his "I'm a very bad wizard and I've got the shirt to prove it" outfit and do a little dispensing of his own justice. BUT. He won't. > > Potioncat: > Here are two sections that made me wonder. It's nothing the Snape > opposition hasn't been saying all along, but for some reason, it hit home when I read it this time. I'm not fully converted, but my faith in Snape is shaken! > > PoA "The Servant of Lord Voldemort" (chp 19) > Snape speaking, > "Two more for Azkaban tonight," his eyes now gleaming fanatically. I shall be interested to see how Dumbledore takes this...he was quite convinced you were harmless, you know Lupin...a *tame* werewolf--" > Valky: Ahh I see... very interesting. I always kind of glanced over this. Reading it mostly as a lash at Lupin rather than DD. But I think one could read a lot of "Stupid old man" insinuations into it, definitely. A hint of a canon breach in Snapes respect for DD.... Potioncat again: > Then in "Owl Post Again" chp 22 > Harry and Hermione over hear Snape and Fudge. Snape is speaking and Harry hears him in mid sentence, "...only hope Dumbledore's not going to make difficulties," Snape was saying. "The kiss will be performed immediately?" > Valky: Yes, well, Snape is certainly all for Dumbledore's mercy when he, himself, is the recipient of it :D I glanced over this one, also, attributing it, like I have suggested above, as a bad attitude. I've referred to these quotes before in a discussion, though I didn't quote them, to demonstrate that Snape does register, occassionally, on the "murderous and evil" end of the scale, but I had never really considered it in light of his loyalty to Dumbledore. Potioncat: > In the first case, Snape has been telling DD about Lupin all along > and is eager to be proven right. But he shows no regret for the > pain this will cause DD. > > In the second case, he really seems to want Black punished and hopes DD won't interfere. I could argue here that Snape is only > pretending, as a way of finding out Fudge's motives. But in the > first case, there's little doubt of Snape's opinion. > Valky: You make a good point, but I still doubt that Snape will turn to evil again. The temptation is always there, though. Especially when confronted with his painful past..... which OTOH DD is a part of, he's still obviously angry about DD's part in it. Potioncat: > Another view I've changed in this episode, is Snape's motives for > going into the Shrieking Shack. I thought he was saving the trio. Valky: Read Alla, I'm with her. LOL ;D > Still, on the positive side, Snape looks positively gentle when > Harry sees him putting the injured on stretchers. Tell me why, why didn't Lupin or Black put Snape on a stretcher? > Potioncat Valky: Well.... yeah, he is soothed by his apparent victory, temporarily. Bitterness aside, the good Snape is capable of that, but only *when* the bitterness is aside. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 15:21:25 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:21:25 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121189 "antoshachekhonte" wrote: > I would actually welcome a book 7 conclusion > in which Harry succeeded, lost his powers, > but found a happy, peaceful, fulfilling life > surrounded by people who loved him. If you asked me to come up with the single most unsatisfying ending possible that would be it, even worse than Harry waking up at he end of book 7 and finding it was all a dream. Ugg! First of all everybody living happily ever after would be so sappy, so sweet, so very cute and adorable I think I'd phhrow up. Secondly, loosing his powers would be a terrible clich?, in ever science fiction or fantasy movie of the 50's the object of wonder must be destroyed or rendered ordinary in the end, the forbidden planet blows up, the amazing invention is lost, the incredible creature dies, and the book that contains the secrets of the universe is burnt. Apparently this was to reassure the viewer (or reader) that everything and everyone would return to their previous humdrum existence after their little adventure. Unfortunately doing this makes for a humdrum story. Eggplant From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 5 15:38:53 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 10:38:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Come out Petunia (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050105153853.66162.qmail@web52001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121190 fuschia14minuit wrote: charme: > Thanks, Vivamus. Petunia may be ugly naturally and changed just her hair > color, eyes, and maybe the shape of her nose (like Tonks did with her hair > and nose in OoP.) Depends on how much Petunia could change, if she is one, > huh? I'm not married to the theory and only give it about a 40% probability > it could be the case and like I said, only JKR knows. :) I can't wait to > find out what it is with Petunia... Hi. Although I just joined up on this list I'm going to jump right in. :) Interesting idea. I have thought of another thing, that Petunia might be a squib. That would explain the distasteful attitude toward anything magical, and why she might have married an oaf like Vernon Dursley. I got the impression that Petunia's and Lily's parents were muggles, but can't remember if the book actually states that. An idea further out in left field: what if both parents were squibs? (It could happen) That would explain why they were so happy that Lily was a witch, and why Petunia so resented her. Off topic, she reminds me of Hyacinth on Keeping Up Appearances, both in temperament and with the sisters all named after flowers. cheers, M Luckdragon: Jo has informed us that Petunia is not a squib. Other info. in the books tells us Lily's parents were muggles not squibs;however, it would be interesting to know where the magic comes from in those who are not born to magic families. Is it a recessive gene and how far back does it go. Did Lily have a magical ancestor with green eyes and is that the differentiating factor in her family as to who will be magical and who will not. 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 severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 5 15:39:06 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:39:06 -0000 Subject: Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Re: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121191 Sigune jumps onto this thread with the eagerness of a hungry werewolf attacking a poor unsuspecting mortal... > >> Alla: > > Oh, dear. Welcome back to the Light side. :o) I NEVER bought Snape going to the Tunnel, because he wanted to save the kids as his primary motivation. Revenge, revenge and revenge again. I am not sure though that he did not know that the kids were there. Are you saying that he could not see them on the Map? Because then, I will abandon "saving life motive" even as secondary motivation, which I happened to hope he has. < < Potioncat replied: > chp 17 Lupin appears in the Shrieking Shack saying he saw Black pull Ron into the tunnel.(on the Map) chp 19 Snape says, "I saw you running along this passageway and out of sight." (on the map) Therefore, he saw Lupin go out of sight. The trio, Scabbers and Black would already have been out of sight. So he only saw Lupin. < Sigune: AHA! But what was Snape *wearing* when he entered the Shrieking Shack? An invisibility cloak which he knew very well to be the property of Harry Potter. So even if he hurried after *Lupin* in the first place, he was well aware, before entering the tunnel, that Harry (and most likely his two closest friends, because they are sort of inseparable) was in the Shack too. As always with Snape, he was trying to do several things at once: playing the responsible teacher-cum-hero, saving students from a werewolf; petitioning for an Order of Merlin by catching an escaped criminal; and exacting vengeance on two of his schoolday nemeses. Very efficient man, Snape is. He tends to combine motives. Potioncat continued: > What I can say, is that Snape, who has suspected Lupin all along, sees him going to the Shrieking Shack where he used to go for transformations. If Lupin has violated the "contract" so to speak, Snape may feel justified in going after him. He was afterall, a danger to the school. < Sigune: Very true. Potioncat: > The essay he assigned the DADA class was "...on the ways you recognise and kill werewolves." Keeping in mind, the empahsis was on the werewolf in wolf form vrs a true wolf. Now I wonder, did Snape want to prepare students in case they met up with Lupin in the moonlight? Or was he hoping someone would kill Lupin without knowing who it was? < Sigune: I think all of the above. On the one hand he wouldn't want (some of) his students devoured; on the other, getting Lupin killed would be a nice bonus. But somehow I doubt a student can single-handedly take on a werewolf - if it was an easy thing to do, why would Snape himself be so traumatised by his sixth-year chance encounter with one? > >>Alla: > > Now, why did he follow werewolf in the tunel indeed? Maybe he thought he knew how to fight werewolf succesfully? Hmmm, makes you wonder about some past events. :) > Potioncat: > I should have put that part of your post above my comments. I wonder if Snape was prepared to kill the werewolf? (in werewolf form.) < Sigune: I don't doubt it. He was prepared to kill Black too, though, to be fair, he kindly requested a reason. *gloats over all that wickedness* Alla: > > About Snape betraying Dumbleodre... Not sure. Him wanting revenge against Remus and Black, not caring who will be hurt in the process, Dumbledore included, fits pretty well in the picture of Snape holding his old grudges, without him betraying Dumbledore. < < Sigune: I paste Potioncat's quotes again - PoA "The Servant of Lord Voldemort" (chp 19) Snape speaking, "Ive told the headmaster again and again that you've been helping your old friend Black into the castle, Lupin, and here's the proof. Not even I dreamed you would have the nerve to use this old place as your hideout--" ... "Two more for Azkaban tonight," his eyes now gleaming fanatically.I shall be interested to see how Dumbledore takes this...he was quite convinced you were harmless, you know Lupin...a *tame* werewolf--" Then in "Owl Post Again" chp 22 Harry and Hermione over hear Sanpe and Fudge. Snape is speaking and Harry hears him in mid sentence, "...only hope Dumbledore's not going to make difficulties," Snape was saying. "The kiss will be performed immediately?" I read this - and I haven't changed my mind - as evidence of Snape's strong loyalty to Dumbledore; or, more specifically, as Snape's own twisted version of loyalty. It is plain (to me) that he greatly *envies* Dumbledore's ever lingering affection for Lupin and EVEN the mass-murderer Black. He has been trying very hard to get Dumbledore round to his own point of view that has the first pinned down as a man who can't handle his highly dangerous and infectious disease responsibly and, on top of that, misplaces his loyalties and priorities; and the second as a treacherous and murderous 'mauvais sujet'. Remember him saying, (I paraphrase, not having my copy of PoA within reach, but I believe the stress is right) "Surely you haven't forgotten, Headmaster, that he once tried to kill *me*?" - as in, "I'm special to you, aren't I? Then why don't you prove it to me?" He's determined to get his rivals out of the way, and he doesn't care if their disappearance hurts Dumbledore's feelings - the old chap will one day come to the realisation that Snape was right, and that his loyalty is far more valuable and far more real than either Black's or Lupin's, and they'll both be content. Potioncat wrote: Sigune: Oh no, please don't argue he's only pretending - I don't believe for a moment that he is. He's sucking up to Fudge, trying to get his precious medal and finally offing that blasted Black. Again, two things in one throw - isn't he good? Pity nothing works out, though... Yours severely, Sigune From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Jan 5 15:45:53 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:45:53 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121192 > > amdorn at h... writes: > > What is your "Harry Potter" greatest fear? Dungrollin: This is an amusing game. My greatest fear is that I won't finish book 7 thinking "Oh you *clever* *****!" I don't mind if Harry dies, if he becomes a Squib, if Snape, DD, Hagrid, Hermione etc etc kick the bucket. I don't mind who ends up with whom, I don't mind how Harry defeats Voldy, and I don't care if Lupin is ESE or if there's large-scale promiscuous time-turning. I want to be able to go back to book 1 and re-read them all thinking "Yup... Yeah... Oh! She set that up there... Ooooh! That was *clever*..." On the other hand, I have a couple of pet worries about Snape. I don't want him to have been in love with Lily, and I want his reasons for leaving the DEs to be really *really* unexpected, and yet consistent with the evidence so far presented. Apart from that, anything goes. My greatest fear is that I'll finish book 7 and think "Oh, what a shame... it was looking so good." Dungrollin. Who has realised that much as she would dearly love to be able to give up smoking, she doesn't actually want to be a non-smoker. From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Wed Jan 5 15:59:03 2005 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:59:03 -0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Re: my greatest fear.... References: Message-ID: <009701c4f33f$7d3c0070$0301010a@harrypotter> No: HPFGUIDX 121193 From: "dumbledore11214" > Potioncat: It > is pretty clear from the timeline and from what he says: he saw > Lupin in the tunnel and went after him. Snape did not know the kids > or Black were there. Alla: > I am not sure though that he did not know that the kids were there. > Are you saying that he could not see them on the Map? Because then, > I will abandon "saving life motive" even as secondary motivation, > which I happened to hope he has. Actually, from what I understood of the book, the map only showed things in Hogwarts' grounds, and the kids were already in the Shrieking Shack, which was in Hogsmead (sp?). So, they couldn't have appeared in the map. That means Snape was only being his traumatized kid-self when he followed Remus. (don't take this sentence too seriously, snape fans!) Elanor Pam, just clarifying things From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 16:05:25 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:05:25 -0000 Subject: Percy. ( was : Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121194 "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > As for Percy, I'm still reserving judgment. I'm not reserving anything, I think Percy is scum. There comes a time when a person has to make a decision and commit himself and that time is now. Percy tried to condemn Harry to a living death in Azkaban, what more do you need to make a moral judgment? > we find out about his intentions has he > been acting based on some moral system > in which he fully believed? You could say the same thing about Umbridge or even Voldemort. I think the only reason you don't hear many people say such things is because unlike Percy their last name is not Weasley; but perhaps their moral system is that the only true good is their own happiness and other people don't matter. If they were sincere in their believe and held true to it would that make them good people despite their actions? I rather think not. Eggplant From entropymail at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 16:24:32 2005 From: entropymail at yahoo.com (entropymail) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:24:32 -0000 Subject: Aberforth: Traitor To Dumbledore? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121195 In anticipation of Book 6, I've been re-reading OOP (again). We see in Ch 16 the humble beginnings of Dumbledore's Army and, soon after in Ch 17, the posting of Educational Decree Number 24. I've been trying to figure out just who might have really spilled the beans to Umbridge. Clearly, it could not have been anyone who signed Hermione's sheet of parchment during the meeting (they would have been "spotted" at breakfast the next morning). Many have speculated that the barkeep was Aberforth (he resembles DD, the place smells like goats, etc.), but I've always assumed that he was keeping an eye on things for DD. Could it be that he actually was keeping an eye on things for Umbridge, instead, and ran back to her as soon as he could with the info? More importantly, could Aberforth be the "black sheep" of the Dumbledore clan? Not quite a death eater, but possibly a bit of a ministry supporter and apologist? :: Entropy:: visit my online portfolio at: http://www.geocities.com/entropymail/index.htm From pegruppel at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 16:29:06 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:29:06 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121196 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: >> > This is an amusing game. My greatest fear is that I won't finish > book 7 thinking "Oh you *clever* *****!" > > I don't mind if Harry dies, if he becomes a Squib, if Snape, DD, > Hagrid, Hermione etc etc kick the bucket. I don't mind who ends up > with whom, I don't mind how Harry defeats Voldy, and I don't care if > Lupin is ESE or if there's large-scale promiscuous time-turning. > > I want to be able to go back to book 1 and re-read them all > thinking "Yup... Yeah... Oh! She set that up there... Ooooh! That > was *clever*..." I'm with you, Dungrollin. I want a sense of closure--a feeling that everything JKR has set up in the previous books leads to an inevitable conclusion. Even though it no longer seems that Dumbledore is the one pulling all the strings (where's that acronym when I need it?), I'd like a sense that the pattern of the books has worked out in the only way it could. I want to close the cover of book 7 and say "Yes. That's the way it had to happen." And then start back with the first book to see it all work itself out. Like many others, I'm terrified at the thought of a "Little Harry fell out of bed and it was all a dream" ending, but I also believe, with all of my heart, that Jo is much, much too savvy to drop the ball so badly at the end of the series. Peg From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Jan 5 16:46:27 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:46:27 -0000 Subject: Percy was Re: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121197 > Hickengruendler: > And, by the way, I disagree with eggplant's opinion about him, and > especially the statement that he tried to help putting Harry in > Azkaban, which IMO is an interpretation only based on what Harry > thought the MoM might do to him. Valky: You doubt? the Ministry would have sent Harry to Azkaban, after allowing a dementor attack, and an obtusely oversized 'Trial by Wizengamot' for his minor offence, attempted stifling of his character witness, inciting public outrage at him.... it's not a *secret* that Fudge, Percy, Umbridge and co had /zero/ regard for Harry's wellbeing, basic rights, safety, /life/. This is not a hidden part of the plot. Frankly, your position on it entirely perplexes me. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 5 16:48:21 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:48:21 -0000 Subject: Percy. ( was : Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121198 SSSusan previously: > > As for Percy, I'm still reserving judgment. Eggplant replied: > I'm not reserving anything, I think Percy is scum. SSSusan chuckles: Now, eggplant, tell us what you REALLY think for a change, will you? ;-) Eggplant: > There comes a > time when a person has to make a decision and commit himself and > that time is now. Percy tried to condemn Harry to a living death > in Azkaban, what more do you need to make a moral judgment? > > [quotes SSSusan:] > > we find out about his intentions has he > > been acting based on some moral system > > in which he fully believed? > > You could say the same thing about Umbridge or even Voldemort. I > think the only reason you don't hear many people say such things > is because unlike Percy their last name is not Weasley; but > perhaps their moral system is that the only true good is their own > happiness and other people don't matter. If they were sincere in > their believe and held true to it would that make them good people > despite their actions? I rather think not. SSSusan: I'll grant you it's possible that people are slower to criticize/quicker to hope with Percy because of his last name. But I think what we were talking about is whether we cut anybody slack if they're acting totally consistently with a philosophical/moral system they TRULY BELIEVE to be good. Does Percy, however shortsightedly it would be to be this way, truly think The Law is Good? I'm still not saying, in the end, that would be enough for ME to forgive Percy, but we had been talking about how JKR presents things to be good and bad and whether intentions were a big part of that, so I put it out there for comment. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 5 17:01:50 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:01:50 -0000 Subject: New fun phrases & abbreviations Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121199 I've noticed a few rather charming new phrases and abbreviations listees have come up with lately and wonder if they might be useful to add to our list of ESE!, H/R/H, and etc. shorthands. In 120774 Suzy,UK [absolutfrux] gave us CMHB [Crouching Moody, Hidden Barty], a delightful alternative for Crouch!Moody, imo. In 121123, Ffred referred to Harry, from Percy's "Ron's big brother" perspective, as LFBLFF [Little Farty Brother's Little Farty Friend], which captures Percy's priggish attitude quite nicely in 6 little letters, I think. In an offlist communication, Sigune provided PSG!Snape [Poor Snarky Greasehead], which might be nice shorthand for those who don't like to offend with remarks about Snape's greasiness. [I remember the "Please don't call him a greasy git" post, and, well, frankly, I always liked that term, so maybe PSG!Snape would be a compromise.] Does anyone have additional nominations to make to the Fun & Useful New Abbreviations List? Or, elves, should I move this one to OTChatter? Siriusly Snapey Susan From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 17:42:00 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:42:00 -0000 Subject: Percy, ( Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121200 Hickengruendler wrote: > I disagree with eggplant's opinion about him, and > especially the statement that he tried to help putting Harry in > Azkaban, which IMO is an interpretation only based on what Harry > thought the MoM might do to him. Take a look at the very first message Harry received from the ministry in the chapter "A Peck Of Owls", it said he was already expelled and his wand would be destroyed but IN ADDITION he was ordered to attend a "disciplinary hearing"; there is only one thing that could mean, expulsion and being forced to live as a muggle was not enough, the specter of Azkaban loomed. And remember, in reality this was not a simple disciplinary hearing, this was a formal trial held in the largest courtroom by the full Wizengamot, something that has not happened in many years. We know it was full criminal trial because Dumbledore said it was, and we all know what happens to people who are found guilty in a criminal trial, they go to jail. The wizard prison is Azkaban so it didn't take much for Harry to put two and two together, and I think his worries were very well founded. The text clearly indicates that at least one person on the Wizengamot thought expulsion and wand destruction was not enough, another had expressed open hostility against Harry, and another had actually tried to kill him (Percy may or may not have known the last). Harry put two and Two together: >From OoF: "would the matter of where he went next be decided for him? Had his breach of the International Statute of Secrecy been severe enough to land him in a cell in Azkaban?" We do know for a fact that Harry was deeply worried about being sent to that horrible place and I can think of absolutely no reason the same thought wouldn't occur to Percy. He just didn't care. We also know for a fact that Percy was not squeamish about sending people to Azkaban who don't deserve to go there, Fudge said he was going to send Dumbledore to that hell hole and Percy seemed absolutely delighted about it. He must have known that sending a benign old man to that hell was not justice, he just didn't care. Percy has burned his bridges, the only hope he has of becoming a powerful wizard is through the Death Eaters. Eggplant From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Jan 5 17:50:38 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:50:38 -0000 Subject: Percy was Re: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121201 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > Hickengruendler: > > And, by the way, I disagree with eggplant's opinion about him, and > > especially the statement that he tried to help putting Harry in > > Azkaban, which IMO is an interpretation only based on what Harry > > thought the MoM might do to him. > > Valky: > You doubt? the Ministry would have sent Harry to Azkaban, after > allowing a dementor attack, and an obtusely oversized 'Trial by > Wizengamot' for his minor offence, attempted stifling of his > character witness, inciting public outrage at him.... it's not a > *secret* that Fudge, Percy, Umbridge and co had /zero/ regard for > Harry's wellbeing, basic rights, safety, /life/. This is not a > hidden part of the plot. Frankly, your position on it entirely > perplexes me. Hickengruendler: Well, it's actually based on Canon, IMO. At no point, does Fudge even mention Azkaban. During the hearing, all Fudge wanted was to expell Harry. Which was of course totally unfair, as was the whole trial, I'm the last person to deny this. But since Azkaban wasn't mentioned, I see no reason to assume that Fudge planned to send Harry there. You would assume that if Fudge planned to send Harry to Azkaban, he would have demanded this as his punishment on the hearing. Don't misunderstand me, I think it's perfectly possible from what we seen from the Ministry that they would plan to send Harry to Azkaban (especially because wizards are sent to Azkaban for minor things like being an unregistered Animagus. At least that's what Hermione sucessfully threatens Rita with), but I don't think it was planned in this special case, and therefore you can't use it to judge Percy. And "the ministry" did not allow a Dementor attack. It was Umbridge on her own, she admitted that Fudge didn't know about it. Therefore it was a decision of one person, which had nothing to do with Fudge or Percy, except that they used the opportunity trying to expell Harry (which is bad enough). From happydogue at aol.com Wed Jan 5 18:04:42 2005 From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:04:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy was Re: Harsh Morality - Combined answers Message-ID: <0BD729C7.5D60FDA5.0B4B226A@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121202 Remember Harry is a minor. We don't know what the standard punishment in the wizarding world is for minors who break rules. JMM From dad at pratthobbies.com Wed Jan 5 14:15:05 2005 From: dad at pratthobbies.com (Doug Pratt) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:15:05 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121203 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > > My biggest fear is OBHWF. > > My second greatest fear is Harry losing his powers. I cannot > imagine any ending which would leave me satisfied that would have > that as an ingredient. Harry's given up too much for the world, he > doesn't need to give up his power too. This is my first post, after thoroughly reading and enjoying the digests for some time. Quite a group, one of the best (and best-run) communities in my wide experience. I've been thinking about the "biggest fear" question, and come to the conclusion that I don't have one. In the years in which I have read, reread, read aloud, had read to me, and reread again the HP canon, JKR has never disappointed me. I now trust her completely. I have no fear that the next two books will be as satisfying and delightful as the last five have been. Look at it this way. JKR has maintained control of the WW through the most disruptive experience an author can endure: having their work adapted for the movies. Usually, Hollywood can be counted on to butcher an author's vision thoroughly, once the screenplay writers, the producers, and the marketing and legal departments have gotten through with it. This year, another fictional world in which I have a large emotional investment was digested and turned into a film that had almost nothing to do with the original but the title, and I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about it. The HP movies are completely different; they are a pleasure to watch, and I especially enjoy the interviews where JKR and Steve Kloves talk about how they can work together. Clearly, JKR is in charge of the vision. That's a strong woman. I have no doubt that she can get us all through the next two books. She has earned my faith. As for what happens when Book Seven is out...well, it will not be an end, but a beginning. Look at the Sherlock Holmes canon. Conan Doyle created a world and peopled it with characters so compelling that many of us feel they are not just fully realized people, but friends. Hundreds of years later, people are discussing the original stories, creating new ones, and endlessly enjoying the gas-lit world of Holmes and Watson. Can any of us doubt that JKR has given us the same gift? That's why we're all here! Very best regards to all, Doug Pratt www.pratthobbies.com From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 17:15:03 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:15:03 -0000 Subject: Percy. ( was : Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121204 >>Eggplant: >I'm not reserving anything, I think Percy is scum.< Betsy: Hmm. Percy as scum? He's not my most favorite character, and I think he's thrown in with the wrong crowd (though I'm still holding out for the super-secret-spy!Percy reveal in Books 6 or 7), but I do think calling him scum is a little harsh. Percy has always been the outsider in his family. Anything he cares about, any of his achievements are strongly mocked by his brothers (most notably the twins). I think it's telling that he kept his relationship with Clearwater a secret for so long. Even Ginny, who had seemed close to Percy in CoS, had no qualms about telling the twins that Percy had a girlfriend. (Her faint protest that they not tease him was a little *too* faint for me to take seriously.) Molly, though she obviously loves him, does a good bit to seperate Percy from his younger siblings by setting him up as the "good son", and therefore, the enemy. Percy's break with his family was a long time in coming. And both sides have a share in the blame, I would say. I'm not going to argue that Percy has behaved in a noble manner. There's not much nobility in being a suck-up. But he is not on the same level as Umbridge, let alone Voldemort. I think Percy would have a very hard time trying to cruciatus anyone; he's not cruel or vindictive, as far as we've been shown. In fact, one could argue a certain nobility in the very honesty of his break with his family. Percy could have sucked up to his father and Dumbledore and become a well-placed spy for Fudge. (Again, I'm holding out for the opposite to be true.) >>Eggplant: >Percy tried to condemn Harry to a living death in Azkaban, what more do you need to make a moral judgment?> Betsy: Are you talking about the trial at the beginning of OotP? Was the punishment going to be Azkaban? Harry's more worried about being expelled. "'But if they do expel me,' said Harry quietly, 'can I come here and live with you?'" (OotP, Scholastic ed. pg. 115) And Dumbldore seems to think Harry's in danger of having his wand confiscated. (ibid, pg. 149). I can't find anything that points to Azkaban. In either case, Percy was the court reporter, not in a position to help or hinder Harry. Betsy From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Wed Jan 5 18:20:19 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:20:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: T.H. White and JKR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501051320704.SM01064@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 121205 > Entropy wrote: > > I found this at Guardian Unlimited: > > > > >>Rowling has described Wart from TH White's The Sword In The > Stone as "Harry's spiritual ancestor" (http://books.guardian.co.uk)<< > > snip > > Potioncat: > I took a look, she also called C. S. Lewis a genius! Here is the > link to that quote: > http://books.guardian.co.uk/authors/author/0,5917,412962,00.html > Vivamus: Well, how about that! Maybe my overly long post about a relationship between Lewis' writing and JKR's (having to do with destiny and free will) wasn't off the wall after all. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 18:40:09 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:40:09 -0000 Subject: Percy. ( was Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121206 "hickengruendler" Wrote: > I think it's perfectly possible from what > we seen from the Ministry that they would > plan to send Harry to Azkaban So you though it was possible Harry could be sent to Azkaban, I do too, Harry also thought he could be sent there too; Percy was head boy so he can't be dumb the thought MUST have occurred to him also; and yet he seemed to be having great fun, until Harry won that is. Eggplant From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 5 18:45:09 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:45:09 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion (5) Message-ID: <20050105184509.71682.qmail@web25110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121207 The seven trials The seven trials in book 1 sum up what the person who has a nascent immortal soul has to go through to be able to perform his first liberating act - detachment from the physical plane. First he encounters Cerberus (Fluffy), the three-headed dog. Cerberus personifies the forces of the past which tie us to the universe of time and space. The river Styx symbolises the border between the fallen universe and the original pure universe of God. To cross the border, we first have to pass Cerberus. He is the mirror of the past, in actual fact: delusion. Why is he three-headed? It reminds us of the three temptations of Jesus in the wilderness. He too was at that moment ready to cross the border between earth and heaven, i.e. the seventh and the sixth cosmic plane - Nirvana. One of the great forces tying us to this universe is fear. The person who wants to be liberated from fear has to have the right motivation. Harry was motivated by a great purity. He wanted to save the world from Voldemort. Unselfishness is the only way to overcome fear. It cannot be overcome by courage alone. Armed with only courage, Harry would have been devoured by Fluffy. Harry was able to make "fear" go to sleep by playing the flute. The music played by Harry symbolises the vibrations of his purity, his pure motives. Another force tying us to this universe is dogma. "Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles," says Lao Tzu in his "Tao Teh Ching" (Chapter 20). Yes, to live in this world, we have to study. We need a certain amount of learning to live a meaningful life. And so we think we can "learn" our way into Nirvana. Bad mistake! Lao Tzu adds: "Other men are sharp and clever, but I alone am dull and stupid." But!! "I am different. I am nourished by the great mother." Who is the great mother? Why, Lily, of course. No learning, no study, no knowledge contained within the brain can prepare us for the overwhelming beauty of the Kingdom of Heaven. It lies in another universe, in another plane, in a dimension where time and space do not exist. There is nothing in our universe that we can compare with that. No words can describe it; no pictures can give us even the vaguest idea. Not even the most heavenly music can give us a slight hint of what it's like. But we DO have a little piece of heaven inside us. That's the great mother, the Lily inside the heart. We must give up dogma and turn to the voice of Tao within. When Harry turned eleven he received a letter of invitation to attend Hogwarts. In Harry (2) (Post 120781) I explained that the candidate for liberation has a letter in his heart. The apprentice alchemist has the instructions in his heart. They have been in our heart for millions of years but we've been too busy to read them. Then James married Lily and Harry was born. We can now read the letter in the heart and carry out the alchemical processes with great joy. We can throw away dogma. We live from the instructions in the heart given to us by the great mother. The third head is false idols. This is a very big, dangerous head, because in our past lie many idols we have worshipped through hundreds of incarnations. When we go the path of liberation we'll be confronted by this aspect of the past, and we'll discover that some of those idols are a long way from being dead. We are all surrounded by thought forms we have accumulated in the past. These are our personal idols and must be given up, one by one. How? By turning to the great mother. She will give us Harry, the new soul, and our heart will be so filled with love for him that all the accumulated idols in our aura will fade away and die. The big word for defeating Cerberus is: self-surrender. If we surrender to the inner Christ He will drive out fear, attachment to dogma and false idols. He will give us the magic flute of purity and put ol' Cerberus to sleep. It's a cinch! ===== Hans Rieuwers see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 18:52:11 2005 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:52:11 -0000 Subject: T.H. White and JKR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121208 > Potioncat: > I took a look, she also called C. S. Lewis a genius! Here is the > link to that quote: > http://books.guardian.co.uk/authors/author/0,5917,412962,00.html Imagine how incredible the movies would have been if Steven Spielberg had directed them. They would have pushed the envelope of awesome-ness. A-Mac From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 18:53:04 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:53:04 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121209 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > I would argue that the proof is indeed in the pudding. There are > *tons* of readers who support and love characters the narrator > would have us think are unworthy. There are many who truly > believe Percy is a good person badly treated by his family. The > readers firmly behind the idea of a redeemed!Draco are legion. > (And not all of them are unduly influenced by Tom Felton. ) > And do I really have to bring up Snape supporters? All of these > readers can quote you chapter and verse *from* cannon to support > their point of view. They are not making stuff up whole cloth. > They like these characters not in *spite* of Potterverse, but > *because* of what JKR puts in the books for them to grab hold of. > Just follow the HP Essay link from the HPFGU Portkey and look up > the "bad" characters for some great examples. Ahoy, the cannons are firing again! :) Ahem. To continue to play devil's advocate, most all of these supporters of the 'unworthy' (your word, not mine) also have one thing in common: their perspectives rest VERY heavily upon the prediction of future revelations, with a few admitted exceptions. What we've been talking about here is the eminent possibility that things work out harshly, once we know all the information. Knowing all the information requires one to re-read the past with knowledge of the future, and to go "Well, maybe that Sympathetic!Draco reading of mine really *wasn't* there". [For a good example, search the archives and you'll find a well-known but no longer active here poster arguing that Draco was really honestly trying to warn Hermione in the DE ramage scene in GoF. That doesn't exactly hold up with OotP Draco.] There is, to be moderately blunt about it, a lot of creation of greyness (especially around a character such as Lucius Malfoy), that hinges on the "We don't know he doesn't, it hasn't been explicitly nixed in canon, so he *could*...", which is often used without reference to larger thematic issues. IMHO, that takes one fairly far astray. Purely factually, I can probably nitpick a ton of things into proving that Draco is deeply ambiguous or even sympathetic, but I'm at least 50% to be mowed down by the next book. :) They may quote chapter and verse, but interpretation on an incomplete text is a very tricky thing. I, for one, think most of the characters are going to be less complex in sheer disposition than we think they are (for those who we lack backstory for). Many of the characters are very grey now, but could easily be tipped either way by that ONE key little piece of information. There is something at least moderately metaphysically BANG-y coming. JKR has said that now is the time for Answers, and I think she likes Answers more than she likes ambiguity. I see a lot of the wiggle room being closed off--not all, but most. > If the characters were as black and white, if the Potterverse was > as unforgiving, as you're saying it is, I don't think the books > would be nearly as interesting. Nor as mysterious. Mystery novels always have a solution at the end. Of course, there's the "what does it all MEAN?", but you can't really work that out before you know what all happens. I'm going to be contrary. I now bet on the much cleaner ending as opposed to the messy and ambiguous one. We'll see, no? -Nora cringes at the winter storm heading her way From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 19:04:04 2005 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:04:04 -0000 Subject: Must Harry Die? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121210 I am tired of people saying that Harry must die for LV to die so I figured we could disect the prophecy. If that has already been done then slap me in the face. "'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...'" This is the plain and simple part. No arguements hopefully. "'...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...'" This is the part that seesm to cause trouble. Let us take this apart... "'either must die at the hand of the other'" either means = Harry OR Lord Voldemort neither means = Not Harry AND Not Lord Voldemort Harry OR Lord Voldemort must die becuase Not Harry and Not Lord Voldemort can live. Plain and simple. The prophecy states nothing about them both having to die. Will they? I do not know. It does not say that neither can die, but Harry does not have to die. A-Mac From nrenka at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 19:12:51 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:12:51 -0000 Subject: Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Re: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121211 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "severelysigune" wrote: > Sigune: > > I read this - and I haven't changed my mind - as evidence of > Snape's strong loyalty to Dumbledore; or, more specifically, as > Snape's own twisted version of loyalty. I can buy that. It's the 'twisted' part that worries me. Snape is the type to forget, at times, that means MATTER. If we're taking Pippin's formulation of DD as the follower of the Golden Rule, twerk that into Kant's categorical imperative (by a phenomenal/noumenal slight of hand, natch), then we get an ethical code that says "Treat each person as an end in and of himself", aka "Means ARE ends". In other words, it matters how you carry out your loyalty, no matter what your goal. > It is plain (to me) that he greatly *envies* Dumbledore's ever > lingering affection for Lupin and EVEN the mass-murderer Black. He > has been trying very hard to get Dumbledore round to his own point > of view that has the first pinned down as a man who can't handle > his highly dangerous and infectious disease responsibly and, on > top of that, misplaces his loyalties and priorities; and the > second as a treacherous and murderous 'mauvais sujet'. Remember > him saying, (I paraphrase ... ) "Surely you haven't forgotten, > Headmaster, that he once tried to kill *me*?" - as in, "I'm > special to you, aren't I? Then why don't you prove it to me?" > He's determined to get his rivals out of the way, and he doesn't > care if their disappearance hurts Dumbledore's feelings - the old > chap will one day come to the realisation that Snape was right, > and that his loyalty is far more valuable and far more real than > either Black's or Lupin's, and they'll both be content. Ah, but remember the response: "My memory is as good as it ever was, Severus". Put the two together, and I don't quite know what it means: dismissal? acceptance? rebuke? See, I can buy that interpretation. On some levels, with some holes plugged in, it makes a lot of sense. It's just so close to being so deeply, well, evil. It is certainly contrary Dumbledore's morality, who I maintain is still the guiding force with connections to something. It is deeply ironic given the revelation in GoF of Snape's own 'second chance' status, to the point of hypocrisy-- second chance for me, but not for anyone else, no. Unless the whole thing was planned (and I admit to thinking that the DISHWASHER is going to be definitively washed into the Bay next Hurricane), Dumbledore is fairly content to let Snape hang out to dry at the end, possibly as a learning circumstance for him. :) It matters not only that one is loyal to Dumbledore, but HOW one is. That was the point of the original post up a few threads ago that I made (umm...'Loyalty and goodness', 121137). It's not what Dumbledore is so much in and of himself, it is that he chooses to follow certain principles. To follow the person and not follow the ideas as well is a recipe for potential Very Bad Things. Hence why I worry that Snape might do something with very bad effects, while doing it out of a misconceived sense of loyalty. Hey, I just tossed out the idea as a contra to the persistent gloom of "Harry is going to muck it up!" But I take partial credit for having corrupted Potioncat. I think... -Nora looks for an innocent victim to warm her cold hands up on From manawydan at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 5 19:21:11 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 19:21:11 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy, ( Harsh Morality References: <1104948578.21270.96861.m14@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003d01c4f35b$b861b0c0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 121212 Eggplant wrote: >and Percy seemed absolutely delighted about it. He must have known >that sending a benign old man to that hell was not justice, he just >didn't care. Percy has burned his bridges, the only hope he has of >becoming a powerful wizard is through the Death Eaters. Do you think that's Percy's ambition then? If so, he's changed his mind: it used to be that he wanted to become Minister. Not, to my mind, something that needs a particularly powerful wizard, just one who has been able to negotiate the political snakepit of the Ministry, keep on side with the majority of its people of influence, be seen as an insider and "one of us". Until Fudge came a cropper, that seemed to be the way he was going very successfully, thank you very much, busy currying favour with the Minister himself and his close associates. If Voldemort hadn't come into the open, things would have been very different at the end of the book. Also, I would have to wonder about whether there are indeed only two sides, as you imply. I think the WW has a large number of neutrals: the ones who don't really like Muggles but shy away from Voldemort's extremism, and the ones who don't really care one way or the other but would rather leave things as they are and get on with their lives. Percy strikes me as falling in the latter category. But JKR alone knows all Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Jan 5 19:25:46 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:25:46 -0000 Subject: Aberforth: Traitor To Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121213 entropy: > Many have speculated that the barkeep was Aberforth (he resembles DD, > the place smells like goats, etc.), but I've always assumed that he > was keeping an eye on things for DD. Could it be that he actually was > keeping an eye on things for Umbridge, instead, and ran back to her as > soon as he could with the info? More importantly, could Aberforth be > the "black sheep" of the Dumbledore clan? Not quite a death eater, > but possibly a bit of a ministry supporter and apologist? Umbridge said Willy Widdershins was the informant in "The Centaur and the Sneak" chapter: "I have testimony from Willy Widdershins, Minerva, who happened to be in the bar at the time. He was heavily bandaged, it is true, but his hearing was quite unimpaired." (US, p. 613) But you do have to wonder what side Aberforth is on, if any. Mundungus was the informant to Dumbledore instead of Aberforth. Maybe Aberforth is inactive, or even retired from the Order this time around. Jen From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Jan 5 19:32:54 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:32:54 -0000 Subject: Percy. ( was Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121214 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > "hickengruendler" Wrote: > > > I think it's perfectly possible from what > > we seen from the Ministry that they would > > plan to send Harry to Azkaban > > So you though it was possible Harry could be sent to Azkaban, I do > too, Harry also thought he could be sent there too; Percy was head > boy so he can't be dumb the thought MUST have occurred to him also; > and yet he seemed to be having great fun, until Harry won that is. > > Eggplant Hickengruendler: No, I think that is something Fudge would try to do. I think what we know from Fudge and the laws from the Wizarding comminuty makes it seem possible, that Fudge would have tried to send Harry to Azkaban. But I don't think he tried to do so in this special case. Fudge never mentions Azkaban, and therefore I think he never planned to do it. And since Percy works with Fudge, he probably knows about his plans and therefore doesn't consider Azkaban as a possible punishment for Harry in this case [since I think Fudge doesn't consider Azkaban as a punishment in this special case, but I know that we have different opinions here. I just think Harry's suspicion was only this: a suspicion]. Fudge wanted to expell Harry, and that's what Percy wanted as well, IMO. Not that I really want to excuse him for doing so, like I said, I think that's bad enough (if he isn't a spy for the Order, as Pippin suggested), but I don't think he's as unredeemable as you describe him, and that's not only because he's a Weasley, but also because JKR spent a lot of time, to describe Percy's good sides in the earlier books, for example during the Second Task in book 4, or when he was worried about Ginny in book 2. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 20:28:00 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:28:00 -0000 Subject: Neville's wand (Was: Chapter 35 Beyond the Veil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121215 Gina wrote: > On the point of Neville I don't think he showed BRAVERY as much as he showed LOYALTY. It was a brave thing to do, but he has been brave before just not outspoken with it. He stood up against his friends for his house and so forth. The key is he cared enough about Harry not to let him go on alone even if it meant he would be killed - He didn't even have a wand for crying out loud! The train of thought was Harry is my friend and if he goes so do I. I would say there was also some loyalty to his mom and dad knowing who was in there also. I really like Neville. Carol responds: Neville had Hermione's wand, which he tried to use after his own (or rather, his father's) was broken, along with his nose, by the sadistic Macnair (Buckbeak's would-be executioner and LV's ambassador to the giants). Neville's inability to speak clearly ("Stubefy" for "Stupefy") prevented him from casting an effective spell, at least with someone else's wand. It's possible that a more experienced or more powerful wizard might have been able to overcome those handicaps. (Notice that Dolohov can still cast a crippling curse--whatever that purple light and slashing motion indicated--even when he's been rendered speechless by a Silencio. But then, unlike Neville, he was using his own wand.) At any rate, Neville isn't wandless but he might as well be, thanks to Macnair. As for courage vs. loyalty, surely he showed both. "Don't gib it to him, Harry!" He'd rather be Crucio'd than give the DEs what they want, which happens to be a Prophecy that might enable LV to destroy Harry. Carol, who also really likes Neville From happydogue at aol.com Wed Jan 5 20:34:47 2005 From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:34:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy. ( was Harsh Morality) Message-ID: <5569DDDB.48881560.0B4B226A@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121216 Remember who the original owner of Scabbers was. Could Peter have done something Percy in a magical or non magical way that aided is personality in its development. Plus as far as I know, no one has ever said how Scabbers became part of the Weasley family. What made him choose them? He seems like the kind of gut that is going to follow he printed rule no matter what. JMM From ryokas at hotmail.com Wed Jan 5 20:42:05 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (kizor0) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:42:05 -0000 Subject: New fun phrases & abbreviations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121217 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > Does anyone have additional nominations to make to the Fun & Useful > New Abbreviations List? Or, elves, should I move this one to > OTChatter? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Unfortunately, HADES for Harry And Death Eater SHIP. Not my own invention. My apologies for the last misquoting. - Kizor From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 5 20:53:17 2005 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:53:17 -0000 Subject: Must Harry Die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121218 A-Mac wrote: > > I am tired of people saying that Harry must die for LV to die so I > figured we could disect the prophecy. If that has already been done > then slap me in the face. > > "'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...'" > > This is the plain and simple part. No arguements hopefully. > Hannah: Well, I think there are quite a few eg. 'what constitutes defied?' 'what is the power the DL knows not?' 'what does it mean by marking him as his equal?' etc. But they're not relevant for the purposes of this discussion, i.e. if Harry has to die or 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...'" > > This is the part that seesm to cause trouble. > > Let us take this apart... > > "'either must die at the hand of the other'" > either means = Harry OR Lord Voldemort > neither means = Not Harry AND Not Lord Voldemort > > Harry OR Lord Voldemort must die becuase Not Harry and Not Lord > Voldemort can live. > > Plain and simple. The prophecy states nothing about them both having > to die. Will they? I do not know. It does not say that neither can > die, but Harry does not have to die. Hannah: I agree with you, I've never read it as meaning both have to die, and neither do Harry and DD - they seem to think it's an either/or situation. Both could die, but the prophecy doesn't appear to require it. I have never believed JKR will kill Harry. I just don't think she'll do it. No real logic behind it, just a gut feeling. I even have doubts if she'll kill one of the trio, though that she may do as the climax to book 7. JKR has as good as said there is some trickery going on with the phrasing of the prophecy (she claims to have worded it 'very carefully'). My favourite candidates for areas where she's pulling the wool over out eyes are the 'at the hand of the other' and 'while the other still survives.' There are a lot of possiblities thrown up by those vague little phrases. In fact I'm still not convinced it even refers to Harry. It's just too easy to be led to believe that, and it's never a good idea to take a thing like that for granted in Potterverse. The more we think it means Harry has to sacrifice himself to rid the world of LV, the more likely it is that something completely different is going to happen in the end. Hannah From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 5 21:02:27 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:02:27 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry losing his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121219 >Alla: > >Why would they Memorycharm Harry? Surely he can be allowed to stay >in WW even without his powers, unless he wants to leave on his own? >Sorry, I prefer such thing not to happen. :o) > >Now, if only JKR would listen to me. :o) > >Was it "Darkness rising" where main characters are made to forget >their adventures at the end? > > >Alla Yes, it was. Also *The Hounds of the Morrigan.* In both cases I think I thought it a miserable ending to an otherwise excellent book. I can see no reason why Harry, if he lost his powers, would need to lose his memory also. The people who were Memory-Charmed at the World Quidditch match were muggles who had no idea the WW existed. The same with Aunt Marge and the people who encountered the enchanted tea set (mentioned in connection with Arthur's job). Without powers, Harry would be the equivalent of a Squib, or like the parents of Muggle-born children, the Prime Minister, and perhaps others we haven't heard about. They have no magic, but they're in on the secret of the WW's existence. Why would Harry's memory need to be removed if theirs doesn't? Janet Anderson From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 21:08:00 2005 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:08:00 -0000 Subject: Must Harry Die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121220 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hannah" wrote: > > A-Mac wrote: > > > > I am tired of people saying that Harry must die for LV to die so I > > figured we could disect the prophecy. If that has already been > done > > then slap me in the face. > > > > "'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...'" > > > > This is the plain and simple part. No arguements hopefully. > > > > Hannah: Well, I think there are quite a few eg. 'what constitutes > defied?' 'what is the power the DL knows not?' 'what does it mean by > marking him as his equal?' etc. But they're not relevant for the > purposes of this discussion, i.e. if Harry has to die or not > > The obvious is not always the wrong answer. Defied obviously means went against him in some way, and we have been told that Harry's parents and Neville's parents did this. Marked is obviously the scar, but I have no theory about the power that the DL knows not, unless it is Harry's love/willingness to die as seen when LV posessed Harry. > > "'...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...'" > > > > This is the part that seesm to cause trouble. > > > > Let us take this apart... > > > > "'either must die at the hand of the other'" > > either means = Harry OR Lord Voldemort > > neither means = Not Harry AND Not Lord Voldemort > > > > Harry OR Lord Voldemort must die becuase Not Harry and Not Lord > > Voldemort can live. > > > > Plain and simple. The prophecy states nothing about them both > having > > to die. Will they? I do not know. It does not say that neither can > > die, but Harry does not have to die. > > Hannah: I agree with you, I've never read it as meaning both have > to die, and neither do Harry and DD - they seem to think it's an > either/or situation. Both could die, but the prophecy doesn't > appear to require it. > > I have never believed JKR will kill Harry. I just don't think > she'll do it. No real logic behind it, just a gut feeling. I even > have doubts if she'll kill one of the trio, though that she may do > as the climax to book 7. > > JKR has as good as said there is some trickery going on with the > phrasing of the prophecy (she claims to have worded it 'very > carefully'). My favourite candidates for areas where she's pulling > the wool over out eyes are the 'at the hand of the other' and 'while > the other still survives.' There are a lot of possiblities thrown > up by those vague little phrases. > > In fact I'm still not convinced it even refers to Harry. It's just > too easy to be led to believe that, and it's never a good idea to > take a thing like that for granted in Potterverse. The more we think > it means Harry has to sacrifice himself to rid the world of LV, the > more likely it is that something completely different is going to > happen in the end. > > Hannah For once I am going to take a gamble and take the straightforward meaning of the prophecy. If a hidden meaning ends up being true then so be it, but JKR never lied to us she just gave small clues that would eventually be fully realized. If there are hidden clues in the prophecy then please state your theory. I would like to hear a theory since I have none myself. A-Mac From houseofbohacek at earthlink.net Wed Jan 5 21:28:49 2005 From: houseofbohacek at earthlink.net (klyanthea) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:28:49 -0000 Subject: (Filk) P.S., the First Book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121221 P.S., The First Book A filk by Gail B. to the tune of _P.S. I Love You_, by the Beatles Midi is here: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Studio/7779/beatle01.html As I wait for July And the "Half Blood Prince" Re-reading the first story: Nothing like it since In America, was called, "Sorcerer" England, it's "Philosopher" P.S., the first book Look, look, look! Picked up and read it one day, at random And now, I'm in the fandom P.S., the first book Look, look, look! Discussing book Seven Guessing how it ends Remember the beginning Harry and his friends In a corridor that was forbidden The Stone, safely was hidden P.S. the first book Look, look, look! They went in to save it (ohhh!) >From Snape, Harry thought (you know they were distraught) But in the end Voldmort (yeah) Was who Harry fought The series will end, before you know it But I'll never outgrow it P.S., the first book Look, look, look! Look, look, look! The first book! -Gail B. From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 5 21:29:23 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (Hans) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:29:23 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121222 "Doug Pratt" wrote: > I've been thinking about the "biggest fear" question, and come to the conclusion that I don't have one. In the years in which I have read, reread, read aloud, had read to me, and reread again the HP canon, JKR has never disappointed me. I now trust her completely. I have no fear that the next two books will [you mean 'won't', don't you? HR] be as satisfying and delightful as the last five have been. [...] Clearly, JKR is in charge of the vision. That's a strong woman. I have no doubt that she can get us all through the next two books. She has earned my faith. Hans: OK I'd like to have some lighthearted fun and join in this thread. First of all I totally agree with Doug. I trust Jo completely too. My reason is, as you will all have gathered by now, that I see Harry Potter as the latest version of the age-old story of total Liberation. I know the end of that story (theoretically) and so I know how Harry Potter will end in broad terms. There are 2 books which parallel Harry Potter with stunning exactness. They are not books of fiction, nor is Harry Potter. I may not get all the points exactly right, but I really and honestly think I've got the "atmosphere" of the end of the story through the 2 books, plus the others mentioned in my essay. I'd like to ask you all now, not whether you agree with my predictions, but how you would FEEL about the above. Would they allay your fears, or, rather, realise them? 1. There is absolutely NO chance of the scenario where Harry wakes up at the end of book 7 and realises it was all a dream. 2. I think Harry will end up having Hagrid's job. I know this gets very close to what some of you fear, namely that Harry will lose his magic powers. What will happen in my humble opinion is that Harry will be faced with a choice after defeating Voldemort - will he go on into total Nirvana, or will his compassion compel him to stay behind as a Bodhisattva to help others find liberation, i.e. enter the magical world? I think he will stay behind, which certainly does mean a curtailment of magic powers. However that will be part of the sacrifice. I don't know whether Jo will have his wand broken, like Hagrid's. I hope not. However being a Bodhisattva, i.e. a Master of Compassion IS a sacrifice and it hurts! But the compensation is that a person like that has come "Home" to his God-Father. I think there will be a connection between the "Room of Love" and Harry's final fate. He will probably be punished for having entered it (perhaps instead of the above "choice"). 3. I think Harry will defeat death. I know Jo has said "dead is dead", but I suspect she's laying a red herring. I'm sure the whole point of Harry Potter is to prove that death can be swallowed up in victory. Harry will go through the archway with the veil to find Sirius, and he will find him. He will return to the world in some way so that Jo can say, "although he's gone through the veil of death he didn't die, so I was right in saying 'dead is dead'". He will not find Lily or James though. 4. Snape will sacrifice himself for Harry like the black king in "The Alchemical Wedding". 5. Lupin will sacrifice himself for Harry like the grey king in "The Alchemical Wedding". 6. Crabbe and Goyle will join Harry, or at least be helpful in some way. This was foreshadowed by Harry and Ron taking on Crabbe and Goyle's appearance in Book 2. 7. Draco will join Harry in some way when he fights Voldemort. He may possibly die though, but he will end up on Harry's side. He will see the error of his ways, I'm sure. When I get to my character post on Draco you'll see why. 8. There will be some sort of alchemical process involving the trio. I suspect Harry and Hermione will be united in some spiritual way, but Ron will also be with them at the end. I know what happens, but not how Jo will symbolise this. 9. I'm sure Dobby will be extremely helpful to Harry at the end. He may possible end up as Harry's elf in a voluntary capacity. Dobby will probably have very beautiful (golden?) clothes at the end. 10. I have a gut feeling (no evidence whatsoever) that Harry will help Nearly Headless Nick over the threshold. Possibly other ghosts as well, including Moaning Myrtle(?) 11. I DON'T think either Dumbledore or McGonagall will die (as they symbolise immortal forces). 12. I think McGonagall and Dumbledore will preside over the alchemical wedding, whatever form that takes. I feel very sure this will take place in Dumbledore's office. 13. Lucius and Narcissa will get their comeuppance. But Harry will be kind to them. Perhaps they'll serve Harry if he takes over Hagrid's job. 14. Voldemort and Wormtail will die together. I'm sure their death won't be violent. Something like vaporising. I guess a bit like when Voldemort when he lost his body in 1981, but this time he'll be gone for sure. 15. Hagrid will "pass on" in some way. This means that when Harry will become keeper of the keys at Hogwarts Hagrid will be allowed to resume the progress that was cut short when he was expelled. I don't know whether he will die in the story, but that doesn't matter as Jo will prove there is no such thing as death. If he does pop his clogs he will continue his progress on the other side of the veil. No problem. 16. I have no idea what will happen to Neville, Luna, Ginny, Sibyl etc, as I don't know whether they're meant to symbolise anything or are just fill-in characters. Have fun! Hans From TheMuffinMan0311 at comcast.net Wed Jan 5 18:23:16 2005 From: TheMuffinMan0311 at comcast.net (Chris O'Toole) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:23:16 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Aberforth: Traitor To Dumbledore? References: Message-ID: <41DC3094.000001.02896@H-8996CPR4VQ2YL> No: HPFGUIDX 121223 entropymail: In anticipation of Book 6, I've been re-reading OOP (again). We see in Ch 16 the humble beginnings of Dumbledore's Army and, soon after in Ch 17, the posting of Educational Decree Number 24. I've been trying to figure out just who might have really spilled the beans to Umbridge. Clearly, it could not have been anyone who signed Hermione's sheet of parchment. Many have speculated that the barkeep was Aberforth... The Muffin Man: Maybe in your haste to get this on the boards you may have forgotten this part later in the book, but if you go to chapter 27 ( The centaur and the Sneak) page 613 it states who exactly informed Umbridge... to save you the time I will post it here: "You will remember, Minister, that I sent you a report back in October that Potter had met a number of fellow students in the Hog's Head in Hogsmeade--" "And what is the evidence for that?" cut in Professor Mcgonagall. "I have a testimony from Willy Widdershins, Minerva, who happened to be at the bar at the time. He was heavily bandaged, it is true, but his hearing was quite un-impaired," said Umbridge smugly. "oh, so THAT'S why he wasn't prosecuted for setting up all those regurgitating toilets!" said Professor Mcgonagall, raising her eyebrows. What an interesting insight into our justice system!" And there you have it... From stonehenge.orders at verizon.net Wed Jan 5 21:37:11 2005 From: stonehenge.orders at verizon.net (kjirstem) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:37:11 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121224 > >Alla: > > > >Why would they Memorycharm Harry? Surely he can be allowed to stay > >in WW even without his powers, unless he wants to leave on his own? > >Sorry, I prefer such thing not to happen. :o) > > > Janet Anderson: > > I can see no reason why Harry, if he lost his powers, would need to >lose his > memory also. The people who were Memory-Charmed at the World >Quidditch > match were muggles who had no idea the WW existed. The same with >Aunt Marge > and the people who encountered the enchanted tea set (mentioned in > connection with Arthur's job). Without powers, Harry would be the > equivalent of a Squib, or like the parents of Muggle-born children, >the > Prime Minister, and perhaps others we haven't heard about. They >have no > magic, but they're in on the secret of the WW's existence. Why >would > Harry's memory need to be removed if theirs doesn't? kjirstem: I could see him not *wanting* to live as a Squib if he lost his powers. He might have a much happier life as a Muggle not knowing what it is that he lost. I think that Harry is resilient enough to make a successful and happy life for himself in the Muggle world, but I'm not so sure that he could deal with always being aware of losing his ability to do magic and especially to fly. Life as a Squib doesn't look all that lovely to me. Losing his friends in the WW seems to me a much bigger deal than losing all memory of magic. If, by some quirk of JKR's pen, both Ron and Hermione died I don't think there would be much reason for Harry to stay in the WW. (I shall now don a FEATHERBOA, swish.) Certainly I don't think Harry losing his powers would be a happy ending but I think that it might be possible for it to be a satisfying ending. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 21:11:47 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:11:47 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121225 >>Nora wrote: >Ahoy, the cannons are firing again! :) >Ahem. To continue to play devil's advocate, most all of these supporters of the 'unworthy' (your word, not mine) also have one thing in common: their perspectives rest VERY heavily upon the prediction of future revelations, with a few admitted exceptions.< Betsy: I completely agree that the possiblity of "unworthy" characters (And I used that word to encapsulate all the characters Harry, and therefore the narrator for the most part, do not like - not as a judgement call. Please don't hurt me! ) being redeemed, or shown to not be that evil at all really, depends greatly on future revelations. If Draco (as an example) is cackling at Voldemort's right hand at the final show-down, or the entire house of Slytherin runs to Voldemort's side, then they obviously chose the side of evil and their supporters will be left in a rather awkward position. However, I'm arguing that JKR has not given us simplistic characters who are all evil or all good. She has shown folks who fought against Voldemort to not be all that great themselves (e.g. Crouch, Sr. and his trampling of Wizard rights), and those who fail to stand with Dumbledore to not be the epitome of evil (e.g. Seamus and his poor mum). I think there will be a definitive line drawn between the side of good and the side of evil, and that it will be broken into those who fight with Dumbledore and/or Harry, and those who fight with Voldemort, but I don't think all those on the side of good will shine with the white light of purity. (Snape, for one, is quite attached to black. ) I could well see a scenario where Draco comes over to Harry's camp with some crucial information or something that turns the tide, still sneering at Harry, but unwilling to grovel for Voldemort. And Fudge, slimy little man that he is, will probably support whomever he deems best suited to ridding the WW of Voldemort. (To throw fat on the fire, I could also argue that the Dursley's have done their part for the side of good by keeping Harry safe all these years. Are they good or evil?) >>Nora: >What we've been talking about here is the eminent possibility that things work out harshly, once we know all the information.< Betsy: Okay, I thought that folks were trying to say that JKR, herself, through the rules of the Potterverse, had set up a harsh morality wherein if you don't side with Dumbledore, you are by definition, evil, and if you do side with him, no matter what you do, you are by definition, pure good. Something I disagree with completely for reasons I set out above. >>Nora: >Knowing all the information requires one to re-read the past with knowledge of the future, and to go "Well, maybe that Sympathetic! Draco reading of mine really *wasn't* there". [For a good example, search the archives and you'll find a well-known but no longer active here poster arguing that Draco was really honestly trying to warn Hermione in the DE ramage scene in GoF. That doesn't exactly hold up with OotP Draco.]< Betsy: *rubs hands gleefully* Oh, I'm not counting Draco out yet. I think the books have strongly hinted that Slytherin House is needed for good to prevail (see the Sorting Hat song) and while Dumbledore has his own Slytherin in Snape, Harry needs one for himself. Enter Draco. *crosses fingers* Though I don't expect him to end up lily white by series end. [As an aside: This is a really good and indepth post on Draco, for those interested. http://www.livejournal.com/community/idol_reflection/17096.html ] >>Nora: >There is something at least moderately metaphysically BANG-y coming. JKR has said that now is the time for Answers, and I think she likes Answers more than she likes ambiguity. I see a lot of the wiggle room being closed off--not all, but most.< Betsy: Oh yes, the last two books should answer a lot of questions. Are all Slytherins evil? Is Percy evil? Is Snape good? etc, etc, etc. But the reason there is still a mystery, and the reason there is still cannon to point to for those who support the more ambiguous characters, even if Harry has dismissed them, is because JKR has written it in. She, delightfully, has not set up straight from the beginning who all the good guys are, and who all the bad guys are. Of course, I'd be shocked if one of the trio suddenly ran to Voldemort's side, or if Bellatrix suddenly ran to Dumbledore. But there are characters who still have time to surprise Harry, and by extention, us. (Some of us, more than others most likely!) >>Nora: >Mystery novels always have a solution at the end. Of course, there's the "what does it all MEAN?", but you can't really work that out before you know what all happens. I'm going to be contrary. I now bet on the much cleaner ending as opposed to the messy and ambiguous one. We'll see, no? >-Nora cringes at the winter storm heading her way< Betsy: No storm from me, I hope! :) I expect a clear ending too, but I also hope for a few surprises. Surprises that will have us pouring back through the books and saying, "Oh yes, she gave us a hint here!" Or, "I always suspected it to be so!" Or, "How could I have missed it!" And I also suspect that some not-so-well-loved characters, like Fudge, will survive, and will have been on the right side in the end, but still won't be all that well loved. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 21:49:17 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:49:17 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121226 > Betsy: Okay, I thought that folks were trying to say that JKR, herself, through the rules of the Potterverse, had set up a harsh morality wherein if you don't side with Dumbledore, you are by definition, evil, and if you do side with him, no matter what you do, you are by definition, pure good. Something I disagree with completely for reasons I set out above. Alla: No, no, Betsy. Players are not perfect(that would be annoying ), but principles they support are (the forms, since we were discussing it in connection with Plato). Good and Evil are very clearly defined in Potterverse, don't you agree? It does not preclude greyness in the characters at all. But id does preclude greyness in the ending. Just my opinion, Alla From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 5 22:01:01 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:01:01 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121227 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amdorn" wrote: > > > > Tonks here: > > My greatest fear is that the series will end too quickly. I can wait > a couple of years for the end... as long as it comes. I don't want > it to be over too soon, for many reasons, one of which is there > would be nothing else to talk about and we will all have to go back > to being boring Muggles!! > > Tonks_op Geoff: Well, I first read LOTR in 1956. I still get into long and involved discussions (not on the web admittedly) about the books even now and they can be very stimulating...... I have a feeling that JKR will /not/ tie up every loose end so that many discussions will still be open for grabs along the lines of "What do you reckon Z did that for in Book 7?" or "Why do you think she left the resolution of X up in the air?" Hm. I wonder when HPFGU message 1000000 will hit the web? :-) Geoff Enjoy a virtual visit to Exmoor and the preserved West Somerset Railway at http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 22:14:40 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:14:40 -0000 Subject: Snape's view (was Re: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121228 Nora wrote: > Likewise, > James may well have changed and done so obviously. But to someone > with Snape's mindset and particular victim complex, he's always > going to be the same. Carol notes: But we have no evidence that James and Snape had any direct contact with each other after they left Hogwarts at seventeen or eighteen. Snape probably knew that James had married and had a child and that he was a member of the Order but none of that would change his view of James as a person. James probably knew nothing whatever about Snape once they left school, certainly not that he had become a DE and then a spy for Dumbledore. So there's no reason why each would not retain the same view of the other that he had held on their last day at Hogwarts. I think that despite their continued mutual hatred, Snape probably somehow tried to prevent the attack on the Potters. If James failed to act on that information (how dare he let himself be murdered?), leaving Snape still in James's (life) debt with no way to repay him, naturally Snape would continue to think him arrogant and hate him for it. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 22:33:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:33:47 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121229 > kjirstem: snip. > Certainly I don't think Harry losing his powers would be a happy > ending but I think that it might be possible for it to be a satisfying > ending. Alla: It could be, if he has people who love him near by and all of them are in WW. Sorry, I just don't see him wanting to leave on his own, even if Ron and Hermione are dead. There is alwats Ginny, you know. :o) Oh, well. I need book 7 now, now, now. :o) JMO, Alla From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 22:51:17 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 22:51:17 -0000 Subject: Loyalty and goodness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121230 Nora wrote: "He generally leaves the kids to work out their own issues rather than interfering and fighting their own battles for them, both amongst each other and with the faculty." Del replies: There's a middle-ground between leaving kids completely on their own to figure things out, and fighting their own battles for them : it's called counseling. Nora wrote: "He treats house-elves better than anyone else in the WW, and I have no doubts that his comments at the end of OotP are a statement of ontological reality for the WW." Del replies: Who knows how he treats House-Elves? The books about Hogwarts don't even *mention* the House-Elves, much less how they are treated. Only the students who make special efforts to associate with the House-Elves (which include finding the *secret* entrance to the kitchens) can know how the House-Elves are treated. So I don't consider DD's treatment of the House-Elves as a teaching to the students. Nora wrote: "He's actively regarded as a defender of the rights of the Muggleborn, and as such is a prime target for crypto-fascists such as Lucius Malfoy, and quasi-reactionaries such as Fudge." Del replies: Only those kids who immerse themselves in political matters will ponder that. Nora wrote: "And he's attracted a strong circle of people who really seem to believe in him." Del replies: He sure *appears* very lonely in OoP. Only those few who know about the Order know that DD has got some strong support. To anyone else, DD appears completely isolated. Nora wrote: " But I disagree that he is not teaching the children--I think his examples and actions point towards a path." Del replies: I don't believe that the example of a Headmaster they very rarely see can have any strong influence on the majority of his students. Harry has a special connection to DD, but as far as we know no other Hogwarts student shares such a connection. For them, DD is just a very distant Headmaster, about whom they know very very little, especially where his personal morals are concerned. Nora wrote: "Not a flawless one and not one always easily seen, but there for those who are going to take the effort to open their eyes and not wallow in complacency--those who will do what is hard, rather than what is easy." Del replies: As you say, one path is easy, the other is hard. So why would teenagers who have a lot of other things on their mind *choose* to go the hard way, if they don't have a strong motive to do that, like, say, a murderous maniac is trying to kill them or their friends? Most Hogwarts students simply have *no reason* to start studying DD to figure out his morals. It is in my opinion *DD's* duty to *express* those moral and principles if he expects the kids to study them and hopefully adopt them. Nora wrote: "Most of the priorities and goals we've seen from others are pretty nasty." Del replies: Once again, we get into the old discussion whether JKR considers such things as ambition in kids a bad thing or not. Nora wrote: " DD's goals are, frankly, better than Voldemort's. End stop." Del replies: Yes, but did anyone ever *tell* this to the kids? Did anyone ever tell them that there's no middle way? Just *expecting* them to figure out that they *have* to choose one or the other is completely irresponsible IMO. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 23:21:06 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:21:06 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121231 Betsy wrote: "Some of the *characters* may have their own harsh morality, but that point of view is treated rather dimly by the author. (See the tragedy that is the House of Crouch.)" Del replies: I disagree. Even the Crouch example shows that there is Good and there is Evil, and if you partake of Evil even for apparently good reasons, then you're evil. The reason Crouch fell is because he used the tools of Evil : he allowed the Aurors to use the Unforgivables during VWI, he didn't let his son, a DE, pay for his crime, and he used an Unforgivable on him. Crouch partook of Evil, and by doing so he became evil too. Inversely, when talking of DD, in PS/SS, McGonagall basically says that one reason DD is Good is because he refuses to use Dark Magic. Betsy wrote: "The readers firmly behind the idea of a redeemed!Draco are legion." Del replies: Redeemed!Draco is a theory about the future, he's a possibility, so he's irrelevant to the point I was making. What is relevant is the way Draco is being described as being *now* (bad bad bad), and what kind of judgment the author seems to pass on him (bad to the core - she called him a bad boy or something like that, after all). Betsy wrote: " And do I really have to bring up Snape supporters?" Del replies: Snape is the only truly grey character IMO. But you'll notice that when commentating on him, JKR systematically condemns his behaviour, and she doesn't seem to understand that some readers should like him. So I tend to think that this is a reverse "Ron is a good guy" case, where the author has to explain her feelings about a character in interviews because she didn't make it clear enough in her books. You'll also notice that the *only* thing that redeems Snape is that he works for DD. He's written as a completely black character with a white lining, not as a truly grey character. Fudge is more what I consider a grey character : not working for either DD or LV. And he's very clearly condemned for this greyness, right from the end of GoF. Betsy wrote: "If the characters were as black and white, if the Potterverse was as unforgiving, as you're saying it is, I don't think the books would be nearly as interesting. Nor as mysterious." Del replies: First, there are many people who like black-and-white moralities, especially among the children. Second, there are *many* interesting things in HP apart from its morality. Del From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 00:05:29 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:05:29 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Destiny (was Re: C. S. Lewis and Potterverse Destiny) In-Reply-To: <200501031200466.SM01064@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121232 Vivamus wrote: IF predermination were the model JKR uses for destiny, then time travel either would be impossible, or it would be impossible to affect anything (such as killing your past or future self) in a time loop. All the language throughout the books about the importance of choice would, simply, be wrong in JKR's eyes, which would make her writing that strange indeed. OTOH, IF the model were purely that of free will, there could not be such things as prophecy or destiny. One cannot know the future, because one cannot know what choices still remain to be freely made that will change destiny. Neither of those views is consistent with Potterverse : There is destiny, but there is also free will. Laurasia replies: Great post! IMO, the theme of choices is made stronger by giving characters ways of *not* choosing. That is: fate. If *everything* in the Potterverse was a result of free will then Dumbledore's comment 'it's our choices more than our abilities' would be rendered entirely redundant. The ubiquity of choice would diminish its value. In order to give us total freedom of choice we also need to be given a chance *not* to choose anything, ie to stick with fate. Not only are we given alternates about which choice we will make, but we don't even have to make a choice in the first place. To choose, or not to choose, that is the question. If you had a forced choice between a number of options (and couldn't relinquish responsibility and let the universe decide for you) then the emphasis would be on making the *right* choice. In the Potterverse, however, the forces or fate are so strong that even being able to make *any* choice is brave enough. In order to see the importance of choice we also need to see fate. JKR and DD's reprise 'choices more than ability' only works if we have both. IMO, JKR has included instances of fate- prophecies, school houses, similarities between parent and child, etc. because it demonstrates how easy it is to give up choice. Without fate as its opposite, choice is just a part of life, not an important test of character. In CoS Harry says, 'So I should have been in Slytherin then,' and in OotP he says, 'I have to do what the prophecy says.' These are both examples of conceding to fate's will. I'd like to see him say 'I don't have to do anything' in HBP so we can see how strong Harry's courage actually is (not only does he defy Voldemort- he defies the universe!). This way, when he chooses to confront Voldemort it wouldn't be a case of following the prophecy's rules, but a momentous decision. IMO, it is just as important to see people not choosing as it is to see those that do, like, for instance, people sticking with whatever the Sorting Hat told them and suppressing their will to do otherwise. If no Slytherin ever joins Harry it would only suggest that none of them ever dared to question fate, not that ability is stronger in determining character than choice. Maybe, for example, Theodore Nott, instead of outright joining with Harry, expresses his discontent with Slytherin but never finds the courage to reject it. Perhaps this is the real reason why so many major characters are Gryffindors. Without the quality of courage, could you ever stand up to fate? JKR's theme 'choices more than abilities' requires real bravery. Or else no one would dare to defy what the universe is commanding you to surrender to. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 00:08:00 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:08:00 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121233 > Valky wrote: > "When "Seamus Finnigan and the Injustices of 1995" is published I am > sure that the tables will turn and the onesidedness of it all will > lean the other way. ;P" > > Del replied: > That's the problem : the one-sidedness. Where there's one-sidedness, > there's unfair judgment. Saying that the books are one-sided but that > they don't pass unfair judgment on secondary characters is a bit of a > contradiction in my mind. The HP books do pass judgements on the > characters : Harry, being the hero, is good, and everyone else is > judged on whether they are sympathetic to Harry or not. It's not what > the characters do that matters, it's whether their actions make Harry > happy or not. Carol responds: Del, I understand perfectly what you've been arguing and why it bothers you. But I think you may be underestimating other readers' ability to detect and be wary of an unreliable narrator who shares the perspective and prejudices of the POV character. We have to look beyond the narrator to the characters themselves, the actions and words of the characters without the filter of Harry's perspective and judge for ourselves. I happen to be sympathetic toward a number of people whom Harry judges harshly (Snape; Percy; Marietta; Seamus; Ron and Hermione when Harry is fighting with them; Neville, Ginny and Luna as nuisances who will just get in his way at the MoM) because Harry constantly sees only part of the picture. Not that these characters aren't flawed. Everyone in the novel, including Harry and Dumbledore, is flawed. And Harry's perspective is seriously flawed. (It was a relief to see his reaction to the Pensieve scene, to see him momentarily feel sorry for Snape and question his former view of his father and Sirius. It was also a relief to see him feeling compassion for Luna at the end of OoP. And he did forgive Seamus, which was clearly the *right* thing to do in JKR's view and in that (I think) of most readers. Harry (and hence the narrator) still doesn't fully appreciate Luna or Neville or Ginny, but JKR has left room for hope that he will. Snape and Percy and Marietta, maybe not. But that doesn't keep some readers, including you and me, from seeing their side of the story to the extent that the limited omniscient perspective allows it. Remember Percy wading out into the water to hug Ron after the Second Task in GoF? That, I think, was the real Percy, and I hope we'll see him again.) I think we're meant to see the contrast between Harry's (and the narrator's) perspective and "reality" as we, the readers, construct it based on our reading. (More so for adults than for children, but even an eleven-year-old will express annoyance with Ron and Harry for their continued spat in GoF.) I'm hoping that those two perspectives (the reader's and the narrator's) will come closer together in the sixth and seventh books as Harry starts to look more closely at other people's needs, feelings, and values rather than always thinking about his own needs and burdens. Yes, he has a heavy load to carry, but he is not always right in his actions or judgments, and I hope he comes to realize that in the next two books. And I also think we're meant to see certain characters, notably Sirius Black and Severus Snape, as "gray" rather than "white" or "black" (in the sense of Good and Evil). Carol, heartily wishing she'd never brought up the question of "innate goodness" as JKR perceives it From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 00:47:51 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:47:51 -0000 Subject: Predicitions: / was Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121234 Tonk writes in reply to Hans: I agree that Harry is basis on a real person, and some of what you say I agree with, but not most. From my point of view this is what will happen: 1. Harry will die and really be dead. He will come back to the world temporarily (the only person ever to do so) and then leave, but he will leave a method for others (including Muggles) on this side of the veil to contact him, and as a wizard he will help them when he can. It's his *saving people thing*. 2. Ron will do something to betray Harry, but for what he believes to be the right reason. 3. The trio will do something with their wands that working together will do what none can do seperately.. and something to do with defeating LV. 4. Most of the people we know and love will die. 5. Snape will die a hero. 6. Maybe DD IS the narrator and only survivor. If so he is leaving a set of books for Muggles to read that will show them how to avoid what happened in the WW. Tonks_op From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 00:48:20 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:48:20 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121235 Carol wrote: "But I think you may be underestimating other readers' ability to detect and be wary of an unreliable narrator who shares the perspective and prejudices of the POV character." Del replies: It's not so much their ability that bothers me, it's their *willingness*. Carol wrote: "We have to look beyond the narrator to the characters themselves, the actions and words of the characters without the filter of Harry's perspective and judge for ourselves." Del replies: I disagree. Simply put, we don't *have* to do anything. We *can* do it, we can encourage other people (especially the younger readers) to do it, but no reader has any obligation to do it. Readers are entitled to stick to the "whoever Harry likes is OK, whoever he doesn't like is bad" measure as much as they want. For that matter, they are even entitled to have their own highly prejudiced, totally unfounded, absolutely contrary to canon, preferences if they so wish. For example, anyone is entitled to loving LV because they love the name Tom, or to cheer on Draco because he has blond hair, or to hate Harry because he wears glasses. Readers have no obligation whatsoever, and many of them might not be willing to, or might not see the point of, trying and looking at facts and people from a more objective point of view. When all is said and done, if the series once completed support the "whoever Harry likes is good, whoever Harry dislikes is bad" morality, then any reader who doesn't care about looking for something more elaborate won't have to. Carol wrote: "Remember Percy wading out into the water to hug Ron after the Second Task in GoF? That, I think, was the real Percy, and I hope we'll see him again." Del replies: I agree. But what if we never see that Percy again? We will still be able to imagine that this Percy is still there somewhere, but that won't be what the books say. Carol wrote: "I think we're meant to see the contrast between Harry's (and the narrator's) perspective and "reality" as we, the readers, construct it based on our reading." Del replies: I disagree that we are "meant" to see this contrast, and I'm not even sure JKR hopes we do that. Do you remember her comments about Snape and Draco being bad guys that girls shouldn't fall for just because the actors playing them are cute? That's not a way to encourage people to look at her characters from a different angle, IMO. Carol wrote: "I'm hoping that those two perspectives (the reader's and the narrator's) will come closer together in the sixth and seventh books as Harry starts to look more closely at other people's needs, feelings, and values rather than always thinking about his own needs and burdens." Del replies: I *hope* so too, but what if this never happens? This is what I'm afraid of. Harry will still be a teenager by the end of Book 7, so it is very possible that he won't truly start looking outside of himself before the series is over, in which case all we will be left with will be his side of the story. It's a real possibility, that would be consistent with the books written so far IMO. Carol wrote: "And I also think we're meant to see certain characters, notably Sirius Black and Severus Snape, as "gray" rather than "white" or "black" (in the sense of Good and Evil)." Del replies: And yet OoP leaves us with a Harry who hates Snape more than ever and a Sirius turned into a martyred saint because he fell for the cause. Carol signed: "Carol, heartily wishing she'd never brought up the question of "innate goodness" as JKR perceives it" Del replies: Why not? It did give me a lot of satisfying answers to questions that I had, distateful to me as those answers might be. Del From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 16:44:20 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:44:20 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121236 >Matt writes: >My biggest fear has always been that in order to stop Voldemort, Harry will need to make a choice to sacrifice himself....(or) that Harry will somehow be unable to use magic in the end due to a last fight with Voldemort. > My biggest fear is that JKR will screw it up. It's extremely difficult juggling all the characters in a single book, let alone seven. Will she manage a satisfying ending? Will she be able to wrap up all the loose ends? Book one was barely mediocre. Sheer curiosity made me read Book two. But somewhere between books three and four she learned how to write and OoP was riveting. However, she seems to be getting things too complex - time travel, prophecies, things that can confuse and annoy readers. I'm hoping she won't do the same with the ending and make it so farfetched that her readers shriek with fury. The problem with fantasy is that nearly every possible ending has been done: the happy ending; the "it was all a dream" ending; the end of the world ending; the unhappy ending that is realistic (like life) but terribly unsatisfying; and the shocker ending (such as the series where the main character turns into a swan and flies away to live a birdy life forever - I think they heard the gnashing of my teeth on Alpha Centauri over that one). Personally, I think she'll go for the unhappy ending. She's tried to remain pretty close to real life through the whole series - Harry's home life sucks; for every good thing that happens to him three bad things happen; he goes from popular celebrity to pariah at the drop of a hat. I think she'll destroy Voldemort permanently, but at a massive cost and the world will be a safer place but Harry and whatever remaining friends he has will be much the worse for it. But if she does it right, it can still be a satisfying ending. Killing Harry, leaving him powerless, or exterminating magic entirely would NOT be satisfying endings. Nicky Joe From neferiet at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 21:25:55 2005 From: neferiet at yahoo.com (Cindi H) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:25:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville's wand (Was: Chapter 35 Beyond the Veil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050105212555.60221.qmail@web30901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121237 Carol, who also really likes Neville, wrote: Neville had Hermione's wand, which he tried to use after his own (or rather, his father's) was broken, along with his nose, by the sadistic Macnair (Buckbeak's would-be executioner and LV's ambassador to the giants). Neville's inability to speak clearly ("Stubefy" for "Stupefy") prevented him from casting an effective spell, at least with someone else's wand. It's possible that a more experienced or more powerful wizard might have been able to overcome those handicaps.(Notice that Dolohov can still cast a crippling curse--whatever that purple light and slashing motion indicated--even when he's been rendered speechless by a Silencio. But then, unlike Neville, he was using his own wand.) At any rate, Neville isn't wandless but he might as well be, thanks to Macnair. As for courage vs. loyalty, surely he showed both. "Don't gib it to him, Harry!" He'd rather be Crucio'd than give the DEs what they want, which happens to be a Prophecy that might enable LV to destroy Harry. Cindi writes: I really like Neville also. I really feel there is more to him than what we have read. In regard to Neville's (Father's) wand, once Neville has his own wand that has "chosen" him, I think Neville will become quite a powerful and skilled wizard. (Draco will be just a bit surprised!) After all McGonagall told Neville, he just needed some confidence. The battle in the MoM and the new wand will help Nevill with his confidence level. Cindi From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 23:29:02 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 23:29:02 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121238 >> Betsy wrote earlier: >Okay, I thought that folks were trying to say that JKR, herself, through the rules of the Potterverse, had set up a harsh morality wherein if you don't side with Dumbledore, you are by definition, evil, and if you do side with him, no matter what you do, you are by definition, pure good. Something I disagree with completely for reasons I set out above.< >> Alla: >No, no, Betsy. Players are not perfect(that would be annoying ), but principles they support are (the forms, since we were discussing it in connection with Plato). Good and Evil are very clearly defined in Potterverse, don't you agree? >It does not preclude greyness in the characters at all. But id does preclude greyness in the ending.< Betsy: I guess I would say Good and Evil are as clearly defined in Potterverse as they are in real life. Some actions and therefore characters are obviously good: Lily's sacrifice for Harry, so Lily is good. Other's obviously evil: Tom sucking out Ginny's life-force, so Tom is evil. But other actions are harder to define: James, unprovoked, ganging up on and publically humiliating Snape. So is James evil? His actions certainly are. But then, he gave his life to protect his family. Now his actions are good. So what is James? >>Lupinlore is quoted in message # 121068: "Is JKR trying to say something about complex morality in the HP saga? The more I think of it the more I think she is saying something in exactly the opposite direction. She seems to be implying that morality is harsh, Good and Evil are real, and human ideas about justice or reason or individual worth or even the right to be loved and comforted are not very important in the great scheme of things. You either support the good principle or the evil principle, there is no middle ground and there is no quibbling. JKR has said she doesn't care if she has only six fans when she is finished. I think a lot of people (including me) have assumed that means things will come to a very confused, complex, and possibly grey conclusion. I am starting to believe that, on the contrary, we will see an end that is shocking in its harshness and clarity." >>And Del replies later in the same message: "In fact, I get a feeling that, far from getting more complex, the morality presented in the HP books is getting more simple : if one is on the side of Good, then one's faults don't matter, but if one is on the side of Evil then one's qualities, honesty and good intents are irrelevant." Betsy: As in real life, there are times when you do have to step up to the plate and decide what you stand for. I do think the ending of the series will be fairly cut and dry. One side will win (and I'll be shocked if it's Voldemort's) and the other will loose. There isn't much grey as to which side is good and which side is evil, but is that so unrealistic? The greyness that was OotP was the argument over whether the side of evil was actually in existence. Fudge, rather pig-headedly, was arguing that it was not. Percy and Marietta and Seamus weren't siding with Voldemort, they were siding with Fudge. So not evil really, just mistaken, and possibly hopeful. It'd be much more comfortable for all involved if Harry and Dumbledore were crazy and the past terror was not rising again. I suppose a RL analogy would be the British government under Chamberlain up to WWII. Chamberlain tried to avoid the evil of war, and appease Hitler, with at least some support I assume (not much of a historian, me) of the British. But when push came to shove, the British did stand up to Hitler, and were on the side of good. I think Potterverse will be the same way. Until Percy says, "Oh good one, Lord Voldemort, most amusing," or something along those lines, judgment has not been made. And even if it did turn out that way, Dumbledore would talk about how he'd let Percy down or something and his fall is to be pitied rather than thought of irredeemably evil. I get the sense that Dumbledore feels like he let Tom Riddle down too. Of course a character's qualities will mean something, in that they'll help the character decide which side they're going to be on. The fun and interesting part for me is going to be seeing which side various characters come down on. And the complexity may still be there in a fashion. Fudge has to admit that Voldemort is back now. But will he throw in with Dumbledore et al, or will there be a divided front going against Voldemort? I can't wait to find out! Betsy, who so needs to do laundry it's not even amusing anymore. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 6 01:09:38 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:09:38 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121239 > Betsy wrote: > "Some of the *characters* may have their own harsh morality, but that point of view is treated rather dimly by the author. (See the tragedy that is the House of Crouch.)" > > Del replies: > I disagree. Even the Crouch example shows that there is Good and there is Evil, and if you partake of Evil even for apparently good reasons, then you're evil. The reason Crouch fell is because he used the tools of Evil : he allowed the Aurors to use the Unforgivables during VWI, he didn't let his son, a DE, pay for his crime, and he used an Unforgivable on him. Crouch partook of Evil, and by doing so he became evil too.< Pippin: But Crouch didn't become evil. He did wrong and suffered the consequences but he never gave allegiance to Voldemort, and when he broke free, he sought to confess and make amends, not to get vengeance. > Del replies: > Snape is the only truly grey character IMO. But you'll notice that when commentating on him, JKR systematically condemns his behaviour, and she doesn't seem to understand that some readers should like him.< Pippin: She doesn't condemn all his behavior. I've never heard her condemn Snape for saving Harry's life. IMO, she's teasing her fans by saying she doesn't know why people like him--she knows perfectly well that they will clam up rather than talk about it. Snape crushes are not something you'd want to discuss in front of an audience of children, . Alan Rickman and Tom Felton crushes are respectable by comparison, which is why she always shifts the conversation to those. Del: > So I tend to think that this is a reverse "Ron is a good guy" case, where the author has to explain her feelings about a character in interviews because she didn't make it clear enough in her books.< Pippin: Don't forget that interviewers usually have only a surface knowledge of the books and that the interviews are a marketing tool directed in part at people who (gasp!) haven't read the books even once yet. They ask obvious questions, and she answers them very simply for the benefit of people who would otherwise have no idea what she was talking about. Also, fans come in all levels of sophistication -- just because some people ask to have things explained to them doesn't prove they aren't sufficiently explained in the books. None of Rowling's answers about the characters' behavior have surprised me. Del: > You'll also notice that the *only* thing that redeems Snape is that he works for DD. He's written as a completely black character with a white lining, not as a truly grey character. < Pippin: He. Saved. Harry's. Life. I don't think that's in the job description for Potions Master, and if DD had dropped dead the day before, I think he still would have done it. It's true Snape doesn't seem to quite grasp what he's fighting for, but so what? I figure he prefers Dumbledore's principles, even though he doesn't entirely understand them, to Voldemort's, which he understands all too well. Pippin From cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 5 21:40:00 2005 From: cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com (David & Laura) Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:40:00 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121240 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doug Pratt" wrote: > > I've been thinking about the "biggest fear" question, and come to the > conclusion that I don't have one. In the years in which I have read, > reread, read aloud, had read to me, and reread again the HP canon, > JKR has never disappointed me. I now trust her completely. I have no > fear that the next two books will be as satisfying and delightful as > the last five have been. > As for what happens when Book Seven is out...well, it will not be an > end, but a beginning. Look at the Sherlock Holmes canon. Conan Doyle > created a world and peopled it with characters so compelling that > many of us feel they are not just fully realized people, but friends. > Hundreds of years later, people are discussing the original stories, > creating new ones, and endlessly enjoying the gas-lit world of Holmes > and Watson. Can any of us doubt that JKR has given us the same gift? > That's why we're all here! > > Very best regards to all, David: Good coments Doug. I wish for the books to have a satisfying ending; closure. I want to still enjoy a re-read 20 yrs from now. I'm ok with Harry having to sacrifice himself to take out V'mort. My sad guess currently is that he will die to save his friends and the world. (Did I not read somewhere way back that one of JK's favorite books was the Tale of Two Cities?) But, I would much prefer an ending where Harry and V'mort are fighting a draw and Ron and Her-my-oh-ninny come in and help. Now for me, that would be an ending I would read again and again. The trio formed so accidentally and so seemingly innocently on that first train to school, formed a power great enough to take down V'mort. The power of the love and friendship between the three creating a undefeatable force!!! Well, that's my wish anyway. From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 01:27:54 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:27:54 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121241 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > "antoshachekhonte" wrote: > > > > > I would actually welcome a book 7 conclusion > > in which Harry succeeded, lost his powers, > > but found a happy, peaceful, fulfilling life > > surrounded by people who loved him. > > If you asked me to come up with the single most unsatisfying ending > possible that would be it, even worse than Harry waking up at he > end of book 7 and finding it was all a dream. Ugg! First of all > everybody living happily ever after would be so sappy, so sweet, so > very cute and adorable I think I'd phhrow up. Secondly, loosing his > powers would be a terrible clich?, in ever science fiction or > fantasy movie of the 50's the object of wonder must be destroyed or > rendered ordinary in the end, the forbidden planet blows up, the > amazing invention is lost, the incredible creature dies, and the > book that contains the secrets of the universe is burnt. Apparently > this was to reassure the viewer (or reader) that everything and > everyone would return to their previous humdrum existence after > their little adventure. Unfortunately doing this makes for a > humdrum story. > > Eggplant Antosha: Well, another way to look at this story form is that it implies that the hero, having succeeded in the quest/achieved the boon/saved the world, needs to lay down the tools proper to that endeavor and pick up those proper to the next. Neither your point of view nor mine is new. Homer ended the Odyssey with what passed, in those bloody days, as fluffy bunnies. And Tennyson, unwilling to let poor Odysseus remain happy being home, wrote "The Idylls of the King" in which the old guy gets to sit there and bitch about what fun he used to have. I think the least satisfying ending for me--aside from some of those mentioned above-- would be one where the dust settles from Harry's final AK, Voldemort hits the ground... and Harry feels his scar go off again and realizes it's time to face the NEXT Dark Lord. I like stories about the daily grind of dealing with mundane evil on an ongoing basis-- stories like NYPD Blue and Homicide and every cop show since Hill Street Blues. But that's not what this story is about. When it's over, I want it to be over. I don't expect everyone to be happy--or alive. JKR has made it very clear that there will be fallout from this conflict. But I hope that Harry--and those around him who are still standing--will be allowed to reach some kind of fulfillment. Otherwise... :-p From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 01:34:41 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:34:41 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121242 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > kjirstem: > > snip. > > > Certainly I don't think Harry losing his powers would be a happy > > ending but I think that it might be possible for it to be a > satisfying > > ending. > > > Alla: > > It could be, if he has people who love him near by and all of them > are in WW. > Sorry, I just don't see him wanting to leave on his own, even if Ron > and Hermione are dead. There is alwats Ginny, you know. :o) > Antosha: I'll buy that. ;-) But also Luna. And Neville. And possibly some of the other DA members and Weaselys and Order folk. As I've pointed out here before, I think that's part of the point of the expansion of Harry's core group in OotP. To make Harry's reliance on Ron and Hermione less... precious. To coin a Tolkienian phrase. I don't see Harry choosing to loose his memory, like the Tommy Lee Jones character in Men in Black. The WW is too much his home, in a way that the Muggle world has never been... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 02:25:37 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:25:37 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121243 Del wrote: > > My own personal fear is simply that I won't like the ending. There > could be a number of reasons for that. I know the ending can't satisfy > every fan, but selfishly I hope not to be one of those who will be > dissatisfied :-) Carol responds: Yes. I think you've hit on what most of us fear, an unsatisfactory ending. I don't think for a moment that JKR would cheat us with an "it was all a dream" ending, but I am afraid that she'll have Harry doing something that violates the moral code she seems to be setting up here, specifically, I'm afraid that she'll have Harry murder Voldemort with an Unforgiveable Curse. (I don't care that Voldemort deserves it; I don't want Harry to be stained with the evil of his enemy's weapons.) And of course I don't want Snape to betray Harry or DD or the Order. If he has to die, okay, I'll reluctantly accept that. But I want him to prove that DD's trust in him is justified. And it would be a nice touch if he got an Order of Merlin, too. Not sure what I'll do if Snape turns out to be a baddie, but if Harry wins the war by using Avada Kedavra, the books are going to the nearest dumpster. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 02:27:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:27:26 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121244 Del: You'll also notice that the *only* thing that redeems Snape is that he works for DD. He's written as a completely black character with a white lining, not as a truly grey character. < Pippin: He. Saved. Harry's. Life. I don't think that's in the job description for Potions Master, and if DD had dropped dead the day before, I think he still would have done it. It's true Snape doesn't seem to quite grasp what he's fighting for, but so what? I figure he prefers Dumbledore's principles, even though he doesn't entirely understand them, to Voldemort's, which he understands all too well. Alla: Pippin, I strongly disagree. Suppose that ANY student was in Harry's place AND Snape figured out what was going on? Are you suggesting that it is not in teacher's job description to save the life of his students if he can do so and sometimes to try even if he cannot? So, yes, he saved Harry's life but it is my belief that IT IS in his job's description just as in any Hogwarts' teacher job description. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 02:38:53 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:38:53 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121245 Alla wrote: > > Let's be immature together then, Susan! :o) > I also do NOT want any of the trio to die,especially Harry, but I > would love a long life for Ron and Hermione too. ;) > > > For some strange reason I am absolutely sure that we WILL find out > what makes Snape tick. Carol responds: I'm pretty sure you'll get your wish, Alla, simply because Harry himself has asked at least some of the same questions that we want answered about Snape. Carol, assuring SSS and Alla that she agrees completely with their hope that none of the Trio will die From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 6 02:39:42 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:39:42 -0000 Subject: Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Re: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121246 Nora: > In other words, it matters how you carry out your loyalty, no matter what your goal. > > See, I can buy that interpretation. On some levels, with some holes plugged in, it makes a lot of sense. It's just so close to being so deeply, well, evil. It is certainly contrary Dumbledore's morality, who I maintain is still the guiding force with connections to something. It is deeply ironic given the revelation in GoF of Snape's own 'second chance' status, to the point of hypocrisy-- second chance for me, but not for anyone else, no. < Pippin: But a second chance is supposed to be conditional on the recognition that you were wrong before. As far as Snape knows, Sirius is maintaining that he's still on his first one. Snape didn't hear Sirius confess that he feels responsible for James' and Lily's deaths, he's only heard Sirius protest his innocence. He did hear him say that it served Snape right to be sent to the werewolf. Of course Snape presses for an explanation; he wants to make sure his life really matters--Voldemort, after all, would throw it away without a qualm. Dumbledore might just be reminding him that he's surely proved it does. One more thing, Dumbledore doesn't answer Snape's question as to whether he believes Sirius's story. He only insists he wishes to speak to Harry and Hermione alone and sends Snape away after Fudge. To what is Snape being disloyal when he says he hopes Dumbledore will not make difficulties? Dumbledore hasn't given his opinion yet; surely Snape is entitled to his? Snape is the banner bearer for second chances; if he blows it, or if he must die a martyr's death to redeem himself, it's not going to be very encouraging is it? To paraphrase a bumper sticker, Snape needn't be perfect, just forgiven. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 03:00:08 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:00:08 -0000 Subject: Predictions. Was: Re: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121247 Hans: snip. I'd like to ask you all now, not whether you agree with my predictions, but how you would FEEL about the above. Would they allay your fears, or, rather, realise them? 2. I think Harry will end up having Hagrid's job. I know this gets very close to what some of you fear, namely that Harry will lose his magic powers. > What will happen in my humble opinion is that Harry will be faced with a choice after defeating Voldemort - will he go on into total Nirvana, or will his compassion compel him to stay behind as a Bodhisattva to help others find liberation, i.e. enter the magical world? I think he will stay behind, which certainly does mean a curtailment of magic powers. However that will be part of the sacrifice. I don't know whether Jo will have his wand broken, like Hagrid's. I hope not. However being a Bodhisattva, i.e. a Master of Compassion IS a sacrifice and it hurts! But the compensation is that a person like that has come "Home" to his God-Father. I think there will be a connection between the "Room of Love" and Harry's final fate. He will probably be punished for having entered it (perhaps instead of the above "choice"). 3. I think Harry will defeat death. I know Jo has said "dead is dead", but I suspect she's laying a red herring. I'm sure the whole point of Harry Potter is to prove that death can be swallowed up in victory. Harry will go through the archway with the veil to find Sirius, and he will find him. He will return to the world in some way so that Jo can say, "although he's gone through the veil of death he didn't die, so I was right in saying 'dead is dead'". He will not find Lily or James though. Alla: Hans, I can see all of your predictions coming true more or less, but I have to tell you if Harry will find Sirius behind the Veil AND bring him back permanently, I will love you forever. :o) Although I want to see it happens, at the most I can only see Sirius temporarily coming back as host or spirit to help Harry. May I ask you why are you so sure? I can also see Harry travelling in the underworld, but failing to get Sirius out of there. Oh, well, I would LOVE for you to be right on this one. Harry and Room of unknown substance, which is most likely Love... Yes, I can see that it will play major role in the ending , it was kind of heavily foreshadowed, IMO. So, according to Liberation theory, Harry after choosing not to go Heaven or some equivalent of it and stay on Earth will become ... who? Someone who realised what Divine power means? Will he be human or God like? Sorry, this question still buggs me. Thanks, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 6 03:35:08 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:35:08 -0000 Subject: Job descriptions was Re: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121248 > Alla: > > Pippin, I strongly disagree. Suppose that ANY student was in Harry's place AND Snape figured out what was going on? Are you suggesting that it is not in teacher's job description to save the life of his students if he can do so and sometimes to try even if he cannot? > > So, yes, he saved Harry's life but it is my belief that IT IS in his job's description just as in any Hogwarts' teacher job description.< > Pippin: You'd think so, but IIRC, we haven't seen any other Hogwarts teachers challenging Dark Wizards, not without Dumbledore right there to back them up. As a matter of fact, Lockhart says it's not in the job description.He's a git, but it makes sense, actually. Hogwarts, by virtue of Dumbledore's presence and the spells of protection around it, is supposed to be safe. Most of the teachers don't quite know what to do when it isn't. I didn't see any much effort to rescue Ginny from the chamber, did you? Snape seems to have wanted to do something, if he could figure out what, but no one else. And Dumbledore says Snape worked so hard to protect Harry because he felt he owed it to Harry's father, not to DD. Pippin From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Jan 6 03:41:56 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:41:56 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121249 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Del wrote: > Carol responds: > Yes. I think you've hit on what most of us fear, an unsatisfactory > ending. I don't think for a moment that JKR would cheat us with an "it > was all a dream" ending, but I am afraid that she'll have Harry doing > something that violates the moral code she seems to be setting up > here, specifically, I'm afraid that she'll have Harry murder Voldemort > with an Unforgiveable Curse. (I don't care that Voldemort deserves it; > I don't want Harry to be stained with the evil of his enemy's weapons.) > Hmmm. Well, we know that Voldemort has to die, unless we are being very badly misled indeed by the prophecy. Why does it matter HOW he dies? Dead is dead is dead, killing is killing is killing. Someone killed by LOVE is still as dead as someone killed by AK. Are you arguing that it will make some difference for Harry? I suppose it could, although we are starting to flirt with some problematic plotting here. Is Harry going to fill himself with love and then kill Voldemort with nothing but love in his heart? Is he to feel nothing but love for Voldemort even as he destroys him? Is he to be like the angel in C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" who lays hands on the tempting demon and burns it into ash simply with the force of the goodness of his radiant essence? Okay, I could see that, although I personally would not find it very satisfying as at that moment Harry would transcend his humanity and become something quite unworldly - something that I, personally, could not relate to. Others, however, might well see this differently. Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 03:52:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 03:52:18 -0000 Subject: Job descriptions was Re: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121250 Alla: Pippin, I strongly disagree. Suppose that ANY student was in Harry's place AND Snape figured out what was going on? Are you suggesting that it is not in teacher's job description to save the life of his students if he can do so and sometimes to try even if he cannot? So, yes, he saved Harry's life but it is my belief that IT IS in his job's description just as in any Hogwarts' teacher job description. Pippin: You'd think so, but IIRC, we haven't seen any other Hogwarts teachers challenging Dark Wizards, not without Dumbledore right there to back them up. As a matter of fact, Lockhart says it's not in the job description. He's a git, but it makes sense, actually. Hogwarts, by virtue of Dumbledore's presence and the spells of protection around it, is supposed to be safe. Most of the teachers don't quite know what to do when it isn't. I didn't see any much effort to rescue Ginny from the chamber, did you? Snape seems to have wanted to do something, if he could figure out what, but no one else. Alla: We haven't seen any other Dark wizards threatening any other students, except Ginny, of course and I submit that was a special plot based exception - she was supposed to be saved by Harry. I am not only talking about Dark Wizards - I am talking about any life-threatening circumstance and contrary to Lockhart beliefs, I think teachers are supposed to do that. Come to think of it, Dumbledore does not make a big fuss out of saving Harry's life or at least saving him from injury when he was falling after Dementor's attack? Minerva gets hit with several curses, when she interferes on behalf of Hagrid (granted, he is not exactly a student, but I just cannot think of him as a teacher :o)), Lupin stops Harry from following Sirius... Something tells me that Hogwarts teachers are not supposed to watch when student is being hurt. Pippin: And Dumbledore says Snape worked so hard to protect Harry because he felt he owed it to Harry's father, not to DD. Alla: When did Dumbledore say about " not to DD". First part - yes, of course, as I said earlier life debt thingy is there, but I don't think it is mutually exclusive. In fact, it kinda goes together, I think. Just my opinion, Alla From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 6 04:10:48 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:10:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050106041048.57617.qmail@web52005.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121251 Hans: OK I'd like to have some lighthearted fun and join in this thread. First of all I totally agree with Doug. I trust Jo completely too. My reason is, as you will all have gathered by now, that I see Harry Potter as the latest version of the age-old story of total Liberation. I know the end of that story (theoretically) and so I know how Harry Potter will end in broad terms. There are 2 books which parallel Harry Potter with stunning exactness. They are not books of fiction, nor is Harry Potter. I may not get all the points exactly right, but I really and honestly think I've got the "atmosphere" of the end of the story through the 2 books, plus the others mentioned in my essay. I'd like to ask you all now, not whether you agree with my predictions, but how you would FEEL about the above. Would they allay your fears, or, rather, realise them? Luckdragons response to Hans theories: 1. There is absolutely NO chance of the scenario where Harry wakes up at the end of book 7 and realises it was all a dream. Luckdragon: Deep down I know Jo is much too good to do that, but then I get this little niggling feeling that the dream ending would release her once and for all from the series and allow her to persue new directions and that all us HP fans would be so disgusted we would leave her to get on with her life. Also the fact that this premise may have been set up when Dudley knocked Harry over during the zoo/snake seen in the beginning of PS/SS gives opportunity for the unconscious/dream scenario. 2. I think Harry will end up having Hagrid's job. I know this gets very close to what some of you fear, namely that Harry will lose his magic powers. Luckdragon:I disagree. Should Harry survive his final confrontation with LV I think he will follow his father's footsteps (whatever we learn that to be) as well as live off the loads of money his investment in the joke shop will bring in. What will happen in my humble opinion is that Harry will be faced with a choice after defeating Voldemort - will he go on into total Nirvana, or will his compassion compel him to stay behind as a Bodhisattva to help others find liberation, i.e. enter the magical world? I think he will stay behind, which certainly does mean a curtailment of magic powers. However that will be part of the sacrifice. I don't know whether Jo will have his wand broken, like Hagrid's. I hope not. However being a Bodhisattva, i.e. a Master of Compassion IS a sacrifice and it hurts! But the compensation is that a person like that has come "Home" to his God-Father. Luckdragon:I just can't see Harry living in the wizarding world without magic nor can I see him going back to the muggleworld while the only people who ever cared for him continue to exist without him. I think there will be a connection between the "Room of Love" and Harry's final fate. He will probably be punished for having entered it (perhaps instead of the above "choice"). Luckdragon:The room must play a part in the story, but I'm hoping it will offer Harry the boost he needs to understand why he must do what he was meant to do. 3. I think Harry will defeat death. I know Jo has said "dead is dead", but I suspect she's laying a red herring. I'm sure the whole point of Harry Potter is to prove that death can be swallowed up in victory. Harry will go through the archway with the veil to find Sirius, and he will find him. He will return to the world in some way so that Jo can say, "although he's gone through the veil of death he didn't die, so I was right in saying 'dead is dead'". He will not find Lily or James though. Luckdragon:My ultimate hope is that Harry will survive and although I feel he will find a way of communicating with both his parents and Sirius for help during the next 2 books I do not believe that will be a permanent option or that any of them will return physically or in spiritual form to the wizarding world. 4. Snape will sacrifice himself for Harry like the black king in "The Alchemical Wedding". 5. Lupin will sacrifice himself for Harry like the grey king in "The Alchemical Wedding". Luckdragon: I agree about Lupin, I'm iffy on Snape. 6. Crabbe and Goyle will join Harry, or at least be helpful in some way. This was foreshadowed by Harry and Ron taking on Crabbe and Goyle's appearance in Book 2. Luckdragon: Possible, but unlikely, I think. 7. Draco will join Harry in some way when he fights Voldemort. He may possibly die though, but he will end up on Harry's side. He will see the error of his ways, I'm sure. When I get to my character post on Draco you'll see why. Luckdragon: I don't agree. Jo in her chats has made it pretty clear that Draco is a bad egg through and through, but I look forward to your character post. 8. There will be some sort of alchemical process involving the trio. I suspect Harry and Hermione will be united in some spiritual way, but Ron will also be with them at the end. I know what happens, but not how Jo will symbolise this. Luckdragon: I agree and it has something to do with the 3 wands uniting. 9. I'm sure Dobby will be extremely helpful to Harry at the end. He may possible end up as Harry's elf in a voluntary capacity. Dobby will probably have very beautiful (golden?) clothes at the end. Luckdragon: That's a nice thought, but I think Dobby will die for Harry probably in a confrontation with the Malfoy's 10. I have a gut feeling (no evidence whatsoever) that Harry will help Nearly Headless Nick over the threshold. Possibly other ghosts as well, including Moaning Myrtle(?) Luckdragon: I don't know if he will get them over the threshold, that would really ruin the Hogwarts ghostly patronage, but I believe all the ghosts will come together to help in the war. 11. I DON'T think either Dumbledore or McGonagall will die (as they symbolise immortal forces). Luckdragon: I hope you're right, but I kind of see Dumbledore as an Obiwan Kenobi(sp?)and McGonagall as Yoda 12. I think McGonagall and Dumbledore will preside over the alchemical wedding, whatever form that takes. I feel very sure this will take place in Dumbledore's office. Luckdragon: That is a good possibility, but I see just Harry & LV on their own at the very end with everyone else watching, unable to help (similar to the golden cage scene)but on Hogwarts grounds, maybe in the chamber of secrets where they can invoke the spirits of the founders. 13. Lucius and Narcissa will get their comeuppance. But Harry will be kind to them. Perhaps they'll serve Harry if he takes over Hagrid's job. Luckdragon:I hope he isn't kind. I'd perversely like to see them on there knees begging Harry for there lives. 14. Voldemort and Wormtail will die together. I'm sure their death won't be violent. Something like vaporising. I guess a bit like when Voldemort when he lost his body in 1981, but this time he'll be gone for sure. Luckdragon: I see Peter doing something to weaken or defy Voldemort towards the end which will result in Peter's death, but Harry will vanquish LV. 15. Hagrid will "pass on" in some way. This means that when Harry will become keeper of the keys at Hogwarts Hagrid will be allowed to resume the progress that was cut short when he was expelled. I don't know whether he will die in the story, but that doesn't matter as Jo will prove there is no such thing as death. If he does pop his clogs he will continue his progress on the other side of the veil. No problem. Luckdragon: I fear we will lose Hagrid as well, but I don't believe Harry will take his place. 16. I have no idea what will happen to Neville, Luna, Ginny, Sibyl etc, as I don't know whether they're meant to symbolise anything or are just fill-in characters. Luckdragon: Ginny and Neville must live. Luna and Sybill I'm not too sure about. 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 Thu Jan 6 04:25:11 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:25:11 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Destiny (was Re: C. S. Lewis and Potterverse Destiny) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121252 Laurasia: > In order to give us total freedom of choice we also need to be > given a chance *not* to choose anything, ie to stick with fate. > > To choose, or not to choose, that is the question. > > In order to see the importance of choice we also need to see fate. > JKR and DD's reprise 'choices more than ability' only works if we > have both. IMO, JKR has included instances of fate- prophecies, > school houses, similarities between parent and child, etc. because > it demonstrates how easy it is to give up choice. SSSusan: I absolutely agree that the characters have the freedom to choose or to choose not to choose, but I don't see the latter as equalling Fate. I really think what Neil Peart wrote in one of my favorite Rush songs is true: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." JKR was asked flat out if she believed in fate, and she said, "No. I believe in hard work and luck and that the first often leads to the second" [The Scotsman, 10/04]. I think she may use elements that seem like fate in the books, such as the prophecies, but they'll be overshadowed by choice. Siriusly Snapey Susan From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 04:41:34 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:41:34 -0000 Subject: Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Re: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121253 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > One more thing, Dumbledore doesn't answer Snape's question > as to whether he believes Sirius's story. He only insists > he wishes to speak to Harry and Hermione alone and sends > Snape away after Fudge. To what is Snape being disloyal when > he says he hopes Dumbledore will not make difficulties? > Dumbledore hasn't given his opinion yet; surely Snape is entitled > to his? No, he doesn't. But it does seem implicit in Snape's response, and in Dumbledore's actions. If we postulate Snape-as-second-in- command, we might be expecting Snape to pick up on the signals of "Cool your heels, I have something to do here". > Snape is the banner bearer for second chances; if he blows it, or > if he must die a martyr's death to redeem himself, it's not going > to be very encouraging is it? To paraphrase a bumper sticker, > Snape needn't be perfect, just forgiven. Goodness, Pippin, are you arguing from necessity here? You weren't too supportive of the logic that says "Lupin isn't evil because he's the posterboy for good werewolves"; substitute "Snape isn't evil because he's the posterboy for second chances", and it's the same argument. Now, mind you, I'm not arguing that Snape is evil, although it's been amusingly and carefully set up so that the arguments that he is trustworthy are counterbalanced by those that he isn't, to the point that either outcome can be looked back and said "Aha! There's the setup!". Hermione says he is (as she trusts in DD), and she's often right. However, we just got DD messing up bigtime, and wouldn't it be nicely BANG-y if Ron the skeptic were right? Snape is not perfect--no one in the books is. This is not news, nor is it truly damning for him. But I think it's worth a careful examination of what mistakes he makes, and why he makes them. Again, as a nice counterbalance to the insistence that Harry is going to muck things up. -Nora wishes she had her longcoat, which is at the cleaners... From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 05:14:06 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 05:14:06 -0000 Subject: Loyalty and goodness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121254 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Nora wrote: > " But I disagree that he is not teaching the children--I think his > examples and actions point towards a path." > > Del replies: > I don't believe that the example of a Headmaster they very rarely see can have any strong influence on the majority of his students. Harry has a special connection to DD, but as far as we know no other > Hogwarts student shares such a connection. For them, DD is just a very distant Headmaster, about whom they know very very little, especially where his personal morals are concerned. > Tonks here: DD is teaching the children by example, as he teaches Harry. DD is teaching the children who READ the books. And the children who read the books start reading at an age (10 or so) where they are most open to suggestion. This is an age where they can be most influenced for the good from outside their family, but not yet the closed minded group mentality of the teenager. Tonks_op From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 05:17:33 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 05:17:33 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121255 > Antosha: > > I'll buy that. ;-) > > But also Luna. And Neville. And possibly some of the other DA members and Weaselys and > Order folk. As I've pointed out here before, I think that's part of the point of the expansion > of Harry's core group in OotP. To make Harry's reliance on Ron and Hermione less... > precious. > > To coin a Tolkienian phrase. > > I don't see Harry choosing to loose his memory, like the Tommy Lee Jones character in > Men in Black. The WW is too much his home, in a way that the Muggle world has never > been... Antosha again: Oh, and I totally buy an ending in which Harry dies, sacrificing himself to save his friends. But then I would be really shocked if Ron and/or Hermione bought it too. It just seems like too much of a bummer... and it would diminish the actual sacrifice, storytelling-wise. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 05:44:01 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 05:44:01 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: <001201c4f2b9$a1829e20$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121256 TrekkieGrrrl wrote: > > MY biggest fear is also a mix of either the series ending in general or the series NOT ending because something happens to JKR. > > I've also devoured the books in one go every time a new one was out, and I know that I'll probably take a few days off work when HBP comes out, so that I can read it in peace and quiet. But until then (and after) we have to > resort to fanfiction I guess. Carol responds: Surely we'll still find plenty to discuss on this list, not only Book 7 itself (and not just what we like and don't like about it) but the whole series, which hopefully we'll see from a new perspective when Book 7 comes out. Or I should say from 13,000 new perspectives, since no two people think alike. We can reassess all our favorite (or least favorite) characters and start looking more at thematic elements (aside from those that have been, erm, discussed to death). I'll give you an Aristotelian interpretation: "The Harry Potter series has a beginning, a middle, and an end. . . ." (That's a joke for anyone who's read Aristotle's Poetics or Frederick Crews's "Pooh Perplex.") Carol, who needs to reread "The Pooh Perplex" and read "The Postmodern Pooh" in hopes of finding a connection to the HP books, which could be used for the same purpose (skewering modern or postmodern literary criticism) From khinterberg at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 05:45:26 2005 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 05:45:26 -0000 Subject: Voldemort in hiding Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121257 Because of the discussion recently about Snape's actions in the Shack, I reread the scene. I came across a strange quote from when Sirius is talking to Pettigrew about why Pettigrew had stayed a rat for twelve years: "Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years..." p 370 POA Hold on, fifteen years? Where did that come from? I work at a library, and quickly ran to check all the copies we have: it reads "fifteen" in all of them. But that means Voldemort was in hiding about a year and a half before Harry was born if you count back from the time Sirius was speaking. Has anyone come across this puzzle before? Am I reading too much into something here? khinterberg From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Jan 6 05:51:10 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 05:51:10 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Carol wrote: > "We have to look beyond the narrator to the characters themselves, the > actions and words of the characters without the filter of Harry's > perspective and judge for ourselves." > > Del replies: > I disagree. Simply put, we don't *have* to do anything. We *can* do > it, we can encourage other people (especially the younger readers) to > do it, but no reader has any obligation to do it. Readers are entitled > to stick to the "whoever Harry likes is OK, whoever he doesn't like is > bad" measure as much as they want. For that matter, they are even > entitled to have their own highly prejudiced, totally unfounded, > absolutely contrary to canon, preferences if they so wish. For > example, anyone is entitled to loving LV because they love the name > Tom, or to cheer on Draco because he has blond hair, or to hate Harry > because he wears glasses. Hickengruendler: That's true, but JKR has given us reasons in the books to feel some sympathy for the characters. She has shown us how Snape was teased by the Marauders and gave us informations how he risked his life in the fight against Voldemort. She has told us (via Dumbledore) that Aunt Petunia helped saving Harry's life, she has shown us Percy's reaction during the second task and Sybill Trelawney's breakdown after Umbridge sacked her. And for example the Snape-Pensieve, the Percy and the Trelawney scene are not essential for the plot. In these scenes, said characters are for a moment the center of the plot, instead of Harry. If we are not meant, to feel some sympathy with those characters or to understand them a bit better, why would JKR have written it at all? > > Readers have no obligation whatsoever, and many of them might not be > willing to, or might not see the point of, trying and looking at facts > and people from a more objective point of view. When all is said and > done, if the series once completed support the "whoever Harry likes is > good, whoever Harry dislikes is bad" morality, then any reader who > doesn't care about looking for something more elaborate won't have to. Hickengruendler: But more than often Harry realizes that he was mistaken. I won't even mention all the secret villains from the first four books, who clearly were able to fool Harry and the readers (and were supposed to do so), but will concentrate on the recurring characters. In book 3, once he learned that Sirius didn't betray James and Lily, Harry was perfectly willing to ignore every bad characteristic about Sirius and to see him as a semi-god. He even didn't react when Snape mentioned the infamous break. And in book 5, he saw with his own eyes that Snape had some reasons to dislike the Marauders, in a scene, that was (bad enough as it was) much more harmless than the werewolf-prank. Harry (and the readers who share every opinion with him) have to realize, that some of their earlier judgement was wrong. At the beginning of OotP, Harry was ashamed to be seen with Luna ans Neville, because they weren't exactly helpful to impress Cho Chang. And many readers, especially those in Harry's age who can identify with him, probably agreed with him. At the end of the book, Harry has come to realize Neville's and Luna's value and is not ashamed anymore to be seen with them. In many PoA, quite a few readers (and I was not necessarily one of them) thought that Trelawney was a pitiful woman, who has found her own niche in Hogwarts to go on, because she doesn't know where else to go, and look how they were confirmed in OotP. Fudge was very nice towards Harry in the first books. From Harry's point of view, he was quite okay. Of course the facts presented another Fudge, who wanted to send Hagrid to Azkaban without a prove, and who decided to sentence Sirius to Death, while completely ignoring the account of three eye-witnesses. But because he helped Harry, Harry and some reasers thought him to be okay. And look how clearly JKR presented his faults, that were hidden in CoS and PoA, in GoF and OotP. Harry is not perfect, he judges people unfairly (and what else can you expect from a teenager, infact, most of the adults do so well), but he is still developing, and he has already changed some opinions about some characters. Not all, but he's still developing and the series is not yet over. > > Carol wrote: > "Remember Percy wading out into the water to hug Ron after the Second > Task in GoF? That, I think, was the real Percy, and I hope we'll see > him again." > > Del replies: > I agree. But what if we never see that Percy again? We will still be > able to imagine that this Percy is still there somewhere, but that > won't be what the books say. Hickengruendler: Why do you think we'll never see that Percy again? It's JKR who writes these characters. If she shows us that Percy in GoF, than she surely has a reason to do so. And I doubt the reason is that we will never see that Percy again, because in this case there wouldn't be any need to show us that Percy at all, from the point of view of the storyline. It's the same as with Snape. We saw a not so evil Snape at the end of PS, when we learned that he saved Harry. Than we saw only hints and only when we looked beyond Harry's point of view in the next books, until the end of GoF, where Snape was shown on a very positive side. > > Carol wrote: > "I think we're meant to see the contrast between Harry's (and the > narrator's) perspective and "reality" as we, the readers, construct it > based on our reading." > > Del replies: > I disagree that we are "meant" to see this contrast, and I'm not even > sure JKR hopes we do that. Do you remember her comments about Snape > and Draco being bad guys that girls shouldn't fall for just because > the actors playing them are cute? That's not a way to encourage people > to look at her characters from a different angle, IMO. Hickengruendler: I might be mistaken, but I think here she's speaking about something else than to like characters or not. She basically felt for such a bad-boy type and married him, and look how it turned out to be. I always read some worries from someone who has made bad experiences in this statement, because she fears that those are the guys the Draco- fangirls fall in love with in real life as well. Of course I can't climb into her head to see her thoughts, but that was definitely how those quotes seem to me. > > Carol wrote: > "I'm hoping that those two perspectives (the reader's and the > narrator's) will come closer together in the sixth and seventh books > as Harry starts to look more closely at other people's needs, > feelings, and values rather than always thinking about his own needs > and burdens." > > Del replies: > I *hope* so too, but what if this never happens? This is what I'm > afraid of. Harry will still be a teenager by the end of Book 7, so it > is very possible that he won't truly start looking outside of himself > before the series is over, in which case all we will be left with will > be his side of the story. It's a real possibility, that would be > consistent with the books written so far IMO. Hickengruendler: I disagree. These books are a coming-of-age story. Therefore Harry's development has to be finished by the end of the book. It might not be realistic in real life to expect philosophical insights from a seventeen-years old, but since these books tell Harry's story, he has to come full term at the end of book 7. Besides, even in real life, it's when they are around sixteen and seventeen, that teenagers left their most problematic phase behind. > > Carol wrote: > "And I also think we're meant to see certain characters, notably > Sirius Black and Severus Snape, as "gray" rather than "white" or > "black" (in the sense of Good and Evil)." > > Del replies: > And yet OoP leaves us with a Harry who hates Snape more than ever and > a Sirius turned into a martyred saint because he fell for the cause. Hickengruendler: Order of the Phoenix is not the end of the story. And OotP may leave us with Harry hating Snape more than ever, but there is a moment where he admits to himself, that it's easy blaming Snape, since he doesn't have to think of his own guilt this way. Therefore Harry has some insight at the end of the book, he just doesn't want to admit it to himself. And I don't think Sirius was turned into a martyred Saint. Dumbledore was pretty critical towards him at the end of the book. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 06:16:33 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:16:33 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121259 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > I've seen several people who have remarked that they'd just NOT like this scenario, and I see their point (though, for me, I can still see it working out). So I'd like to ask phoenixgod and others who just do not want to see Harry lose his powers, would you be okay with his losing his life instead? In other words, in your minds, would death be a better fate for Harry than life w/o his magic? Carol responds: That's a very hard question, about on a par with asking me whether I'd rather be suffocated or poisoned. Neither, thank you! But I think that Harry might just prefer being murdered to being Squibbed. No Quidditch, no career as an auror, nothing but horrible memories and no future worth living. (Yes, he has money and won't have to be poor like Lupin, but I'm sure he'd rather earn his own, and as someone pointed out, he hasn't been educated as a Muggle, either, even if he wanted to go back to that world and, say, attend Oxford. Not exactly Harry's style, I admit.) JKR says that he'd like a career full of action, and I'm sure any Muggle career offering action would seem tame after what he's seen of the WW. What he really wants, all he wants as far as I can see, is to be a normal wizard teenager. He can still do that at seventeen, "of age" or not, if he loses only the powers he gained from Voldemort and not those natural to him. What I want to know, SSS, is why you think he might lose the powers he was born with when his parents were a witch and a wizard. Is it possible to *become* a Squib if you're not born one? We haven't, IIRC, seen anything comparable with any other character who hasn't been Crucio'd into insanity or hit with a memory charm--and I'm hoping that neither the Longbottoms nor Gilderoy Lockhart foreshadows Harry's fate. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 08:02:20 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:02:20 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121260 Carol earlier: I don't think for a moment that JKR would cheat us with > an "it was all a dream" ending, but I am afraid that she'll have Harry doing something that violates the moral code she seems to be setting up here, specifically, I'm afraid that she'll have Harry murder Voldemort with an Unforgiveable Curse. (I don't care that Voldemort deserves it; I don't want Harry to be stained with the evil of his enemy's weapons.) > > > Lupinlore responded: > Hmmm. Well, we know that Voldemort has to die, unless we are being > very badly misled indeed by the prophecy. Why does it matter HOW he > dies? Dead is dead is dead, killing is killing is killing. Someone > killed by LOVE is still as dead as someone killed by AK. > > Are you arguing that it will make some difference for Harry? I > suppose it could, although we are starting to flirt with some > problematic plotting here. Is Harry going to fill himself with love > and then kill Voldemort with nothing but love in his heart? Is he > to feel nothing but love for Voldemort even as he destroys him? Is > he to be like the angel in C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce" who lays > hands on the tempting demon and burns it into ash simply with the > force of the goodness of his radiant essence? Okay, I could see > that, although I personally would not find it very satisfying as at > that moment Harry would transcend his humanity and become something > quite unworldly - something that I, personally, could not relate to. > Others, however, might well see this differently. Carol again: Yes, it will make a huge difference for Harry. Remember the terrible fate of Barty Crouch Sr., who resorted to the use of the enemy's weapons. Maybe he didn't become wholly evil, as Pippin argues, because he wanted to make amends at the end, but as far as I can see, he wasn't forgiven--not by Dumbledore and certainly not by his irredeemably evil son. (Whether there's a God in JKR's universe who'll forgive him, I can't say.) We also see what happened to Barty Jr. and to tom Riddle when they used the Unforgiveable Curses. I don't want Harry to destroy Voldemort in that way because it would undermine the system of morality that JKR is setting up, which I fear is *almost* as black and white as you depict it. It would be like Frodo choosing not to claim the One Ring but to kill Sauron with it--and succeeding. The difference is that Harry is much more nearly Voldemort's equal and could actually succeed in killing his enemy with the enemy's own weapon. I agree with you (how unusual :-)) that Harry doing something unworldly would be hard to relate to. It would also be out of character. And I have a hard time (like Del) relating Harry to Love as he's certainly no more loving than any other character and quite capable of blazing hatred. So where does that leave us? As far as I can see, with Harry's ability to feel pain and emotion, which Voldemort can't do, having lost whatever humanity he once possessed. Somehow the destruction of Voldemort is related to that capacity. You're right; it's a tricky plot problem. There are lots of wrong ways to do it, ways that are out of character for Harry or inconsistent with the morality JKR is building the story around or inconsistent with the rules that define the WW itself, her "secondary world," to use Tolkien's term. But I'm trusting JKR to pull it off, or at least devoutly hoping she will. And meantime, I'll be able to enjoy Book 6 knowing that I don't have to worry about the ending--yet. Carol, knowing that this was not a satisfactory answer and glad it's not my job to write the final scene (except for the epilogue) of Book 7 From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Jan 6 08:34:36 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:34:36 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121261 > > Carol wrote: > > "I think we're meant to see the contrast between Harry's (and the > > narrator's) perspective and "reality" as we, the readers, construct it based on our reading." > > > > Del replies: > > I disagree that we are "meant" to see this contrast, and I'm not > even sure JKR hopes we do that. Do you remember her comments about Snape and Draco being bad guys that girls shouldn't fall for just because the actors playing them are cute? That's not a way to encourage people to look at her characters from a different angle, IMO. > > Hickengruendler: > I always read some worries from someone who has made bad experiences in this statement, > > Valky: I agree with Hickengruendler, IIRC JKR also said something like, been there, done the bad boy crushing, and don't recommend it. This was definitely JKR talking about her personal experience, and not about the characters, only. OTOH when asked directly about Snapes _character_, in an interview JKR replied that we shouldn't like him *too* much, and hinted that a *worst* could be brought out in him under certain circumstances. If that isn't encouraging the reader to see a big grey patch then, I wonder what is? > > Carol wrote: > > "I'm hoping that those two perspectives (the reader's and the > > narrator's) will come closer together in the sixth and seventh books > > as Harry starts to look more closely at other people's needs, > > feelings, and values rather than always thinking about his own needs > > and burdens." > > > > Del replies: > > I *hope* so too, but what if this never happens? This is what I'm > > afraid of. Harry will still be a teenager by the end of Book 7, so > it > > is very possible that he won't truly start looking outside of > himself > > before the series is over, in which case all we will be left with > will > > be his side of the story. It's a real possibility, that would be > > consistent with the books written so far IMO. > > Hickengruendler: > > I disagree. These books are a coming-of-age story. Therefore Harry's > development has to be finished by the end of the book. It might not > be realistic in real life to expect philosophical insights from a > seventeen-years old, but since these books tell Harry's story, he has > to come full term at the end of book 7. Besides, even in real life, > it's when they are around sixteen and seventeen, that teenagers left > their most problematic phase behind. > > > > Carol wrote: > > "And I also think we're meant to see certain characters, notably > > Sirius Black and Severus Snape, as "gray" rather than "white" or > > "black" (in the sense of Good and Evil)." > > > > Del replies: > > And yet OoP leaves us with a Harry who hates Snape more than ever > and > > a Sirius turned into a martyred saint because he fell for the cause. > > Hickengruendler: > > Order of the Phoenix is not the end of the story. And OotP may leave > us with Harry hating Snape more than ever, but there is a moment > where he admits to himself, that it's easy blaming Snape, since he > doesn't have to think of his own guilt this way. Therefore Harry has > some insight at the end of the book, he just doesn't want to admit it > to himself. And I don't think Sirius was turned into a martyred > Saint. Dumbledore was pretty critical towards him at the end of the > book. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 04:32:24 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 04:32:24 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121262 >> Betsy wrote earlier: >Some of the *characters* may have their own harsh morality, but that point of view is treated rather dimly by the author. (See the tragedy that is the House of Crouch.)< >>Del replied: >I disagree. Even the Crouch example shows that there is Good and there is Evil, and if you partake of Evil even for apparently good reasons, then you're evil. The reason Crouch fell is because he used the tools of Evil : he allowed the Aurors to use the Unforgivables during VWI, he didn't let his son, a DE, pay for his crime, and he used an Unforgivable on him. Crouch partook of Evil, and by doing so he became evil too.< Betsy: I disagree that Crouch is depicted as "evil." He does start to use the tools of evil (or tyranny anyway), and I think most readers can see that the Crouch government is heading in a wrong direction, but evil seems a bit harsh. Crouch is respected by other wizards, including those whose judgement we tend to trust, like Arthur Weasley, and there isn't anything in the narrative that clues us into the idea that this man is evil. His story is one of tragedy - not moral justice. >>Del: >Inversely, when talking of DD, in PS/SS, McGonagall basically says that one reason DD is Good is because he refuses to use Dark Magic.< Betsy: McGonagall doesn't say Dumbledore is good *because* he doesn't use Dark Magic, she says, "[he's] too -- well -- noble to use them." (SS paperback, pg. 11). It might seem like I'm nitpicking, but I think it's an important difference. Out of his goodness, Dumbledore doesn't use magic in a wrong way - the way he uses magic doesn't *cause* his goodness. >>Del: >Redeemed!Draco is a theory about the future, he's a possibility, so he's irrelevant to the point I was making. What is relevant is the way Draco is being described as being *now* (bad bad bad), and what kind of judgment the author seems to pass on him (bad to the core - she called him a bad boy or something like that, after all).< Betsy: I *was* talking about Draco now. The very fact that there are theories that Draco could be redeemed and that those theories use cannon as support means that there are sympathetic messages towards Draco in the text currently. Which means that no matter what JKR says in an interview, as an author she is *not* writing Draco as repulsively evil. And JKR can write repulsively evil characters - Umbridge or Lord Voldermort for example. Harry thinks Draco is bad, bad, bad. The author, however, seems to have a slightly different take. >> Del: >Snape is the only truly grey character IMO. But you'll notice that when commentating on him, JKR systematically condemns his behaviour, and she doesn't seem to understand that some readers should like him. >You'll also notice that the *only* thing that redeems Snape is that he works for DD. He's written as a completely black character with a white lining, not as a truly grey character.< Betsy: Again, I don't care what JKR says in interviews. If it's in the books, it's in the books. And there is too much reader sympathy for Snape for me to accept that Snape's only good side is his support of Dumbledore. Like my previous nitpick I don't see a goodness in Snape because he's thrown in with Dumbledore. I believe it's Snape's goodness that has caused him to team up with Dumbledore to overthrow Voldemort. >>Del: >Fudge is more what I consider a grey character : not working for either DD or LV. And he's very clearly condemned for this greyness, right from the end of GoF.< Betsy: And see, I'd condemn Fudge for his weakness, not his greyness. Fudge is actually a fairly clear cut character. I don't think there are any hidden depths to him. He's no supporter of Voldemort, but he's a coward with delusions of granduer and he does point out the danger of power in the hands of a weak man. >> Betsy wrote: >If the characters were as black and white, if the Potterverse was as unforgiving, as you're saying it is, I don't think the books would be nearly as interesting...< >>Del replied: >First, there are many people who like black-and-white moralities, especially among the children. Second, there are *many* interesting things in HP apart from its morality.< Betsy: I should have been clearer, sorry! *I* would not find the books nearly as interesting if they were a simple morality tale. Of course I do enjoy a ripping tale of good vs. evil. Betsy, who's up way past her bedtime and cannot think of a good closing so is just going to end. From technomad at intergate.com Thu Jan 6 09:19:01 2005 From: technomad at intergate.com (ravenclaw001) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:19:01 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121263 I've been following these threads about Marietta Edgecombe and the DA, and I think it's time I put my two knuts' worth in. Firstly---having her join at all was an example of Hermione's biggest weakness. While I yield to none in admiration for Our Miss Granger, her "people skills" are, frankly, not so hot. Whether it's trying to free house-elves that don't _want_ freedom, not spotting that Marietta was seriously not keen on an anti-Umbridge group, or riling the centaurs, Hermione has shown that she's not exactly as good with people skills as she is with fact-based stuff. Even as far back as SS/PS, a less oblivious person would have figured out that her extreme eagerness was winning her no friends, and cooled off. Secondly---I am going to withhold judgement on Marietta until I find out the exact circumstances under which she talked. If, forex, she was hauled into Umbridge's office by the Inquisitorial Squad and Put To The Question, I'd say that she's a lot less culpable than she would be if she strolled in under her own power and began to make like a canary. Yes, I know that DU said that she came in freely; however, I do not consider darling DU a shining pillar of Truth, to put it mildly. We don't know how ubiquitous the Inquisitorial Squad was outside of Gryffindor House, do we? As far as I can remember, none of the Gryffs were in it, and we know that Malfoy and his Merry Men were, but how many Huffles and Ravenclaws might have been in it? All it might have taken was Marietta demonstrating that she had knowledge that she couldn't have obtained through darling Dolores' class to the wrong person or people, and she could have been hauled off to Umbridge by the scruff of her neck. And, once there---do any of you think that Dolores would hesitate to threaten, if not use, physical sanctions? Do you really think that awful quill is the only weapon in her armory? While I'd love to pick up a torch and join the happy mob in lynching Marietta in Effigy, I'm forced to hold my peace until I find out more. Maybe in HBP we'll find out just what went down. From technomad at intergate.com Thu Jan 6 09:29:16 2005 From: technomad at intergate.com (ravenclaw001) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:29:16 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121264 Just as I am with Marietta, I am withholding judgement on Percy's actions until I see clear proof that he wasn't acting as a long-term, deep-cover mole for Dumbledore at the Ministry. One thing that moles have to do is to _live_ their cover story. As in every minute of every day. Putting one foot wrong can be all it takes to destroy a cover that took months or years to build up. So, when Harry was hauled in front of the Wizengamot, for Percy to speak up for him would have seriously jeopardized his cover. Same goes for the confrontation in DD's office. Publicly and ostentatiously splitting with his known-to-be-in-DD's-pocket family would be completely necessary for his loyalty to the Ministry to be unquestioned. Also, to be blunt, _what they don't know they cannot spill._ Veritaserum, forced Penseive use, the Cruciatus Curse---none of these are As for his letter to Ron---for all he knew, someone else could see the letter, possibly DU herself. We know that owl post can be intercepted. For someone perceptive, reading between the lines, the letter comes out as a warning that Bad Things are on the way, and that DU's not to be trusted. Of course, we're dealing with Ron Weasley here, who is not, for all his virtues, a natural-born schemer and intriguer. Particularly if he wasn't ever close to Percy (and none of his family seem to be save his mother) he might not have picked up on clues that would have jumped out if he had known Percy better. So---until I get clear proof otherwise, I stand on the bridge of the sneaky submarine PUNIC FAITH---Percy Undercover Near Idiot Cornelius Fudge, Accesses Information That's Helpful. --Eric Oppen, who wonders: If Dumbledore loved playing the violin, like Sherlock Holmes did, would we call him "Fiddle-DD?" From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 11:30:35 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 11:30:35 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121265 Pippin wrote: "But Crouch didn't become evil. He did wrong and suffered the consequences but he never gave allegiance to Voldemort, and when he broke free, he sought to confess and make amends, not to get vengeance." Del replies: I agree, but he still suffered the type of punishment that awaits the bad guys: humiliation, death at the hand of his own son, no proper burial, and a name forever tainted among the Good Guys. Even his attempt to confess and make amends couldn't save him anymore (so much for forgiveness). Pippin wrote: "Snape crushes are not something you'd want to discuss in front of an audience of children, . Alan Rickman and Tom Felton crushes are respectable by comparison, which is why she always shifts the conversation to those." Del replies: But why even imply that the only reason someone might like Snape or Draco is because they have a crush on them? This is denying the very real possibility that some people might be attracted to complex, human characters. This is denying people's personal experience, the fact that some people might recognise themselves or people they know in Draco or Snape, and might hope for them to change because they've seen it happen in RL. And so on. Snape had many fans long before the movies came out, and I don't think all those fans had a crush on him. Pippin wrote: "He. Saved. Harry's. Life. " Del replies: Yes, and that is the white lining I was talking about. That and the fact that for some unfathomable reason he's solidly loyal to DD. But pretty much everything else about him is black. Pippin wrote: "It's true Snape doesn't seem to quite grasp what he's fighting for, but so what? I figure he prefers Dumbledore's principles, even though he doesn't entirely understand them, to Voldemort's, which he understands all too well. " Del replies: Snape doesn't apply any of DD's principles in his own life. Innocent until proven guilty? Expecting the best of people? Respect of equals and "inferiors"? Snape happily ignores all the principles that make DD a good man. So I wouldn't say that he prefers DD's principles. I personally think that he prefers LV's principles, but for some reason he decided to fight against LV in the war. I don't think this choice was a matter of principles, but rather that it was based on a very practical reason that we have yet to discover. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 11:53:57 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 11:53:57 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121266 Hickengruendler wrote: "That's true, but JKR has given us reasons in the books to feel some sympathy for the characters. She has shown us how Snape was teased by the Marauders and gave us informations how he risked his life in the fight against Voldemort. She has told us (via Dumbledore) that Aunt Petunia helped saving Harry's life, she has shown us Percy's reaction during the second task and Sybill Trelawney's breakdown after Umbridge sacked her. And for example the Snape-Pensieve, the Percy and the Trelawney scene are not essential for the plot. In these scenes, said characters are for a moment the center of the plot, instead of Harry. If we are not meant, to feel some sympathy with those characters or to understand them a bit better, why would JKR have written it at all?" Del replies: Don't get me wrong, I truly *hope* you're right! I really *really* want those scenes to mean something along the lines of what you say, but... Take Percy for example. He used to have much more people believing in him before OoP came out. Because of scenes such as the Second Task, many more people were willing to cut him some slack, and to disregard Ron's comments about his ambition possibly driving him to send even a member of his own family to Azkaban. But now... So could it be that the Second Task scene was put there in order for us to be even more shocked when Percy took a wrong turn in OoP? Could it be a way to tell us that even people who love their families can be corrupted by ambition (a continuation of the Crouch theme)? The thing is, we're still missing 2 books, so we can't know which way things will go. I really hope they go the way you described, but I can't get rid of the nagging feeling that they could go another way entirely (which would square with JKR's comment that she doesn't care if she has only a handful of fans left by the time Book 7 is published, if I didn't invent or mis-remembered that quote) Del From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 12:05:43 2005 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 04:05:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy Brasco? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050106120543.53369.qmail@web20027.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121267 --- ravenclaw001 wrote: > So---until I get clear proof otherwise, I stand on > the bridge of the > sneaky submarine PUNIC FAITH---Percy Undercover Near > Idiot Cornelius > Fudge, Accesses Information That's Helpful. I'm with you. I'm not sure exactly what is up with Percy, and I admit it. But I identify with him strongly. I'm not like him, in most ways (except the no-sense-of-humor and maybe the getting-picked-on; I have no ambition) but I have a soft spot for him. He's my favorite. But he went from three-dimension to two-dimensional and we got most of our information about him second-hand. It sent up flags for me, and I'd be disappointed if there didn't turn out to be anything to it. It'd be Percy going from a rounded character to a flat one. Rebecca ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 12:20:14 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:20:14 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121268 Betsy wrote: "I disagree that Crouch is depicted as "evil." He does start to use the tools of evil (or tyranny anyway), and I think most readers can see that the Crouch government is heading in a wrong direction, but evil seems a bit harsh. Crouch is respected by other wizards, including those whose judgement we tend to trust, like Arthur Weasley, and there isn't anything in the narrative that clues us into the idea that this man is evil. His story is one of tragedy - not moral justice." Del replies: Crouch brought his own tragedy on himself, by using evil methods. He never became MoM because people were uncomfortable with his morality. Once the war was over, they reconsidered his decision of allowing the Aurors to use the Unforgivables and came to see it for what it was : a decision of dubious moral value. And of course the thing that definitely killed Crouch's career was the little matter of his son being found with DEs torturing Aurors. This episode emphasized 2 points of Crouch's morality that people objected to : first the fact that he would show so little compassion as to send his own son to Azkaban without any apparent qualms and without showing any concern over his wife sobbing and passing out at his feet, and second the assumption that his son turned bad because his father put his career before his family and never cared about his growing son. Then Crouch's wife died because, among other things, she couldn't stand the fact that her only son had been sent to Azkaban by her own husband. And finally Crouch's final tragedy would never have happened if Crouch had not (1)illegally removed his son from Azkaban, (2)used an Unforgivable on him, and (3)sacked his House-Elf who was the only help he had. As a result, Crouch suffered a most infamous fate: killed by his own son, no proper burial (he was Transfigured into a common bone and buried like some dog's toy), and his name fallen into disgrace among the heroes. I would call this story a story of moral justice indeed. Betsy wrote: "McGonagall doesn't say Dumbledore is good *because* he doesn't use Dark Magic, she says, "[he's] too -- well -- noble to use them." (SS paperback, pg. 11). It might seem like I'm nitpicking, but I think it's an important difference. Out of his goodness, Dumbledore doesn't use magic in a wrong way - the way he uses magic doesn't *cause* his goodness." Del replies: Agreed : the way DD uses magic doesn't *make* him good or evil, it *shows* what he is. This is very consistent with what he later tells Harry about our choices showing who we are. But according to that logic, Crouch's choices did show that he was evil, even if he had good intentions and was fighting the Totally Evil Guy. Betsy wrote: "Which means that no matter what JKR says in an interview, as an author she is *not* writing Draco as repulsively evil." Del replies: I actually agree : I personally pity Draco, I don't see him as repulsively evil, more like pathetic. Betsy wrote: "Again, I don't care what JKR says in interviews. If it's in the books, it's in the books." Del replies: Heh, I said that first, lol! Betsy wrote: "I believe it's Snape's goodness that has caused him to team up with Dumbledore to overthrow Voldemort. " Del replies: And what was it that caused him to become a DE to start with? What is it that prevents him from emulating the behaviour of his current master and adopting DD's principles? Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 12:35:48 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:35:48 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco? In-Reply-To: <20050106120543.53369.qmail@web20027.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121269 Eric Oppen wrote: "So---until I get clear proof otherwise, I stand on the bridge of the sneaky submarine PUNIC FAITH---Percy Undercover Near Idiot Cornelius Fudge, Accesses Information That's Helpful." Rebecca added: "I'm with you." Del replies: Thanks for speaking up guys :-) I'm not sure I'll follow you in the submarine - at least not without bringing my personal escape pod with me ;-) I still believe that Percy might just have been sincerely wrong and mistaken, but I would love it if he were a mole instead! Rebecca wrote: "But ... we got most of our information about him second-hand." Del replies: Hmm, I'd never reflected on that before. But now that you mention it, it does bring up flags for me too. It reminds me of the situation with Sirius in PoA, or even the situation with Snape in PS/SS. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 13:11:52 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 13:11:52 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121270 Carol wrote earlier: "specifically, I'm afraid that she'll have Harry murder Voldemort with an Unforgiveable Curse. (I don't care that Voldemort deserves it; I don't want Harry to be stained with the evil of his enemy's weapons.)" Lupinlore responded: "Why does it matter HOW he dies? Dead is dead is dead, killing is killing is killing. Someone killed by LOVE is still as dead as someone killed by AK. (snip) Is Harry going to fill himself with love and then kill Voldemort with nothing but love in his heart? (snip) I personally would not find it very satisfying as at that moment Harry would transcend his humanity and become something quite unworldly - something that I, personally, could not relate to." Carol answered: "We also see what happened to Barty Jr. and to tom Riddle when they used the Unforgiveable Curses. I don't want Harry to destroy Voldemort in that way because it would undermine the system of morality that JKR is setting up, which I fear is *almost* as black and white as you depict it. (snip) I agree with you (how unusual :-)) that Harry doing something unworldly would be hard to relate to. It would also be out of character. And I have a hard time (like Del) relating Harry to Love as he's certainly no more loving than any other character and quite capable of blazing hatred. So where does that leave us? As far as I can see, with Harry's ability to feel pain and emotion, which Voldemort can't do, having lost whatever humanity he once possessed. Somehow the destruction of Voldemort is related to that capacity." Del replies to all of it: I agree totally with everything Carol said, and I also completely agree with Lupinlore that Harry being completely filled with Love would be too other-wordly to be believable (not to mention that as a Christian I would find it somewhat sacrilegious) : there's no way Harry can turn in less than 2 years from the Snape-hating Harry we see at the end of OoP into a LV-loving person. At least I can't see such a way that would be believable. Unless Harry has some road-to-Damascus-type spiritual experience, maybe in the Love room (if that's what it is). We'll see. But I tend more to think like Carol, that it will have to do more with Harry's humanity. And of course there's still that unanswered question : what is that power that Harry possesses that makes him the Vanquisher? What is it that he has and that nobody else has? Del From koticzka at wp.pl Thu Jan 6 13:35:35 2005 From: koticzka at wp.pl (Koticzka) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:35:35 +0100 Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Fw:_pro=C5=9Bba_-_poszukiwania_rodzic?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=B3w_ch=C5=82opca_znalezionego_po_tsuna?= =?utf-8?Q?mi_?= Message-ID: <005501c4f3f4$9d607290$0700000a@ola> No: HPFGUIDX 121271 ----- Original Message ----- From: Transkom To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:09 AM Subject: Fw: pro?ba Witam serdecznie, Otrzymali?my e-maila z pro?b? o rozpowszechnienie go w Internecie. Szpital w Phuket poszukuje rodzic?w 2-letniego ch?opca - ofiary tsunami - znalezionego na Khoa Lak. Nie wiadomo, z jakiego kraju ch?opiec pochodzi. Kontakt: 076-249400-4 ext. 1336, 1339 e-mail: info at phuket-inter-hospital.co.th Prosimy o rozpowszechnienie wiadomo?ci. Looking for his family. Please send this to all - we mean all! - the people in your entire network. Nobody knows who this boy belongs to! The boy about 2 years, from Khoa Lak is missing his parents. Nobody knows what country he comes from. If anyboy known him please Contact us by phone 076-249400-4 ext. 1336, 1339 or e- mail : info at phuket-inter-hospital.co.th Sindbad- Hotele Al. Krasi?skiego1 31-111 Krak?w Tel: (0-12) 619-34-02 biuro at sindbad-hotele.pl www.sindbad-hotele.pl [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 6 14:25:32 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:25:32 -0000 Subject: Harry losing (some of?) his powers (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121272 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > > I've seen several people who have remarked that they'd just NOT > > like this scenario, and I see their point (though, for me, I can > > still see it working out). So I'd like to ask phoenixgod and > > others who just do not want to see Harry lose his powers, would > > you be okay with his losing his life instead? In other words, in > > your minds, would death be a better fate for Harry than life w/o > > his magic? Carol responded: > That's a very hard question, about on a par with asking me whether > I'd rather be suffocated or poisoned. Neither, thank you! > What I want to know, SSS, is why you think he might lose the powers > he was born with.... SSSusan: Um. Well. I don't know. :-) Seriously, we were talking about our FEARS for the end of the series, and I am afraid that JKR has decided to either kill Harry off or have him sacrifice *something* in the course of vanquishing Voldy. So his losing his magical powers is just a possibility which has come up here several times. Carol also said: > What he really wants, all he wants as far as I can see, is to be a > normal wizard teenager. He can still do that at seventeen, "of age" > or not, if he loses only the powers he gained from Voldemort and > not those natural to him. SSSusan: I agree wholeheartedly, and Harry's being just a normal teenage wizard is my *wish* for the series conclusion. Frankly, I'd not thought of what you're suggesting -- that Harry might lose only those powers he gained from Voldy at GH. We don't know the extent of those powers at this point, though there's been lots of speculation about it. All we know for certain is the Parseltongue skill. But this idea of his losing only those powers he gained from Voldy is something I find quite satisfactory! It *could* be that he gained very little, that he was going to be a pretty talented & powerful wizard on his own, thankyouverymuch. It's also possible that he gained a *lot* of powers from Voldy, and he might be left significantly weakened. But I'd still take either of these possibilities for Harry over his dying *or* his losing all magical abilities. Siriusly Snapey Susan From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 14:37:24 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:37:24 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121273 Carol wrote: "What I want to know, SSS, is why you think he might lose the powers he was born with when his parents were a witch and a wizard. Is it possible to *become* a Squib if you're not born one?" Del replies: I really don't think he was, but do we know for sure that Harry wasn't born a Squib? Del From j.balfour at leedsmet.ac.uk Thu Jan 6 15:26:07 2005 From: j.balfour at leedsmet.ac.uk (Boolean) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:26:07 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: <20050104202801.84641.qmail@web52001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121274 > amdorn wrote: > > Tell me, what do you fear the most? > > Luckdragon: > > My greatest fear at the end of the series is that Harry will wake up one day, look in the mirror, and seeing no scar on his forehead will realize it was all a dream. Ha ha! That will never happen! JKR is far too shrewd to take the Bobby Ewing/Dallas route. My greatest fear is that, after years of waiting, speculating and excited anticipation, I will finally get to the end of Book 7 and know the answers to all the questions I have and be.......disappointed. Boolean From darkthirty at shaw.ca Thu Jan 6 16:03:37 2005 From: darkthirty at shaw.ca (Dan Feeney) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:03:37 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121275 Luckdragon: > My greatest fear at the end of the series is that Harry will wake > up one day, look in the mirror, and seeing no scar on his forehead > will realize it was all a dream. Boolean: > My greatest fear is that, after years of waiting, speculating and > excited anticipation, I will finally get to the end of Book 7 and > know the answers to all the questions I have and > be.......disappointed. Dan: The system I find in the books, with my unpopular reading, is one of mirroring. Characters from different generations reflect in each other in fundamental ways, such that, in the back of our heads, we are seeing parallelism between MWPP and the trio (sextet, now), for example, and also, a kind of parallelism between certain elements of the magical world and the muggle world. (I've noted before the way the magical world reflects our own world more closely than Rowling's muggle one.) However, the true core of the books, ethically, seems centred on the idea of deceit. (Probably why it doesn't surprise me there are so many quasi-paranoid theories here on the list and elsewhere. Anyone could be hiding something of great import, that would change our view of what we've already read, etc.) The idea of "inhabitation" or possession by external will, is a recurring theme, recurring plot: Quirrel, Ginny by the diary of Tom Riddle, Lupin as werewolf, Fake!Moody, Lord Voldemort using legilimency against Harry etc. There are ongoing deceptions as well - particularly exemplified by Dumbledore's "reticence." What that creates is the circumstance where decisions might be made in "good" but be enveloped wholly by "evil," or vice versa. What is this deceit? Why is it in every book? Lack of true omniscience in JK Rowling's books strikes me as a kind of abhorance of moral procedure. It won't get you where you need to go, she seems to be saying. There is something else motivating and directing, or rather, urging. Other times I am reminded of my friend, who was moaning about her time in art school - it often, to her, seemed like standing in an empty warehouse, shouting into the emptiness. Is there something in the books that will stand like a band of pure white light inside, guiding us truly home, some soul signpost on the journey? The essential question being asked on the list seems to be "JKR, what are you saying (about the characters, about us)?" Is it projection? Do we wish to measure ourselves against her ethical stance? And, measuring ourselves against her ethical stance, will we judge her according to where we see ourselves in that system? Does the sense that Rowling lives in ambiguity strike a deeper chord with us than any formally structured cosmology? It is not impossible that the entire series is a kind of spell, in fact, or, more accurately, a kind of enactment of liberation, almost solely wrought in the mind of an imprisoned boy. In this way, Hans and his intepretations and reflections is close to the mark, though he uses a particular, peculiar language to express it. I have posted on this many times. To read the series this way is an art, yes, and not casually similar to my friend's art school plaints. And yet, reading the series this way, I feel no immense dread/apprehension about "ending." My greatest fear, then, goes something like my greatest joy. That the series will end less tightly then some hope, and that my reading, allowed to continue, will gain almost no converts, and I alone, or with a few others, will see the ethical immensity of Rowling's project, how it has entranced so many, who examine the minutest things, but leave the "soul" question aside, as if it were extraneous, something inessential, or too "open to interpretation" to be worth discussing. Cause for me, Rowling is as clear as day, with all her ambiguities. It is, in a large part, a cautionary tale. Maybe the end of dialogue and ethical questioning, the rise of "moral codes" is part of what is being flagged.... Dan From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 16:41:02 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:41:02 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121276 "ravenclaw001" wrote: > Just as I am with Marietta, I am withholding > judgement on Percy's actions until I see > clear proof that he wasn't acting as a long-term, > deep-cover mole for Dumbledore at the Ministry. I wonder, are you withholding judgment of Umbridge's actions too? I doubt it, but you could make an equally strong (weak may be a better word) case that she was also a deep-cover mole for Dumbledore. I have never heard anyone actually argue this and I think I know why, her last name is not Weasley. Despite what Aunt Marge says it's not true that "it's all in the blood", sometimes a very bad family can produce a very good person such as Sirius, and sometimes the opposite is true such as Percy. Is it possible Percy is a mole for Dumbledore? Sure. It's also possible pigs may fly, but some things are too unlikely to worry about. There will never come a time when you have ALL the information that would be relevant in making a decision, but there comes a time when you need to make a decision and make a stand. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 16:52:55 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:52:55 -0000 Subject: Harry losing his powers,. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121277 Harry losing his powers would be a very depressing way to end book 7, it would literally kill the magic. What a horrible fate for poor Harry, he goes bald, develops a pot belly, bores children to death by retelling adventures of his youth that they've all heard 199 times before and has nothing to look forward to except his weekly Wednesday night bowling with Ron. Then we flash forward more years and find Harry drooling and confined to a nursing home with advanced Alzheimer's disease. Better he should never get old, better he go out heroically in a blaze of glory while still a teenager at the peak of his powers. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 17:18:45 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:18:45 -0000 Subject: Percy. ( Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: <003d01c4f35b$b861b0c0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121278 "manawydan" wrote: > Do you think that's Percy's ambition then? > If so, he's changed his mind: it used to be that he wanted to > become Minister. Not, to my mind, > something that needs a particularly > powerful wizard Ron informed us about Percy's ambition when he was in the first year and Percy was in the fifth, at the time that's probably the highest position he could think of. The Minister is nominally the most powerful wizard in the world and most of the time he actually is, but now the most powerful wizard does not want the job and it fell to a weak man who must be the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain. Percy is ambitious, I don't think you can seriously deny it, and now his career with the ministry is dead so he must go to the death eaters. I might add that 3 years later Ron informs us of something else, he tells us that Percy would betray his family to the Dementors if it would advance his career. Eggplant From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 6 17:43:30 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:43:30 -0000 Subject: Percy. ( Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121279 Eggplant wrote: > Percy is ambitious, I don't think you can seriously deny it, and now his career with the ministry is dead so he must go to the death > eaters. > I might add that 3 years later Ron informs us of something else, he tells us that Percy would betray his family to the Dementors if it would advance his career. > Potioncat: I don't agree that his career is dead. Although it is weakened. And I don't think his only options are ministry or Death Eaters. As for Ron, well, he was wrong about Crookshanks, too. Potioncat From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 17:46:01 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:46:01 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality - Combined answers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121280 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: >> Nora: >> Knowing all the information requires one to re-read the past with >> knowledge of the future, and to go "Well, maybe that Sympathetic! >> Draco reading of mine really *wasn't* there". [For a good >> example, search the archives and you'll find a well-known but no >> longer active here poster arguing that Draco was really honestly >> trying to warn Hermione in the DE ramage scene in GoF. That >> doesn't exactly hold up with OotP Draco.] > > Betsy: > *rubs hands gleefully* Oh, I'm not counting Draco out yet. I > think the books have strongly hinted that Slytherin House is > needed for good to prevail (see the Sorting Hat song) and while > Dumbledore has his own Slytherin in Snape, Harry needs one for > himself. Enter Draco. *crosses fingers* Though I don't expect > him to end up lily white by series end. Yes, but the scenario that Slytherin House is needed and the idea that "Harry needs Draco for himself" (so I paraphrase with slightly in-bad-faith intent, but yes, I am giggling at something) do not imply each other in any way, shape, or form. Draco's function in the series so far is to be an antagonist, but more importantly, to be a poster child for what the child of a DE thinks like. No Draco, no 'Mudblood' scene in CoS, which is where (at least I did) you go 'woah' as the world suddenly takes a different spin--although that was, of course, set up by Draco from the very beginning, with the "some wizarding families are better than others", etc. Draco leads a claque within Slytherin House (per the inclusion of his cronies in the Inquisitorial Squad), and it seems to be dominant. Draco has shown no clearly demonstrable tendencies to change his thinking or his ideals in five books. The arguments for his sympathy are fairly tendentious, IMO. What seems eminently more possible is the emergence of Slytherins who had nothing to do with the IS, and are independent of Draco's claque. (The ever-enigmatic Mr. Zabini, who we have been told we will see more of.) Finally given an opening by Draco's fall from social standing (thanks to Daddy being in the slammer), they can finally get the backbone to come out and say "They've done you all wrong, but we're not like that". And yes, I do think it will take a public statement, because there are times you have to suck it up and say things like that out loud. This also involves a repudiation of the blood standard of Slytherin House, hence my idea that Slytherin House will have to disavow its foundational idea to join the others. See? House Unity, and Draco is off in the corner plotting revenge. Now, it could be him--but I'll bet anyone that it's not. And to combine posts, this is from your post at 121262: > Betsy: > I *was* talking about Draco now. The very fact that there are > theories that Draco could be redeemed and that those theories use > cannon as support means that there are sympathetic messages towards > Draco in the text currently. That those theories use text does not mean that there *are* sympathetic messages in the text. It means that those reading the text can construct sympathetic messages, because all those readings of the text are highly subject to "If you look at it this way, and put it together with this, you get a hint!" I'm a firm believer that interpretation is not an utter free for all, and there are different levels of evidence and explicitness about such. You may choose not to use the interviews: I do. They make a very handy regulator at times, especially for more general perspectives and thematic projection. > Which means that no matter what JKR says in an interview, as an > author she is *not* writing Draco as repulsively evil. And JKR can > write repulsively evil characters - Umbridge or Lord Voldermort > for example. Harry thinks Draco is bad, bad, bad. The author, > however, seems to have a slightly different take. No, he's not repulsively evil. But he is a repugnant character, she speaks of him as such, and while he is not evil like those others, you have to twist the text AND ignore large parts of it to make him more than neutral. You have to ignore a lot of things, the major one being his ideological commitment. He may get over that, or not-- signs are pointing more strongly to no than to yes. But again, say we get JuniorDE!Draco--that pretty much means the sympathy, if it was there at all, was pretty fleeting. > [As an aside: This is a really good and indepth post on Draco, for > those interested. > http://www.livejournal.com/community/idol_reflection/17096.html ] Admittedly a nice discussion of how and why the pernicious creature called Fanon!Draco exists. I don't buy the structural analysis, though: if anyone is Draco's double/parallel by this time in the series, it's Ron, not Harry. >:) (which completely deflates The Major Claim of the H/D shippers. not that hard to do...) -Nora thinks that last one is begging for a post of its own: takers? From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 6 18:08:31 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:08:31 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121281 Dan said: > The essential question being asked on the list seems to be "JKR, > what are you saying (about the characters, about us)?" Is it > projection? Do we wish to measure ourselves against her ethical > stance? And, measuring ourselves against her ethical stance, will > we judge her according to where we see ourselves in that system? > Does the sense that Rowling lives in ambiguity strike a deeper > chord with us than any formally structured cosmology? SSSusan: Dan, I think you ARE asking THE question here. I think likely it IS a measure of projection for many of us. We are more disturbed not KNOWING what she's saying, what she's thinking; Are we missing the message?, What is the bloody message? The ambiguity is frustrating. We want to know if we agree with her "system." And you're saying that you believe the ambiguity is intentional? Or that JKR just *is* ambiguous in this area? (Sorry if I'm being dense there.) Can you explain more about what you meant by the "ethical immensity of Rowling's project," since you see her as "clear as day" and her opus as "in large part a cautionary tale." Am I correct that you're referring to your belief that JKR abhors moral procedure, doesn't believe in true omniscience? I'm not sure I believe this is true, but I'd be willing to hear more if you can point me to a post # or could explain further? Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 18:08:51 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:08:51 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality - Combined answers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121282 Nora: Draco's function in the series so far is to be an antagonist, but more importantly, to be a poster child for what the child of a DE thinks like. Alla: Yes, yes, but I always a bit sad when a character's only function is to be a plot device. I guess you can say that you really need character like that to be protagonist, but I don't know .., it is just so 2-D. Nora: snip. No Draco, no 'Mudblood' scene in CoS, which is where (at least I did) you go 'woah' as the world suddenly takes a different spin--although that was, of course, set up by Draco from the very beginning, with the "some wizarding families are better than others", etc. Draco leads a claque within Slytherin House (per the inclusion of his cronies in the Inquisitorial Squad), and it seems to be dominant. Draco has shown no clearly demonstrable tendencies to change his thinking or his ideals in five books. The arguments for his sympathy are fairly tendentious, IMO. What seems eminently more possible is the emergence of Slytherins who had nothing to do with the IS, and are independent of Draco's claque. (The ever-enigmatic Mr. Zabini, who we have been told we will see more of.) Finally given an opening by Draco's fall from social standing (thanks to Daddy being in the slammer), they can finally get the backbone to come out and say "They've done you all wrong, but we're not like that". And yes, I do think it will take a public statement, because there are times you have to suck it up and say things like that out loud. This also involves a repudiation of the blood standard of Slytherin House, hence my idea that Slytherin House will have to disavow its foundational idea to join the others. See? House Unity, and Draco is off in the corner plotting revenge. Now, it could be him--but I'll bet anyone that it's not. Alla: Oh, absolutely. I see no signs of Draco changing his views whatsoever, not a slightest hint. What I see is Draco eagerly adopting his father's views AND using them when smallest possibility (namely Hermione arises) I loved that scene in CoS and Ron's articulate response, which to me shows that even twelve year old can have pretty good grasp of ideology ( to his age, of course) :o). Just as many, I long for good Slytherin to appear or for good Slytherins, which will be even better, but I am in complete agreement with you - it won't be Draco. :o) Would love to be wrong on this one, but will consider it a sloppy writing at the same time, since don't see any hints about Draco's redemption. And yep, I don't see the possibility of Slytherin House' continuous existence at the end without them doing away with tehir blood- superiority ideology. Just as I think we are due for radical change of whole WW ideology, actually. :o) Just my opinion, Alla From HP5Freak at aol.com Thu Jan 6 18:25:45 2005 From: HP5Freak at aol.com (HP5Freak at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:25:45 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort in hiding Message-ID: <128.53a00dcc.2f0edca9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121283 In a message dated 1/5/2005 11:48:26 PM Central Standard Time, khinterberg at yahoo.com writes: > Because of the discussion recently about Snape's actions in the Shack, > I reread the scene. I came across a strange quote from when Sirius is > talking to Pettigrew about why Pettigrew had stayed a rat for twelve > years: > > "Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years..." p 370 POA > > Hold on, fifteen years? Where did that come from? I work at a library, > and quickly ran to check all the copies we have: it reads "fifteen" in > all of them. But that means Voldemort was in hiding about a year and > a half before Harry was born if you count back from the time Sirius > was speaking. Has anyone come across this puzzle before? Am I > reading too much into something here? > > khinterberg > Amberlyn (Celestina) I found this statement rather interesting too. I was reading the book for my HP book club, trying to catch clues and stay ahead when I found that little thing. I too checked all my copies of the book and checked the copies at work (I work in a library too). Was this just a mistake on Sirius's part (like when you say you've known someone for 15 years because it is a standby number as opposed to say 12 years, 5 months, 27 days, 15 hours, 3 min...well, you get my point)...or perhaps Sirius really HAS lost track of time. Or the dreaded hidden clue that we won't get an answer for until book 7...or even a whoopsie! Amberlyn...who can't wait to bring this up in her club... :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 6 18:38:49 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:38:49 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality - Combined answers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121284 > Alla: > > Yes, yes, but I always a bit sad when a character's only function is > to be a plot device. > I guess you can say that you really need character like that to be > protagonist, but I don't know .., it is just so 2-D. > > Potioncat: Haven't you ever known a "bad kid"? No, I don't believe anyone is born bad. And I don't believe a child is destined to be evil... but I've known bad kids. And I've heard of really, really bad kids... I wouldn't be surprised if JKR didn't know someone like Draco and used that basis for the character. And, well, in a work of fiction characters are plot devices. There isn't enough time or enough pages to have characters wandering around for no reason at all. I don't see Draco as 2-D, although Crabbe and Goyle are. But they serve a purpose as well. So for whatever reason, JKR put this narrow minded, self-centered character into the plot and pitted him against Harry. I'm not sure what she'll do with him...to him...about him. But there he is. But it's like real life, if you go to school with a kid who believes very strongly in everything you don't, you still have to put up with that kid until you're both out of school. And if that kid is very good at not getting caught, then it's all the worse. Potioncat who isn't sure she contributed anything at all to this discussion From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Jan 6 18:47:55 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:47:55 -0000 Subject: Voldemort in hiding In-Reply-To: <128.53a00dcc.2f0edca9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121285 > khinterberg writes: > > > Because of the discussion recently about Snape's actions in the > > Shack, I reread the scene. I came across a strange quote from > > when Sirius is talking to Pettigrew about why Pettigrew had > > stayed a rat for twelve > > years: > > > > "Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years..." p 370 POA > > > > Hold on, fifteen years? Where did that come from? I work at a > > library, and quickly ran to check all the copies we have: it > > reads "fifteen" in all of them. But that means Voldemort was in > > hiding about a year and a half before Harry was born if you > > count back from the time Sirius was speaking. Has anyone come > > across this puzzle before? Am I reading too much into something > > here? > Amberlyn (Celestina) > (snipped) > I too checked all my copies of the book and checked the copies at > work (I work in a library too). Was this just a mistake on > Sirius's part (like when you say you've known someone for 15 years > because it is a standby number as opposed to say 12 years, 5 > months, 27 days, 15 hours, 3 min...well, you get my > point)... Dungrollin: I'm afraid my copy (UK paperback p 271) says 12 years - if we're talking about the same bit: "I'll tell you why," said Black. "Because you never did anything for anyone unless you could see what was in it for you. Voldemort's been in hiding for twelve years, they say he's half-dead..." Was it that bit? From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 18:48:25 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:48:25 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121286 "ravenclaw001" wrote: > Firstly---having her [Marietta] join > at all was an example of Hermione's > biggest weakness. It's easy to say that now, but before the very end if you had asked me to pick a possible traitor in the DA Marietta would not have been my first guess, she wouldn't have even made my top 5. Did you do better? And anyway, the fact that she was there was Cho's fault not Hermione's. > Whether it's trying to free house-elves At times she may be a bit overly enthusiastic about house elves but that's why I love her, and she's doing the right thing. Outside of Harry she is my favorite character. > or riling the centaurs If Hermione hadn't made the "mistake" of "riling the centaurs" Harry would be dead, or worse. Eggplant From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 6 18:57:16 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:57:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort in hiding In-Reply-To: <128.53a00dcc.2f0edca9@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050106185716.41924.qmail@web52009.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121287 HP5Freak at aol.com wrote: > Because of the discussion recently about Snape's actions in the Shack, > I reread the scene. I came across a strange quote from when Sirius is > talking to Pettigrew about why Pettigrew had stayed a rat for twelve > years: > > "Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years..." p 370 POA > > Hold on, fifteen years? Where did that come from? I work at a library, > and quickly ran to check all the copies we have: it reads "fifteen" in > all of them. But that means Voldemort was in hiding about a year and > a half before Harry was born if you count back from the time Sirius > was speaking. Has anyone come across this puzzle before? Am I > reading too much into something here? > > khinterberg > Luckdragon: If the Order of the Phoenix had been up and running 4 years prior to Harry's birth I would think LV would would have kept his location hidden to prevent the Order from coming after him. Possibly Lily and James both joining the Order in their latter years at Hogwarts and working together against LV is what made them become a couple. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From technomad at intergate.com Thu Jan 6 18:59:13 2005 From: technomad at intergate.com (ravenclaw001) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:59:13 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121288 > "ravenclaw001" wrote: > > > Firstly---having her [Marietta] join > > at all was an example of Hermione's > > biggest weakness. > > It's easy to say that now, but before the very end if you had asked > me to pick a possible traitor in the DA Marietta would not have been > my first guess, she wouldn't have even made my top 5. Did you do > better? And anyway, the fact that she was there was Cho's fault not > Hermione's. I agree---Cho should have known better. I'd expect more smarts from a Ravenclaw. Still and all, Hermione probably should have sussed out her lack of enthusiasm and gently eased her out of the Hog's Head. "Oh, Marietta---didja know that there's a big Free Chocolate deal down at Honeyduke's?" *Hermione gets trampled in the stampede as all the girls present rush out the door* "Well, that worked---a little _too_ well!" > > > Whether it's trying to free house-elves > > At times she may be a bit overly enthusiastic about house elves but > that's why I love her, and she's doing the right thing. Outside of > Harry she is my favorite character. I love her too---if I had a little girl like her I'd be firmly wrapped around her little finger. That said, I'm not blind to her faults, and she does rather lack people skills and tact sometimes. > > > or riling the centaurs > > If Hermione hadn't made the "mistake" of "riling the centaurs" Harry > would be dead, or worse. I'm not talking about just going into the FF. Once Dolores was busy digging her grave with her own big flapping mouth, the smartest thing Our Miss Granger could have done was STFU and stay that way. She nearly got herself and Harry into the same sort of trouble DU got into by letting the centaurs know that she had been trying to use them, and if Grawp hadn't come over the hill like the cavalry she'd have been in rather the same sort of sticky predicament that DU was. > > Eggplant Eric Oppen---who wants to know: When Firenze is teaching his Divination classes, is he the Centaur of Attention? From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 19:35:03 2005 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:35:03 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121289 Eggplant: > > It's easy to say that now, but before the very end if you had asked > > me to pick a possible traitor in the DA Marietta would not have > been > > my first guess, she wouldn't have even made my top 5. Did you do > > better? And anyway, the fact that she was there was Cho's fault not > > Hermione's. Ravenclaw001: > > I agree---Cho should have known better. I'd expect more smarts from > a Ravenclaw. Still and all, Hermione probably should have sussed out > her lack of enthusiasm and gently eased her out of the Hog's Head. > Now Cory: I agree that *somebody* should have picked up on Marietta's lack of enthusiasm for the group. Here's a question though: why is it automatically Hermione's responsibility to do so (and thus, Hermione's fault that nobody caught on)? Cho knew Marietta best, and was thus in the best position to know what she was thinking; thus I would say Cho deserves some blame for not predicting Marietta's actions. Beyond that though, what is the basis for holding Hermione responsible? Sure, she could have picked up on the fact that Marietta didn't want to be there, but so could Harry, Ron, or anybody else in the group. The only basis for holding Hermione responsible is that it was her idea to form the DA in the first place. That reasoning just doesn't hold any water with me, though -- the fact that the group was her idea should not make her responsible for the actions of all of its members. --Cory From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Thu Jan 6 19:44:37 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:44:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potterverse Destiny (was Re: C. S. Lewis and Potterverse Destiny) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501061445997.SM01300@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 121290 > Laurasia: > > In order to give us total freedom of choice we also need to > be given a > > chance *not* to choose anything, ie to stick with fate. > > > > To choose, or not to choose, that is the question. > > > > In order to see the importance of choice we also need to see fate. > > JKR and DD's reprise 'choices more than ability' only works > if we have > > both. IMO, JKR has included instances of fate- prophecies, school > > houses, similarities between parent and child, etc. because it > > demonstrates how easy it is to give up choice. > > > SSSusan: > I absolutely agree that the characters have the freedom to choose or > to choose not to choose, but I don't see the latter as equalling > Fate. I really think what Neil Peart wrote in one of my favorite > Rush songs is true: "If you choose not to decide, you still have > made a choice." > > JKR was asked flat out if she believed in fate, and she said, "No. I > believe in hard work and luck and that the first often leads to the > second" [The Scotsman, 10/04]. I think she may use elements that > seem like fate in the books, such as the prophecies, but they'll be > overshadowed by choice. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Vivamus: Excellent point, SSSusan, and thank you, Laurasia, for your kind comment and good thoughts earlier. I wonder if we are not thinking of different things when we use the word "Fate". On the one hand, there is the common understanding of "fate" as the perversity of the universe in general, which sometimes seems to act randomly, and at other times as if there were conscious purpose to the things that befall us. On the other hand, there is the classical understanding of the Fates, who (my memory of this is very foggy) were blind goddesses who predetermined the time of one's death, as well as causing bad things to happen to us, and (rarely) good things as well. (My apologies for inaccuracies in that; it's been a *lot* of years since I read it.) On the *other* other hand (the gripping hand), there is the goddess Wyrd (sp?), who much more actively and capriciously manipulates lives. (Wasn't Destiny another name for Wyrd in an associated culture?) It seems to me that most people, when they talk about fate, talk about it as if they lived in an impersonal universe, but as if the future were consciously controlled. Sort of a blending of the three ways of looking at it. As in, there is no One who determines what will happen, but somehow the future is irrevocably set, and we are unable to control it. I suspect, when JKR was answering that question, she was addressing that understanding of "fate." Contrasted with that view of the universe, though, JKR is a Christian, from what I've read. What makes that most interesting to me is that she is (from what I've heard) a member of a denomination that used to, at least, have the strongest view of predetermination of all the many branches of Christianity. So here is someone who is a member of a church that used to categorically deny free will, yet writes such magnificent illustrations in story of strength of free will that can move the stars, if I understand what the centaurs are saying. It does make me wonder if she ever gets picked on, in a friendly way, by the members or clergy of her church about her point of view. Vivamus, who absolutely believes in destiny (with a small d), but also believes it is also dependent upon free will From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 6 19:59:41 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:59:41 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality - Combined answers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121291 > Nora: > > Draco's function in the series so far is to be an antagonist, but > more importantly, to be a poster child for what the child of a DE > thinks like. > > Alla: > > Yes, yes, but I always a bit sad when a character's only function is to be a plot device. Pippin: He may be a bit more than that eventually. Just for a moment, separate what Snape is asking Harry to do from his pedagogically incorrect methods of getting Harry to do it. Snape wants Harry to study hard, mind his own business, pay attention in class, deal respectfully with his teachers and classmates, stop thinking that wealth, popularity or his family name entitles him to anything, and leave the Voldemort war to the grown-ups. As we all know, Harry doesn't need to be pressured to do most of these things, and would rather receive guidance from the Giant Squid than Severus Snape anyway. But there is another child in Snape's classes who desperately needs guidance in these areas. Whatever potential for good rests in Draco seems to be draining away unregarded. That's tragic, particularly as Snape seems to be the one adult who might be able to reach him in time. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 6 20:46:07 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:46:07 -0000 Subject: Harsh Morality - Combined answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121292 > Pippin wrote: > "But Crouch didn't become evil. He did wrong and suffered the consequences but he never gave allegiance to Voldemort, and when he broke free, he sought to confess and make amends, not to get vengeance."< > > Del replies: > I agree, but he still suffered the type of punishment that awaits the bad guys: humiliation, death at the hand of his own son, no proper burial, and a name forever tainted among the Good Guys.< Pippin: Um, isn't that almost word for word what happened to Sirius? Humiliated by his imprisonment in GP, betrayed by his own House Elf, murdered by his own cousin (or maybe by a dear old friend), no proper burial, and his name forever tainted? I think Rowling is telling us something here. Not that Sirius was bad, but that you can't judge people by their fates. Del: Even his attempt to confess and make amends couldn't save him anymore (so much for forgiveness). Pippin: Are you implying that Dumbledore wouldn't have offered him a second chance if he'd survived? > Pippin wrote: > "It's true Snape doesn't seem to quite grasp what he's fighting for, but so what? I figure he prefers Dumbledore's principles, even though he doesn't entirely understand them, to Voldemort's, which he understands all too well. " > > Del replies: > Snape doesn't apply any of DD's principles in his own life. Pippin: I'd say "all", not "any". He no longer champions pure-blood superiority or seeks world domination. He's abandoned the quest for immortality (he didn't try to steal the Stone for Voldemort or get if for himself) and unlike Karkaroff, he's not teaching Dark Arts. Nor has he left Hogwarts for somewhere that he'd be allowed to do it. Del: Innocent until proven guilty? Pippin: Although he threatened Lupin and Sirius with the dementors, when he had the opportunity he took them to the castle instead. He often seems to be rushing to judgment with Harry, but after all if he can read minds, the requirement for evidence might seem a bit superfluous to him. He was quite right that Harry knew more about what had happened to Filch's cat than he was telling. Del: Expecting the best of people? Respect of equals and "inferiors"? Pippin: In practice, he's no worse than Sirius or Hagrid. My point is that other characters don't have to uphold Dumbledore's principles 100% in order to be considered worthy. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 6 21:02:53 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:02:53 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121293 Eggplant: > > > It's easy to say that now, but before the very end if you had > > > asked me to pick a possible traitor in the DA Marietta would > > > not have been my first guess, she wouldn't have even made my > > > top 5. Did you do better? And anyway, the fact that she was > > > there was Cho's fault not Hermione's. Ravenclaw001: > > I agree---Cho should have known better. I'd expect more smarts > > from a Ravenclaw. Still and all, Hermione probably should have > > sussed out her lack of enthusiasm and gently eased her out of > > the Hog's Head. SSSusan: I believe the blame for Marietta's presence lies with all three. Cho should not have pushed her; Marietta should have just said no, thanks; and Hermione should have limited this first meeting to people she & Harry knew, while they worked out the details of what it was all about. Now Cory: > I agree that *somebody* should have picked up on Marietta's lack > of enthusiasm for the group. Here's a question though: why is it > automatically Hermione's responsibility to do so (and thus, > Hermione's fault that nobody caught on)? > > The only basis for holding Hermione responsible is that it was her > idea to form the DA in the first place. That reasoning just > doesn't hold any water with me, though -- the fact that the group > was her idea should not make her responsible for the actions of > all of its members. SSSusan: I'll take a stab at this, as I've been one of the ones critical of Hermione in this scene, though I should start off saying that I disagree with your premise that Hermione shouldn't be responsible just because she started the group. I'll try to show why I feel that way. Mostly it has to do with how she led a clearly reluctant Harry into this without enough preparation or advance discussion about what was likely to happen and what they were going to discuss. The DA was Hermione's idea; she had to talk Harry into doing it. She was the one who explained the parameters she had in mind to Harry, and made assurances to him about it. She clearly must have told people they could invite others, since there's absolutely no indication she was surprised by the turnout ["Yes, well, the idea seemed quite popular," said Hermione happily]. In these ways, I think she was responsible for letting the invitations get a little out of hand. I mean, if they really wanted to keep it secret/quiet, it would've been wise to have insisted, when first-invited people asked her about extending invitations to their additional friends, "No. Not yet anyway." Then the smaller, more *sure* group could decide what they were all about and what they hoped to accomplish. But let's say for argument's sake that even Hermione was surprised at the number which showed up at the Hog's Head that day. The *reason* for meeting there was that they thought they could keep things under wraps. The *point* was to keep the club secret from DJU. So, when you've got people expressing reservations, looking hesitant, and clearly beginning to bring up issues that weren't just about practicing DADA, I believe it fell to Hermione to show caution. Harry was determinedly NOT in the mood to provide answers to people - -in fact, he had been concerned from the moment students started arriving, as he immediately asked Hermione what they were expecting and looked at her "furiously." At one point, when the discussion had turned towards whether Voldy was back and whether Harry could be believed, Harry was clearly livid that things had taken this turn, *and* he blamed Hermione ["This was, he felt, all Hermione's fault."]. So I think Hermione failed before they ever met, by not limiting the number at the first meeting. And where she failed at the HH was in not keeping her eye open for those who expressed/showed hesitation or reluctance or dubious motivation for being there. I mean Harry himself "felt that Hermione should have seen this [people just wanting to hear his wild story] coming." So, IMO, if she'd been thinking clearly, she should have: 1) been more forthcoming with Harry about the numbers likely to come (she'd said he would be surprised, but she'd not given him any indication of how many had expressed interest); 2) been more forthcoming about what they were likely to talk about [*SHE* was the one who first brought up being prepared because Voldy was back, for instance]; 3)*not* pushed so hard for everyone to sign, but have really stressed that anyone with any hesitation should get out NOW. Hermione just seemed thrilled that so many people came and didn't seem at all concerned that some of them were people "Harry did not know" or people of whose names he wasn't even sure. Shouldn't that have been a bit of a red flag, in addition to Marietta's initial look & look while signing, Zacharias' attitude, and even Ernie's hesitation? Siriusly Snapey Susan From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 21:04:03 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:04:03 -0000 Subject: James' Two-Way Mirror after GH & the I-Cloak In-Reply-To: <019e01c4f1f9$987212e0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121294 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" wrote: > > > > >> Jen Reese wrote: > >> > >> Jen: That's an interesting thought. How did Sirius get that > >> second two-way mirror back? Like you said, he and James were > >> probably keeping tabs that way and it should have been destroyed > >> at GH like everything else. ... > > Jill: > > I am guessing that the situation with James' mirror is similar to > > that of the invisibility cloak, i.e., "Your father left this in my > > possession..." I think James distributed these items to those he > > trusted the most before he went into hiding. ... > charme: > > I sort of agree with Jill, I think. I've often also thought someone > (maybe Hagrid?) went back to the house and picked through things so > the "pleesemen" didn't find them. I wonder if the mirrors worked > by first name (James, Sirius) or by Marauder name (Prongs, Padfoot.) > Maybe this is how we see Sirius again? > > Speculation only.... bboyminn: Two thoughts. First, perhaps the mirrors were remnants of their 'childhood' days, something that, in their minds, was only good for making mischief at school. I therefore suspect that the mirrors had been put away and forgotten. If perhaps it was Sirius who created them, then perhaps James gave his mirror back to Sirius, and the whole lot just got stored away with all their old school books. Second point, I'm sure many will speculate that something as valuable as the two-way communication mirrors would be equally invaluable to the adult Sirius and James, and to the Order. However, if the 2w-mirrors were that great and special, wouldn't everybody be using them? Wouldn't they be the Wizard World equivalent of the Cell/Mobile Phone? Wouldn't Dumbledore have enchanted dozens of them? Seems very likely to me. So, I conclude the the mirrors to adult wizards and to the Order were not the ultra-cool wiz-bang gadgets that we the reader see them as. I suspect that the Order has a great many more effective ways to communicated, and that the mirrors ended up in an old drawer somewhere. Note that somewhere JKR commented to a question regarding Harry forgetting about the enchanted mirror, that it wouldn't have been as useful as we might think. In addition, she commented to another question that the Order has very effective ways of communicating. As to James' Invisibility Cloak, I don't see that as such a great mystery. I-Cloaks don't seem to be that common; for one thing they are suppost to be very expensive. So given a very limited availability of I-Cloaks, it seems reasonable that James lent his to the Order (ie: Dumbledore) so that many Order members could make use of it, just as in OotP, many Order members made use of Moody's I-Cloaks. I'm pretty confident of my position on the I-Cloaks, and think my position on the Mirrors is a fair speculation. Then again... it's just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 6 21:09:54 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:09:54 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Destiny (was Re: C. S. Lewis and Potterverse Destiny) In-Reply-To: <200501061445997.SM01300@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121295 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > > Laurasia: > > > In order to give us total freedom of choice we also need to > > be given a chance *not* to choose anything, ie to stick with > > >fate. > > > To choose, or not to choose, that is the question. > > SSSusan: > > JKR was asked flat out if she believed in fate, and she said > > "No. I believe in hard work and luck and that the first often > > leads to the > > second" [The Scotsman, 10/04]. I think she may use elements that > > seem like fate in the books, such as the prophecies, but they'll > > be overshadowed by choice. > Vivamus: > It seems to me that most people, when they talk about fate, talk about it as > if they lived in an impersonal universe, but as if the future were > consciously controlled. Sort of a blending of the three ways of looking at > it. As in, there is no One who determines what will happen, but somehow the > future is irrevocably set, and we are unable to control it. I suspect, when > JKR was answering that question, she was addressing that understanding of "fate." > > Contrasted with that view of the universe, though, JKR is a Christian, from > what I've read. What makes that most interesting to me is that she is (from > what I've heard) a member of a denomination that used to, at least, have the > strongest view of predetermination of all the many branches of Christianity. > So here is someone who is a member of a church that used to categorically > deny free will, yet writes such magnificent illustrations in story of > strength of free will that can move the stars, if I understand what the > centaurs are saying. > > It does make me wonder if she ever gets picked on, in a friendly way, by the > members or clergy of her church about her point of view. > Renee: In its strictest form, Calvinism does deny free will. But firstly, not all Calvinist churches and theologians adhere to the strictest form of Calvinism. Secondly, even though it has implications for everyday life, the denial of free will pertains to salvation, the state of the soul before God. As long as JKR avoids controversial references to God and Christian doctrine in the HP books, she's pretty safe. Authorial comments such as that about the "innate goodness" of the Trio ought to go down less well with Calvinist theologians, though. It's this kind of remark that makes me think that if JKR is a Calvinist, she can't be a strict one. Which is just as well with me, for otherwise the notion that our choices *show* who we are, would come uncomfortably close to the Calvinist predestination doctrine. Renee From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 6 21:12:53 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:12:53 +0000 Subject: Issues with the term "realistic" In-Reply-To: <008f01c4f2e0$65785ec0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121296 Kethryn said: >I honestly want Harry, Hermione, and Ron to live happily ever >after ~ shadowed by nightmares, sure, but not dead, dismembered, >diminished, >desouled...or any other foul thing you can think of. Maybe that isn't very >realistic but, hell, it's a fantasy novel for crying out loud. And come to think of it, why isn't that "realistic?" What's unrealistic about getting married, having a family, finding a job, enjoying friendships? Those are things everybody actually *does* in *real life.* What's unrealistic about living a long time and eventually boring your grandchildren with stories about when you were their age you had to fight Voldemort uphill both ways? Those aren't mysterious fantasy activities, they're what everyone hopes to do, and many, many people are fortunate enough to do just that, even after a war (if they survive). It seems strange that when reading a story about people flying on broomsticks, turning into animals, casting spells, becoming invisible, playing tag with dragons, and associating with various non-human races, to hear people declare that having the hero successfully win against the villain and go on to enjoy his life along with those who helped him in his fight would be "unrealistic." Janet Anderson (And you don't want to get me started about "immature.") From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 6 21:18:14 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:18:14 -0000 Subject: Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Re: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121297 > > Pippin: > > > > > One more thing, Dumbledore doesn't answer Snape's question as to whether he believes Sirius's story. << Nora: > No, he doesn't. But it does seem implicit in Snape's response, and in Dumbledore's actions. If we postulate Snape-as-second-in- command, we might be expecting Snape to pick up on the signals of "Cool your heels, I have something to do here".< Pippin: What signals? I'm assuming Snape can read only as much of Dumbledore's mind as Dumbledore lets him. At the moment when Dumbledore asks to speak to Harry and Hermione alone, he gives every appearance that he is still considering Sirius's story and is seeking corroboration. Thus Harry and Hermione's frantic attempts to convince him. As far as Snape might know, he's being sent away so that H and H can speak freely, without incriminating themselves as to why they were on the grounds after dark in the first place. Pippin: > > Snape is the banner bearer for second chances; if he blows it, or if he must die a martyr's death to redeem himself, it's not going to be very encouraging is it? To paraphrase a bumper sticker, Snape needn't be perfect, just forgiven. Nora: > Goodness, Pippin, are you arguing from necessity here? You weren't too supportive of the logic that says "Lupin isn't evil because he's the posterboy for good werewolves"; substitute "Snape isn't evil because he's the posterboy for second chances", and it's the same argument. Pippin: My arguemnt is with the premise that a fallen posterboy must completely undermine the argument even if there are other characters who uphold it. Grawp and Hagrid have been drawn into the fight against anti-speciesism and they're more active characters than Lupin now. Then there's Luna, who could easily be a werewolf too. Snape, OTOH, is the only character besides Karkaroff who's abandoned the Death Eaters and lived to tell the tale. We could expect that Pettigrew might switch sides too and die a redemptive death, but that doesn't really sell the idea of second chances. Snape's struggle to live with the shadow of his former self is what's interesting about him, and we don't get that with characters who only redeem themselves by dying. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 6 21:35:30 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:35:30 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Destiny (was Re: C. S. Lewis and Potterverse Destiny) In-Reply-To: <200501061445997.SM01300@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121298 SSSusan snips all the interesting stuff, to get to this: > Vivamus, who absolutely believes in destiny (with a small d), but > also believes it is also dependent upon free will SSSusan: Okay, Vivamus, now you're going to have to speak to the difference between destiny & fate for me! :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 6 21:40:18 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:40:18 +0000 (GMT) Subject: your greatest hope Message-ID: <20050106214018.46738.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121299 Amdorn started a wonderful thread about her fear at the end of the series. This thread later became "your greatest fear". Could I ask another question now? I'd like to ask the opposite question. What is your GREATEST HOPE about how the series will end? I have thought about this and have an answer, but I'd really like to know what you all think first. I look forward to your thoughts. ===== Hans Rieuwers see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 21:44:53 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:44:53 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121300 SSSusan wrote: "So, IMO, if she'd been thinking clearly, she should have: 1) been more forthcoming with Harry about the numbers likely to come (she'd said he would be surprised, but she'd not given him any indication of how many had expressed interest); 2) been more forthcoming about what they were likely to talk about [*SHE* was the one who first brought up being prepared because Voldy was back, for instance]; 3)*not* pushed so hard for everyone to sign, but have really stressed that anyone with any hesitation should get out NOW. " Del adds: There's another reason I hold Hermione primarily responsible along with Cho and Marrietta : she was the only one who had imagined that there could be a traitor, but she didn't do anything to *prevent* a betrayal. Harry never imagined that a real betrayal could take place, even though he didn't trust Zacharias too much at first. Ron did say that someone must have talked when the decree came out a couple of days after the meeting, but he was apparently satisfied with Hermione's revelation of the hex and never gave it another thought. But Hermione *had* given a lot of thought to the possibility of a betrayal. That's the very reason she put the hex on the parchment, after all. And yet she failed to take any *preventive* measure, not even the most basic one : check on people you don't know and keep an eye on whoever seems dodgy. That's why I hold her partly responsible : because she knew there could be a traitor, she had seriously envisioned that possibility, but she didn't do anything to prevent it. Del From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 6 21:48:54 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:48:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] your greatest hope In-Reply-To: <20050106214018.46738.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050106214854.67433.qmail@web52003.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121301 Hans Andr?a wrote: Amdorn started a wonderful thread about her fear at the end of the series. This thread later became "your greatest fear". Could I ask another question now? I'd like to ask the opposite question. What is your GREATEST HOPE about how the series will end? I have thought about this and have an answer, but I'd really like to know what you all think first. I look forward to your thoughts. Luckdragon: Well that's an easy one. My greatest hope is simply that good prevails over evil and is rewarded for the effort. For this to happen Harry and his supporters would have to band together, get rid of LV and the DE's, and live a happy, magical life together. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From muse82 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 6 16:05:58 2005 From: muse82 at hotmail.com (dooddeb) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:05:58 -0000 Subject: Why do the pictures of James & Lily NOT speak? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121302 I was re-reading our Harry Potter books, (I share custody of them with my 12-year old), and realized the pictures in Dumbledore's office and Sirius' house not only move, but carry on conversations with the living. Has it ever been explained why pictures of these dead people speak and the pictures Harry has of his parents do not? Thanks! -doobdeb From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 6 21:56:47 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:56:47 -0000 Subject: your greatest hope In-Reply-To: <20050106214018.46738.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121303 Hans Andr?a wrote: > Amdorn started a wonderful thread about her fear at the end of the > series. This thread later became "your greatest fear". > > Could I ask another question now? I'd like to ask the opposite > question. What is your GREATEST HOPE about how the series will end? SSSusan: Alright, I'll risk the wrath or ridicule of those who think Harry's living a "regular life" would be a horrible, sickly sweet, too fairy- taleish ending: I want Harry to live. And I mean *really* get a chance to live. To live without the burden of being the WW's savior anymore. To be able to just go flying or play Quidditch or have a drink in a pub w/ his buddies without anything but the normal worries of life. Yes, I even think he should have a chance to lead the "boring" life of wife & family. Who knows what career he'd choose? JKR says he likes action, and we know he's suggested being an Auror himself, but I'm not sure he'd still want that once VWII was over. I think he might be a Seeker for the Cannons or something. Just call me Schmaltzy SSSusan, but I think after all he's given & suffered -- with likely much more by the end -- he'd deserve this. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 6 21:58:51 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 21:58:51 -0000 Subject: Why do the pictures of James & Lily NOT speak? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121304 doobdeb: > I was re-reading our Harry Potter books, (I share custody of them > with my 12-year old), and realized the pictures in Dumbledore's > office and Sirius' house not only move, but carry on conversations > with the living. Has it ever been explained why pictures of these > dead people speak and the pictures Harry has of his parents do not? > Thanks! SSSusan: I think the general consensus is that it's the difference between [painted] *portraits* and [printed] *photographs.* I don't think that any of the photographs we've seen "speak." Siriusly Snapey Susan From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 6 22:02:40 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:02:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why do the pictures of James & Lily NOT speak? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050106220240.12848.qmail@web52004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121305 dooddeb wrote: I was re-reading our Harry Potter books, (I share custody of them with my 12-year old), and realized the pictures in Dumbledore's office and Sirius' house not only move, but carry on conversations with the living. Has it ever been explained why pictures of these dead people speak and the pictures Harry has of his parents do not? Thanks! -doobdeb Luckdragon: I don't recall any explanations in canon, but I believe the painted portraits speak, but photographs are only able to move. Perhaps it has to do with the spell placed on them when they are created. 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 katjohn at hotmail.com Thu Jan 6 19:33:48 2005 From: katjohn at hotmail.com (Kat) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:33:48 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121306 > What is your "Harry Potter" greatest fear? That all the speculation I have been doing, all my theories, etc., are all true--after all, JKR is *much* cleverer than I am, isn't she? I want her to be everything I have built her up in my mind to be. But then, again, I guess I could deal with it :-| -Kat From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 22:14:00 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:14:00 -0000 Subject: Moral Simplicity - a New Perspective. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121307 Wow! Touchy subject ...morality. Let me start by saying that after long quiet nights of pondering the meaning of life combined with the experience of having lived my own long 'so-call' life, I have condensed all moral, life, and religious philosophy down to six little words. Quite unbelievably, those six simple words do not comprise a sentence, but two equally simple sentences of three words each. Guide to a Good and Moral Life- 1.) Do no Harm. 2.) Do some Good. Is there really more to know than that? As much as that might be a simple philosophy to aspire to, we are all human, and sadly but surely will fall short of that goal, as will the characters in the books. I think JKR does make fine use of the Moral Grey Ground. Harry does things that are wrong, but on the average, over the course of time, we must ask how close his action come to successfully fulfilling the rules of the 'Guide to a Good and Moral Life'. When it really counts, Harry tried to keep others from harm, and even though he must break a few rules, he most often acts for the greater good. In addition, when Harry does cause harm, as when on occassion he curses Draco, he does not seek out Draco with the intent or willingness to harm him. Draco on the other hand does seek Harry out with the malicious intent of provoking him. Harry can be provoked into causing harm, but he does not seek to harm. Snape is not nice, and certainly causes student emotional and psychological harm, or at least, pain. But, since his redemption (ie: truly joining Dumbledore or so we assume for now) have any of his actions truly been evil? Has he acted with the willfull and spitefull intent of causing harm? Not that I see. He's been really nasty, his methods are definitly not very nice, but his broader objectives are for the good (at least we assume so for now). Voldemort is clearly as cold and callous as they come. He harms people both in the short term and the long term, and without reservation, fatally, and never gives it a second thought. His actions are totally self-serving; no cost is too high if it brings him what he wants. It's also clear he assigns no value to any human life other than his own. Lucius, while we have very little information, I suspect is not a very compassionate or forgiving person. I suspect he conducts his business afairs in a ruthless and self-serving way. He is not forgiving of people or debts under any circumstance that does not serve him. I suspect Draco would/will grow to be the same type of ruthless business and unscrupulous man that his father is. Everything he does, every decision he makes will have no regard for the effect it has on other people, only for how it serves his own good. Harry on the other hand is compassionate, he is concerned about other people, and I think for someone his age, he is very forgiving. For examples, I think in he will eventually, perhaps begrudgingly, forgive Marietta and Percy. Percy is another grey character. I firmly believe that Percy is a good guy, even if, like Snape, he is not always a nice or pleasant guy. In addition, Percy is a good guy who, do to circumstances, made a bad choice. I believe if the circumstances had been handled better by Arthur, Percy would never have made the choice he did. So, let he among you who is without mistakes cast the first electons. I think across the full arc of the books, we will see Percy's true 'good' nature. I think he will redeem himself from his mistake. Although, I'm hoping for a method of redemption that is humorous for us and embarassing for Percy. So, I don't think JKR is painting Black and White characters, nearly all the characters are humanly flawed, and prone to bad actions and mistakes. But if we look at the broad picture rather than focus on specific events, we will see that there is a sense of good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral in the these books. Characters we preceive as good, are preceive that way because they probably are. Characters we preceive as bad, probably are bad. Other characters like Snape, to some extent, are both good and bad. Finally, being bad doesn't make you evil. Take Draco for example, he is a very very bad person, but so far, he isn't evil. His actions have not escalated to the level of Voldemort where he causes pain and snuffs out life as if it were nothing. Draco, as a character, is on a threshold; he has the potential to stay annoyingly bad, or to turn truly evil. Only time will tell. Side note: even if Draco does turn 'good', it's unlikely that he will ever turn 'nice'. When we evaluate the character of characters, I think it is important to make sure we make the distinctions between... Nice and Not Nice Good and Bad Evil and Not Evil You can be a person who does bad things and is not very nice, and still not be an evil person. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 6 22:19:59 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:19:59 -0000 Subject: your greatest hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121308 > > > SSSusan: > Alright, I'll risk the wrath or ridicule of those who think Harry's living a "regular life" would be a horrible, sickly sweet, too fairy-taleish ending: I want Harry to live. > > And I mean *really* get a chance to live. snip Potioncat: Pass the schmaltz, I agree. I don't think a book has to be all doom and gloom to be "good" Doom and gloom has its place, but I hope it won't be in the HP ending. Having said that, it's not that I would think JKR was horrible if that's what she's decided to do. While I'm at it, I'm hoping Snape lives, but my expection of that outcome isn't as high. Potioncat From lliannanshe at comcast.net Thu Jan 6 22:20:16 2005 From: lliannanshe at comcast.net (Lliannanshe) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:20:16 -0000 Subject: Why do the pictures of James & Lily NOT speak? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121309 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dooddeb" wrote: > > I was re-reading our Harry Potter books, (I share custody of them > with my 12-year old), and realized the pictures in Dumbledore's > office and Sirius' house not only move, but carry on conversations > with the living. Has it ever been explained why pictures of these > dead people speak and the pictures Harry has of his parents do not? > Thanks! > > -doobdeb There was a similiar question back in July. See post 104050 Steve's reply to that post is an excellent start. Lliannanshe OT-PS IF you have the COS DVD there is a explanation in the extras section and also check out JKRowling's web site for information on photographs. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 22:27:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:27:16 -0000 Subject: Moral Simplicity - a New Perspective. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121310 Steve: Guide to a Good and Moral Life- 1.) Do no Harm. 2.) Do some Good. Is there really more to know than that? As much as that might be a simple philosophy to aspire to, we are all human, and sadly but surely will fall short of that goal, as will the characters in the books. I think JKR does make fine use of the Moral Grey Ground. Harry does things that are wrong, but on the average, over the course of time, we must ask how close his action come to successfully fulfilling the rules of the 'Guide to a Good and Moral Life'. When it really counts, Harry tried to keep others from harm, and even though he must break a few rules, he most often acts for the greater good. Alla: I agree with your Guide, Steve. :o) Steve: Snape is not nice, and certainly causes student emotional and psychological harm, or at least, pain. But, since his redemption (ie: truly joining Dumbledore or so we assume for now) have any of his actions truly been evil? Has he acted with the willfull and spitefull intent of causing harm? Not that I see. He's been really nasty, his methods are definitly not very nice, but his broader objectives are for the good (at least we assume so for now). Alla: We don't know what his intentions are, do we? See, I firmly believe that words can hurt you very badly in RL and saying "words can kill" could be true in not only metaphorical matter, therefore I would not equal Snape's joining Dumbledore with his true redemption YET,but I suspect that JKR differs with me on that matter. :o) Steve: Percy is another grey character. I firmly believe that Percy is a good guy, even if, like Snape, he is not always a nice or pleasant guy. In addition, Percy is a good guy who, do to circumstances, made a bad choice. I believe if the circumstances had been handled better by Arthur, Percy would never have made the choice he did. So, let he among you who is without mistakes cast the first electons. I think across the full arc of the books, we will see Percy's true 'good' nature. I think he will redeem himself from his mistake. Although, I'm hoping for a method of redemption that is humorous for us and embarassing for Percy. Alla: Ummm. I do not necessarily cast Percy as evil yet. I think I am reserving my judgment. What I disagree with you on is that Percy would have never made that choice but for Arthur. I believe that since GoF we were shown VERY consistent pattern of Percy choosing what ministry believes in over what his family believes in. I cannot say that what Percy did was much of a surprise for me AT ALL. I honestly expected something to that effect to happen. But there are also some things in GoF (as someone pointed out Percy being nervous about Ron, etc), which give me hope, so we will see about Percy. :o) Just my opinion, Alla From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 6 22:40:05 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:40:05 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121311 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Carol wrote earlier: > "specifically, I'm afraid that she'll have Harry murder Voldemort with > an Unforgiveable Curse. (I don't care that Voldemort deserves it; I > don't want Harry to be stained with the evil of his enemy's weapons.)" Geoff: Harry has shown that he can transcend his hatred on occasions. Remember (in POA) when he stopped Remus and Sirius from killing Peter Pettigrew because he didn't want them to become killers.... That went against his deeper hatred I think and showed considerable control. Del: > ..there's no way > Harry can turn in less than 2 years from the Snape-hating Harry we see > at the end of OoP into a LV-loving person. At least I can't see such a > way that would be believable. Unless Harry has some > road-to-Damascus-type spiritual experience, Geoff: Why shouldn't he? Many Christians experience that sort of conversion in their journey to faith. I did years ago. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Jan 6 22:49:07 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:49:07 -0000 Subject: your greatest hope In-Reply-To: <20050106214018.46738.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121312 Hans Andr?a wrote: > What is your GREATEST HOPE about how the series will end? Well... Unfortunately this is effectively the opposite of my greatest fear. But that's boring, so I'll go on to my second greatest hope. It's quite a small thing - and don't take it the wrong way, this isn't meant to be cheesy. I would really really really like to see Snape sharing a joke with someone. Anyone. Just once. In fact, only once. It would entirely lose it's charm if it happened twice. Just to see him amused by something that doesn't spring entirely from malice, and something that someone else finds funny too. I'm not talking about him being nice (I prefer him nasty) and I'm not talking about redemption (I'd prefer him to be cynical to the end). But there's a sense of humour there, and I'd like to see it appreciated by another character. Dungrollin Who hates January. It's like one long interminable Monday. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Jan 6 22:49:04 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:49:04 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121313 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ravenclaw001" wrote: > > I've been following these threads about Marietta Edgecombe and the > DA, and I think it's time I put my two knuts' worth in. > > Firstly---having her join at all was an example of Hermione's biggest > weakness. Hickengruendler: I disagree. Hermione took the whole situation very serious. For her, it was about learning to defend themselves (and rightfully so). Not to allow Marietta to join the DA just because she didn't enjoy the meeting could have been a decision between life and death. Imagine for example Marietta facing a Death Eater and not being prepared enough to fight for her life, because Hermione didn't allow her to join the DA. The situation was way to grave for Hermione to exclude the DA members who were doubtful from the following meetings. In dubio pro reo, especially in this situation. From your point of view, the first person to be excluded from the meetings must have been Zacharias Smith, and he didn't betray the DA. I suspected Marietta to become a traitor from the very beginning. But only, because Zacharias Smith seemed to be a pretty obvious red- herring, just like Snape in book 1 or Draco in book 2. Therefore I started to look for other possible candidates and very soon landed at Marietta. However, that's nothing Hermione could have known. After all, she doesn't read the books. And it's not that she can tell Marietta: You aren't allowed to join the group, because I don't like your face. From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Thu Jan 6 22:54:13 2005 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:54:13 -0000 Subject: your greatest hope In-Reply-To: <20050106214018.46738.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121314 Hans Andr?a asked: What is your GREATEST HOPE about how the series will end? I have thought about this and have an answer, but I'd really like to know what you all think first. ** Inge: I have many hopes for the end of the series - but the one thing I REALLY hope to happen concerns, not Harry, but Snape. I hope we will find out that Severus Snape never joined the DE's and Voldemort because he *wanted* to - but because this was Dumbledore's way to get a good spy into Voldemort's/DE's circles. This - to me - would make Snape have offered such a big sacrifice to help the Order that I can forgive almost anything he ever did to make Harry's life a livng hell at times. From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 22:55:39 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:55:39 -0000 Subject: Moral Simplicity - a New Perspective. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121315 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Guide to a Good and Moral Life- > > 1.) Do no Harm. > 2.) Do some Good. > In addition, when Harry does cause harm, as when on occassion he > curses Draco, he does not seek out Draco with the intent or > willingness to harm him. Draco on the other hand does seek Harry > out with the malicious intent of provoking him. Harry can be > provoked into causing harm, but he does not seek to harm. > > Snape is not nice, and certainly causes student emotional and > psychological harm, or at least, pain. But, since his redemption > (ie: truly joining Dumbledore or so we assume for now) have any of > his actions truly been evil? Has he acted with the willful and > spiteful intent of causing harm? Not that I see. He's been really > nasty, his methods are definitly not very nice, but his broader > objectives are for the good (at least we assume so for now). Not to be a killjoy, but let me play Devil's Advocate again. You have immediately run into the utterly classic problem of utilitarian ethics: defining harm. How do you attempt to quantify something deeply personal? The reduction to a purely physical standard is not generally considered adequate, for reasons obvious. Is it proper to draw the line between methods and broader objectives for Snape, who often *does* seem intent upon causing emotional harm to the students (I'm thinking specifically Neville here, but there are other instances, oft-debated, that come to mind)? You know, the also oft-debated 'sadistic' descriptor (JKR's words, not only mine), for someone who gets enjoyment out of the discomfiture of others. I see that intention sneaks its way back into your formulations fairly quickly, which opens a whole new can of worms, the means and ends can. Rowling has opened that can with the formulation of Slytherin ethoi as "any means to achieve their ends", which has been so far implicitly condemned. > When we evaluate the character of characters, I think it is > important to make sure we make the distinctions between... > > Nice and Not Nice > Good and Bad > Evil and Not Evil > > You can be a person who does bad things and is not very nice, and > still not be an evil person. Is that a stative description, or an action-based one? Is being a good person a state of being from which one takes actions, or...I think that makes the objection/plea for clarification here clear. I think niceness is an underrated virtue, to be honest. I'm talking about the genuine article, without the connotations of fakeness that it so often carries. I would rather formulate it this way: to treat people in a way that is not nice is not a trivial thing, but rather a statement of how you regard that person and their right to subjectivity. It is not generally possible to be a *good* person without treating people well. So you can be someone who is not a good person, but still does some good things. -Nora notes that all ethical discussions inevitably get larger and larger and eat the rest of the list (mmm, tasty) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Jan 6 23:01:36 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:01:36 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121316 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > SSSusan: > I believe the blame for Marietta's presence lies with all three. > Cho should not have pushed her; Marietta should have just said no, > thanks; and Hermione should have limited this first meeting to > people she & Harry knew, while they worked out the details of what > it was all about. Hickengruendler: But I believe that's what happened. Hermione was also very surprised about the number of students, who appeared. I can see it like this: Hermione and Ron finally convinced Harry to teach them DADA. Then they decided, that it wasn't unfair for the other students, and therefore they told the students they know and consider trustworthy. The other Gryffindor's from their year, Ron's silblings and those who openly supported Harry (Luna, Cho and Ernie and I think Hermione mentioned Hannah as well, but I'm not sure). Then Ron or the twins told the other members of the Gryffindor Quidditch team, plus Lee Jordan, because they knew them enough and considered them trustworthy. Ernie told the other Hufflepuffs, because they are his friends, Parvati told her sister, Ginny told Michael and probably Colin. Colin told Dennis and Michael told his friends. And Cho told Marietta. I think Hermione (but also Ron) should have considered that this might happen, but I still think it's better than telling nobody at all and only preparing themselves and not think about the others. All in all, it's still a very close group, who everybody is vouched for by at least one other DA members who considered them trustworthy. The only exception is Zacharias Smith, who overheard Hermione telling Ernie. And like I said in my previous post, once they were there, it was impossible for Harry or Hermione not to allow them to join the group. Not only would it be unfair to exclude somebody by mere suspicion, it also could have grave consequences, if said students isn't prepared enough for the war. Hickengruendler From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Jan 6 23:09:58 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:09:58 -0000 Subject: your greatest hope In-Reply-To: <20050106214018.46738.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121317 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: > Amdorn started a wonderful thread about her fear at the end of the series. > This thread later became "your greatest fear". > > Could I ask another question now? I'd like to ask the opposite question. > What is your GREATEST HOPE about how the series will end? > > I have thought about this and have an answer, but I'd really like to know > what you all think first. > > I look forward to your thoughts. > Hickengruendler: My greatest hope is that Neville's parents will be cured and that the Trio plus Neville will survive. Neville is one of my favourite characters, and I think he really deserves that finally something good happens to him. The same is true for Harry, who also deserves some long-standing happiness, and I don't think he can find that at the end of the book, if Ron or Hermione are dead. Not to mention, that I want Ron and Hermione to end up together. From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 6 23:11:18 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:11:18 -0000 Subject: Issues with the term "realistic" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121318 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: Janet: > And come to think of it, why isn't that "realistic?" What's unrealistic > about getting married, having a family, finding a job, enjoying friendships? > Those are things everybody actually *does* in *real life.* What's > unrealistic about living a long time and eventually boring your > grandchildren with stories about when you were their age you had to fight > Voldemort uphill both ways? Those aren't mysterious fantasy activities, > they're what everyone hopes to do, and many, many people are fortunate > enough to do just that, even after a war (if they survive). > > It seems strange that when reading a story about people flying on > broomsticks, turning into animals, casting spells, becoming invisible, > playing tag with dragons, and associating with various non-human races, to > hear people declare that having the hero successfully win against the > villain and go on to enjoy his life along with those who helped him in his > fight would be "unrealistic." Geoff: I am not the sort of person who likes "real life" stories. I can get enough of those on the front page of the papers. I get great pleasure out of willingly suspending my disbelief and entering into a story almost as a participant. My family sometimes think I am quietly barmy because I am into LOTR and HP on the one hand and go off into the realms of Star Trek on the other. I like to enter a world which detaches me from the mundane and introduces me to a new world which I can still recognise as an off-shoot of my own but which contains things of wonder to excite me. Tolkien was a great believer in "sub-creation" as being a gift of God given to us to enjoy. Way back, when the world was young (in message 78617 to be precise!!), I wrote the following which may or may not be germane to the present discussion.... "None of our favourite book characters are real; that's what "fiction" means! Frodo Baggins is not real. Jane Eyre is not real. Shylock is not real. They may be based in part on real people but they themselves are not intrinsically real. That does not mean that we cannot treat them as real, to share in their experiences, to cheer for them, cry for them and hope against hope that things will work out for them. To use the idea of a dream is a cop out. I remember how angry my wife got when the Dallas incident occurred. I have my own "wishes" as to how HP will work out. In the event, it won't end the way I have wished but, if it does finish in a dream resolution, I shall feel that I have been the subject of a confidence trick to lure me through seven books to a disappointing conclusion. And, as someone pointed out recently, it would be a possible disaster to the younger readers of the books - for whom Harry was first introduced - as it would undermine the power of their imaginations which are such a valuable part of their development." My own ideal ending would be to see Harry (plus friends if necessary) defeating Voldemort and being able to settle to being in the Wizarding world, in one piece, without having to perpetually look over his shoulder and able to pursue something which he felt of value and still mount his Firebolt on a Saturday afternoon....... Not everybody's cup of tea I suppose..... But, only time and a certain pen in Edinburgh will reveal all. Geoff http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com Enjoy a virtual visit to the Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 6 23:13:00 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:13:00 -0000 Subject: Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Re: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121319 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > > > Snape is the banner bearer for second chances; if he blows > it, or if he must die a martyr's death to redeem himself, it's not > going to be very encouraging is it? To paraphrase a bumper > sticker, Snape needn't be perfect, just forgiven. > > Nora: > > Goodness, Pippin, are you arguing from necessity here? You > weren't too supportive of the logic that says "Lupin isn't evil > because he's the posterboy for good werewolves"; substitute > "Snape isn't evil because he's the posterboy for second > chances", and it's the same argument. > > > Pippin: > > My arguemnt is with the premise that a fallen posterboy must > completely undermine the argument even if there are other > characters who uphold it. Grawp and Hagrid have been drawn > into the fight against anti-speciesism and they're more active > characters than Lupin now. Then there's Luna, who could easily > be a werewolf too. Renee: Can't help myself, simply have to react :) I don't see why Grawp and Hagrid should be considered more active characters than Lupin at the end of OotP. Lupin takes part in the battle in the DoM and is a member of the group that delivers the warning to the Dursleys in the very last chapter of the book. He got more action than Grawp (and he's a lot more focused as well). Also, I'm not sure anti-speciesism is identical with werewolf discrimination. Hagrid can stay at Hogwarts as a teacher even though people know he's a half-giant, while Lupin's prolonged stay would have led to huge numbers of howlers from worried or outraged parents; that alone indicates the two are not the same. That leaves Luna, but she can't be used as an argument, because we don't know yet if she's a werewolf or not, and arguments derived from the future are invalid. Renee whose worst fear, BTW, is not that Lupin will turn out ESE, but that Snape will do so From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Jan 6 23:14:27 2005 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:14:27 -0000 Subject: James' Two-Way Mirror after GH & the I-Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121320 > bboyminn: > First, perhaps the mirrors were remnants of their 'childhood' days, > something that, in their minds, was only good for making mischief at > school. I therefore suspect that the mirrors had been put away and > forgotten. If perhaps it was Sirius who created them, then perhaps > James gave his mirror back to Sirius, and the whole lot just got > stored away with all their old school books. Jen: Ah, another little moment where Sirius sees James when he looks at Harry. That's a sad thought if true, that for Sirius the events of OOTP resembled schoolboy pranks instead of life and death situations. Or else it was truly the only way Sirius could think to communicate with Harry, given the constraints of Harry's training and the protection on Hogwarts. bboyminn: > Second point, I'm sure many will speculate that something as valuable > as the two-way communication mirrors would be equally invaluable to > the adult Sirius and James, and to the Order. However, if the > 2w-mirrors were that great and special, wouldn't everybody be using > them? Wouldn't they be the Wizard World equivalent of the Cell/Mobile > Phone? Wouldn't Dumbledore have enchanted dozens of them? Seems very > likely to me. Jen: Well, now we know Dumbledore and the Order have more effective ways to communicate since JKR wrote about that on her website. But she hints the two-way mirror will have a second wind in upcoming books. I guess the big question is: Who has the second mirror? Surely Sirius didn't fall through the Veil with it. I doubt when he heard Harry was in trouble, Sirius bothered trying to find his two- way mirror to take with him. Jen, speculating Kreacher is in possession of the two-way mirror or he gave it to the Malfoys. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Jan 6 23:19:12 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:19:12 -0000 Subject: James' Two-Way Mirror after GH & the I-Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121321 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Jen: Well, now we know Dumbledore and the Order have more effective > ways to communicate since JKR wrote about that on her website. But > she hints the two-way mirror will have a second wind in upcoming > books. I guess the big question is: Who has the second mirror? > Surely Sirius didn't fall through the Veil with it. I doubt when he > heard Harry was in trouble, Sirius bothered trying to find his two- > way mirror to take with him. > > Jen, speculating Kreacher is in possession of the two-way mirror or > he gave it to the Malfoys. Hickengruendler: What I also want to know is, do only two mirrors exist? Let's say The Marauders invented it, like they invented the map, wouldn't it be logical to make a mirror for Lupin and Peter as well? Do they still have them? You could possibly argue that it seems unlikely that Peter still has the mirror, seeing that he lived as a rat for several years. On the other hand, James' house was destroyed and Sirius was in AZkaban, and still both mirrors seemed to be around during book 5. From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 23:47:20 2005 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:47:20 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121322 SSSusan wrote: > So, IMO, if she'd been thinking clearly, she should have: > 1) been more forthcoming with Harry about the numbers likely to come > (she'd said he would be surprised, but she'd not given him any > indication of how many had expressed interest); > 2) been more forthcoming about what they were likely to talk about > [*SHE* was the one who first brought up being prepared because Voldy > was back, for instance]; > 3)*not* pushed so hard for everyone to sign, but have really > stressed that anyone with any hesitation should get out NOW. Now Cory: I agree with you on these three points; these were errors in judgment that Hermione made. However, with respect to point number 3: couldn't Harry, or Ron, or anyone else have also raised the point that anyone with hesitation should get out? SSSusan again: > Hermione just seemed thrilled that so many people came and didn't > seem at all concerned that some of them were people "Harry did not > know" or people of whose names he wasn't even sure. Shouldn't that > have been a bit of a red flag, in addition to Marietta's initial > look & look while signing, Zacharias' attitude, and even Ernie's > hesitation? Cory again: YES -- but these things are red flags that Harry, Ron, and anyone else in the room could have picked up on too, which is why I have a hard time holding Hermione solely responsible for not foreseeing Marietta's actions, while holding Harry and everyone else blameless. I agree with you that Hermione should have been more forthcoming with everybody about the purpose of the meeting, the number of people who were coming, and which topics would and would not be discussed at the meeting. And I realize that Harry was reluctant, and that she had to talk him into it. The fact remains, however, that at any time, Harry could have simply said "I'm not comfortable with this; let's call it off," and he chose not to. We also know that he noticed that Marietta didn't seem to want to be there, and he was equally capable of telling her that she should leave if she was unsure. I guess that's my bottom line: I would hold Hermione responsible for the mistakes she made before the meeting, (i.e. before Harry and the others really knew what was going on), but from the Hog's Head onward, I wouldn't assign any more blame to her than I would to Harry. --Cory From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 23:54:31 2005 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:54:31 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121323 Del wrote: > There's another reason I hold Hermione primarily responsible along > with Cho and Marrietta : she was the only one who had imagined that > there could be a traitor, but she didn't do anything to *prevent* a > betrayal. > > Harry never imagined that a real betrayal could take place, even > though he didn't trust Zacharias too much at first. Ron did say that > someone must have talked when the decree came out a couple of days > after the meeting, but he was apparently satisfied with Hermione's > revelation of the hex and never gave it another thought. > > But Hermione *had* given a lot of thought to the possibility of a > betrayal. That's the very reason she put the hex on the parchment, > after all. And yet she failed to take any *preventive* measure, not > even the most basic one : check on people you don't know and keep an > eye on whoever seems dodgy. > > That's why I hold her partly responsible : because she knew there > could be a traitor, she had seriously envisioned that possibility, but > she didn't do anything to prevent it. Now Cory: I agree that the parchment was an ineffective means of preventing a betrayal. However, I don't see that as a reason to hold Hermione more to blame than Harry for not foreseeing Marietta's betrayal. Here is how I would look at the situation: none of the kids did *anything* that effectively prevented a betrayal. Hermione at least tried; she simply chose a means that was ineffective. Harry, on the other hand, did not even have the foresight to see that it may be an issue, and thus did absolutely nothing. Does that make him *less* to blame than Hermione? Again, I would argue that they are equally to blame. --Cory From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 00:18:12 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:18:12 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121324 I, Del, wrote earlier: "..there's no way Harry can turn in less than 2 years from the Snape-hating Harry we see at the end of OoP into a LV-loving person. At least I can't see such a way that would be believable. Unless Harry has some road-to-Damascus-type spiritual experience,... " Geoff asked: "Why shouldn't he? Many Christians experience that sort of conversion in their journey to faith. I did years ago." Del replies: You're preaching to a convert here, Geoff :-) I didn't mean that Harry couldn't have such an experience. I only meant that such an experience is the only believable way *I* can conceive of for Harry to evolve so radically in such a short time. It could very well be the purpose of the Mysterious Room in the DoM for example : maybe Harry will have such a life-changing experience in this room. Del From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 7 00:33:57 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 00:33:57 -0000 Subject: your greatest hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121325 Dungrollin: snip I would really really really like to see > Snape sharing a joke with someone. Anyone. Just once. > Potioncat: Who do you think told DD the one about the hag, troll and leprechaun going into a bar?...and he must have told McGonagall too if she hushed DD up so quickly. Well, there was the trick he played on Lockhart. ;-) From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Fri Jan 7 01:00:27 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:00:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] your greatest hope Message-ID: <00ed01c4f454$4978cbe0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121326 > Hans Rieuwers > > Amdorn started a wonderful thread about her fear at the end of the series. > This thread later became "your greatest fear". > > Could I ask another question now? I'd like to ask the opposite question. > What is your GREATEST HOPE about how the series will end? > > I have thought about this and have an answer, but I'd really like to know > what you all think first. > > I look forward to your thoughts. > Kethryn now - 1. The original trio live happily ever after. I don't know how many times I said, on the first read through of one of the books, "haven't they done enough!!! Come on, Jo, give them a break." 2. I do hope that Harry and Hermione end up together...the two of them are an ideal match in terms of what would make a relationship work as opposed to Ron and Hermione (which I predict would end in a rather spectacular fashion). 3. I really really hope that Snape's character is resolved to my satisfaction (you know, not a completly evil git...and, truth be told, he reminds me entirely too much of all my chemistry professors to ever hate him). I don't mind him being morally ambigous at all, we all are in some fashion or another, but I just want him to end up, at least marginally, on the side of good. 4. Lupin needs to live and be a "good" man through the rest of the stories. 5. Neville needs to cure his parents and rid the world of Bellatrix. Kethryn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 22:49:58 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:49:58 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality - Combined Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121327 >Potioncat writes: >But it's like real life, if you go to school with a kid who believes very strongly in everything you don't, you still have to put up with that kid until you're both out of school. And if that kid is very good at not getting caught, then it's all the worse. I think Draco's fan club is populated with the optimist in all of us. We've all known people who are so far from our own life-view as to be nearly considered "evil" and most of the time we merely wish that their sheer ignorance could be wiped away and they would be brought around to our side, the "good" side. I think every single reader would love Draco to wake up and see Harry's reality ? that maybe killing off all the muggles and muggleborn isn't such a good idea. However, most of us do know that there's about a snowballs chance of hell of that happening, because it simply isn't realistic. Can anyone think of a single scenario ? plausible scenario ? that could cause Draco to change his spots? Let's face it, kids who are raised in an atmosphere of bigotry and hatred RARELY change. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 6 22:51:23 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:51:23 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121328 >SSSusan writes: >I'll take a stab at this, as I've been one of the ones critical of >Hermione in this scene, though I should start off saying that I >disagree with your premise that Hermione shouldn't be responsible >just because she started the group >Hermione just seemed thrilled that so many people came and didn't >seem at all concerned that some of them were people "Harry did not >know" or people of whose names he wasn't even sure. Shouldn't that >have been a bit of a red flag, in addition to Marietta's initial .look & look while signing, Zacharias' attitude, and even Ernie's >hesitation? I think sometimes we tend to forget that through all their trials and traumas that these kids are still teenagers. Yes, Hermione probably should have been more alert and I remember thinking that the entire time I was reading it, but reading your post above made me realize that Hermione was likely completely wrapped up in the sheer excitement of having started something that turned out to be wildly popular. Let's face it, she's not exactly surrounded by friends the way most teenage girls are. The DA was her moment to shine ? she thought of it, she prodded it into being, and she was likely basking in the success of it. And she wanted it to be a success, so even if her usual skepticism reared its ugly head, it's possible she ignored it, even subconsciously. Hermione loves to be right ? it's been pointed out by enemies and friends through the whole series. She wouldn't want to accept the possibility that her crowning glory might come crashing down on all of their heads. Nicky Joe From andie1 at earthlink.net Fri Jan 7 01:12:53 2005 From: andie1 at earthlink.net (grindieloe) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 01:12:53 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121329 > SSSusan wrote: > > > So, IMO, if she'd been thinking clearly, she should have: > > 1) been more forthcoming with Harry about the numbers likely to > come > > (she'd said he would be surprised, but she'd not given him any > > indication of how many had expressed interest) The danger in telling Harry about the number of people attending is that he may have backed out altogether. In the beginning, he was not thrilled about the idea and may not have gone through with it at all if Hermione had acutally revealed the amount of people interested. 2) been more forthcoming about what they were likely to talk about > > [*SHE* was the one who first brought up being prepared because > Voldy > > was back, for instance] Harry had to realize deep down that these people would be interested in hearing about Voldie and Cedric, etc. > > 3)*not* pushed so hard for everyone to sign, but have really > > stressed that anyone with any hesitation should get out NOW. I agree that Hermione could have come up with something that acutally prevented those that signed from snitching. Instead she opted for the SNEAK on the forehead. However, she was the only one thinking of SOMETHING. After all, it did at least delay Marietta's urgency to tell about the DA. Overall, I can't blame Hermione. She was the one that thought of this idea, and as we all remember, the DA was the only thing that kept Harry going for a while when things got really bad with Umbridge. Hermione means well and still was the only one of the 3 really thinking about some consequences for snitching. grindie From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Jan 7 01:17:34 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 01:17:34 -0000 Subject: Moral Simplicity - a New Perspective. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121330 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" wrote: > > > I think niceness is an underrated virtue, to be honest. I'm talking > about the genuine article, without the connotations of fakeness that > it so often carries. I would rather formulate it this way: to treat > people in a way that is not nice is not a trivial thing, but rather > a statement of how you regard that person and their right to > subjectivity. It is not generally possible to be a *good* person > without treating people well. > > So you can be someone who is not a good person, but still does some > good things. > I definitely agree, Nora. I always have trouble when people try to go into the nice/good distinction. I definitely agree that, if one is talking about genuine goodness and genuine niceness, it truly is impossible to separate them. That is why I follow your line in not calling Snape good, but rather person deeply infected with evil who nevertheless manages to do some good things. Lupinlore From snow15145 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 02:16:03 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:16:03 -0000 Subject: Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Re: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121331 Nora snipped: Now, mind you, I'm not arguing that Snape is evil, although it's been amusingly and carefully set up so that the arguments that he is trustworthy are counterbalanced by those that he isn't, to the point that either outcome can be looked back and said "Aha! There's the setup!". Hermione says he is (as she trusts in DD), and she's often right. However, we just got DD messing up bigtime, and wouldn't it be nicely BANG-y if Ron the skeptic were right? Snape is not perfect--no one in the books is. This is not news, nor is it truly damning for him. But I think it's worth a careful examination of what mistakes he makes, and why he makes them. Snow: I really liked the way you stated this, Nora, and just had to reply with my controversial cents worth. Snape is a confusing character, for every good reason to believe in Snape you can find an alternate reason to suspect him. So which is Snape, good or bad and who is right or wrong about him, Hermione or Ron? Hermione bases her reasoning on trust in DD and logically deduces that Snape must be good because he saved Harry in his first year. Ron on the other hand does not seem as excepting to just trust DD's opinion of Snape and bases his suspicious reasoning on instinct and intuition. Add to that the prospect of the people-are-not-always- who-they-say-they-are theme. (Well hit me over the head if we have not been introduced to that way of thinking.) A good percentage of the people DD has trusted have turned out to be someone they are not and the majority of them were appointed teachers. I'm with Ron and I don't give DD a very good grade in his successfulness at using his legilemency powers unless... Examining the situation with this bit of information, how can you possibly assess Snape logically or trustingly based on DD's faith? I have been searching since the end of the fourth book to find the hidden but also in-your-face clue to who Snape really is or who he is not, why is a different variant altogether. I have found two examples for consideration: (1) The night the Death-eaters were playing a bit of muggle torture, I found it quite interesting that one of the masked marching death-eaters that night had specifically tortured the muggle Mrs. Roberts by turning her upside down revealing her panties (just like someone else we know that wears gray undies. This was after all a part of Snape's worst nightmare). Could Snape have been the death- eater that night that performed this curse on Mrs. Roberts? (2) The chapter in POA entitled The Servant of Lord Voldemort, how ironic that this chapter opens with Snape revealing his presence to the marauders and the trio. If big if Pettigrew is not the servant of Lord Voldemort being referenced at this time, then who is? I believe Pettigrew became a servant of Voldemort after this event took place. Voldemort himself as much as says so to the death-eaters in the graveyard: "You returned to me, not out of loyalty, but out of fear of your old friends." Pettigrew doesn't sound like much of a servant in this light. I admit the chapter name could just be representative of the fact that Pettigrew did escape and return to Voldy but I just can't resist speculating on the fact that JKR can be so obviously unobvious with her clues that you tend to disregard intuition that the clue may be straightforward this time. Since there is still nothing conclusive either way, I will look at Ron's perception who, at least to me, seams to have more intuition, jokingly or not, than Hermione any day. Snow From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 02:49:43 2005 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:49:43 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121332 amdorn wrote: Will I have to go to "rehab" for Harry Potter fans?> Now Kelly: That too is my greatest fear. With the announcement of the publication date of HBP I was both elated and anxious. While I crave the rest of this wonderful story, I dread the day that it is complete. When I finish book seven, will I still need more? I trust that JKR will tie up all the loose ends. I believe we will find out more about GH. Personally, I think the chapter that will appear in HBP that almost made it to PS/SS and CoS might give us more information about GH. I think we will find out why Dumbledore trusts Snape and whether or not Snape ever really left the DE. I think we will even get some "ship" answers. I don't fear unanswered questions, I fear having to move on from this wonderful obsession I have with the magical world of Harry Potter. Will I reread the seven books over and over for years? Will I need that "rehab?" Kelly who thinks that she might need to get a life ;) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 7 02:57:24 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:57:24 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121333 SSSusan wrote earlier: > > So, IMO, if she'd been thinking clearly, she should have: > > 1) been more forthcoming with Harry about the numbers likely to > > come (she'd said he would be surprised, but she'd not given him > > any indication of how many had expressed interest); > > 2) been more forthcoming about what they were likely to talk > > about [*SHE* was the one who first brought up being prepared > > because Voldy was back, for instance]; > > 3)*not* pushed so hard for everyone to sign, but have really > > stressed that anyone with any hesitation should get out NOW. Cory responded: > I agree with you on these three points; these were errors in > judgment that Hermione made. However, with respect to point > 3: couldn't Harry, or Ron, or anyone else have also raised the > point that anyone with hesitation should get out? SSSusan: Yup. They could have. But I think Harry was so busy being flabbergasted by the turnout & furious with Hermione & some of the attendees, that that's where his focus lay. SSSusan earlier: > > Hermione just seemed thrilled that so many people came and > > didn't seem at all concerned that some of them were > > people "Harry did not know" or people of whose names he wasn't > > even sure. Shouldn't that have been a bit of a red flag, in > > addition to Marietta's initial look & look while signing, > > Zacharias' attitude, and even Ernie's hesitation? Cory responded: > YES -- but these things are red flags that Harry, Ron, and anyone > else in the room could have picked up on too, which is why I have > a hard time holding Hermione solely responsible for not foreseeing > Marietta's actions, while holding Harry and everyone else > blameless. SSSusan: Again, I'd offer the same rationale as I did just above for Harry. As for Ron, well, who knows? He was being Ron! :-) We don't hear all that much from him in this scene, other than his remarks in defense of Harry and his annoyance at those questioning Harry. I think Ron was occupied with that, for right or wrong. Cory: > I agree with you that Hermione should have been more forthcoming > with everybody about the purpose of the meeting, the number of > people who were coming, and which topics would and would not be > discussed at the meeting. And I realize that Harry was reluctant, > and that she had to talk him into it. The fact remains, however, > that at any time, Harry could have simply said "I'm not > comfortable with this; let's call it off," and he chose not to. SSSusan: Yes, I agree that Harry could have done that, so it's fair to spread some blame there. OTOH, if we're going to insist that Harry could have stood up to his friend and said NO, then we should also insist that Marietta could have stood up to her friend and said NO as well. N'est-ce pas? Cory: > We also know that he noticed that Marietta didn't seem to want to > be there, and he was equally capable of telling her that she > should leave if she was unsure. SSSusan: This is true. Though I suspect Harry was concentrating more on Cho and his stomach's backflips. :-| Cory: > I guess that's my bottom line: I would hold Hermione responsible > for the mistakes she made before the meeting, (i.e. before Harry > and the others really knew what was going on), but from the Hog's > Head onward, I wouldn't assign any more blame to her than I would > to Harry. SSSusan: I see your point more than I did before, Cory, but I'd still hold Hermione somewhat more accountable, even at the HH. As I say, she was the one who'd presumably, in typical Hermione fashion, thought it all through in advance. Harry was so taken aback and angry, and such the focus of attention, that I can see how much harder it would've been for him to have looked around and noticed as much or to have taken charge -- other than, as you suggest, saying in anger, "That's it. I'm not interested anymore." That would've seemed somewhat IC for Harry. And Ron? Well, god love him, he's just got tunnel vision sometimes, doesn't he? Maybe I should've put more blame there; it's just hard to know how much of a role he had in planning, and clearly he was taking a back seat in leadership to the other two. Though he *could* have pushed harder to kick Zacharias & the other "doubters" out. Looks like we're where we often end up at HPfGU [e.g., Sirius' death, Snape vs. Harry]: finding there's plenty of blame to spread around. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Fri Jan 7 03:05:06 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:05:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta and the DA References: Message-ID: <011301c4f465$b2cd74e0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121334 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ravenclaw001" > wrote: > > > > I've been following these threads about Marietta Edgecombe and the > > DA, and I think it's time I put my two knuts' worth in. > > > > Firstly---having her join at all was an example of Hermione's > biggest > > weakness. > > Hickengruendler: > > I disagree. Hermione took the whole situation very serious. For her, > it was about learning to defend themselves (and rightfully so). Not > to allow Marietta to join the DA just because she didn't enjoy the > meeting could have been a decision between life and death. Imagine > for example Marietta facing a Death Eater and not being prepared > enough to fight for her life, because Hermione didn't allow her to > join the DA. The situation was way to grave for Hermione to exclude > the DA members who were doubtful from the following meetings. In > dubio pro reo, especially in this situation. From your point of view, > the first person to be excluded from the meetings must have been > Zacharias Smith, and he didn't betray the DA. > > I suspected Marietta to become a traitor from the very beginning. But > only, because Zacharias Smith seemed to be a pretty obvious red- > herring, just like Snape in book 1 or Draco in book 2. Therefore I > started to look for other possible candidates and very soon landed at > Marietta. However, that's nothing Hermione could have known. After > all, she doesn't read the books. And it's not that she can tell > Marietta: You aren't allowed to join the group, because I don't like > your face. > Kethryn now - I, too, have been following the Marietta conversations (and fighting with yahoo so that I can receive emails from the group) and I happen to think that Hermione did the right thing. I mean, Hermione did warn them... "I-I think everybody should write their name down, just so we know who was here. But I also think," she took a deep breath, "that we all ought to agree not to should about what we're doing. So if you sign, you are agreeing not to tell Umbridge - or anybody else - what we are up to." (page 346, 0otP, American version) If it were me, I would do exactly the same thing as Hermione in this case. It would be useless to tell people that something bad would happen if they signed the form and then blabbed; those people that would be inclined to blab would somehow find a way not to sign the form. I also happen to believe that this is a war between the MoM and Hogwarts at this point and I would fully back Hermione's decision to catch any actual traitors to the group. It's like this, if I knew there was a traitor in the US selling secrets to the fill-in-the-blank of your choice here, I wouldn't hesitate a second to ensure their capture, legally or otherwise. And, if I had magic, that would make catching them that much easier. After all, no one held a gun to Marietta's head and made her sign it and, by voluntarily signing a promise and breaking it, she broke an oath. Therefore, she deserved what she got. Kethryn who has a very low tolerance for oathbreakers. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 7 03:36:38 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 03:36:38 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121336 SSSusan wrote: > > So, IMO, if she'd been thinking clearly, she should have: > > 1) been more forthcoming with Harry about the numbers likely > > to come (she'd said he would be surprised, but she'd not given > > him any indication of how many had expressed interest) grindie: > The danger in telling Harry about the number of people attending > is that he may have backed out altogether. In the beginning, he > was not thrilled about the idea and may not have gone through with > it at all if Hermione had acutally revealed the amount of people > interested. SSSusan: But doesn't he DESERVE that much?? I mean, he's being asked to head this group up, to teach them. I maintain he had a right to know specifically what was being expected of him going in. If he'd known there might be 25 people and he was uncomfortable with that, then I think he had a right to that discomfort. To me, it borders on trickery to have kept that information from him. Sort of, "I know you might back out if you know how many might come, but since *I* know better what's best for you, I'll just keep that bit to myself." There's a *reason* why Harry was furious with Hermione when these kids started streaming in, and I think that was it -- he felt cornered and misled by her. SSSusan earlier: > > 2) been more forthcoming about what they were likely to talk > > about [*SHE* was the one who first brought up being prepared > > because Voldy was back, for instance] grindie: > Harry had to realize deep down that these people would be > interested in hearing about Voldie and Cedric, etc. SSSusan: Sure, but if he didn't realize that some of these people who didn't know him well or at all were coming, how could he have been prepared for their demands for information? If he thought it was just his buddies & a few Gryffindors, that's one thing; but to have Marietta and Zacharias Smith and Terry Boot and people he didn't even know show up and start challenging him? I don't blame him for being pissed. I don't think he WAS thinking he'd have to defend/prove himself to anyone. I think he trusted Hermione to just bring along people who already believed his story. grindie: > Overall, I can't blame Hermione. She was the one that thought of > this idea, and as we all remember, the DA was the only thing that > kept Harry going for a while when things got really bad with > Umbridge. Hermione means well and still was the only one of the 3 > really thinking about some consequences for snitching. SSSusan: In the end it worked out that Harry really enjoyed teaching and the DA members learned a lot. But if Hermione had kept the group small at the start 'til they figured out just what they were all about, would Marietta ever have found her way there? Would knowledge of the DA ever have been betrayed? Would DD have had to depart? Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 7 03:46:14 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 03:46:14 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA In-Reply-To: <011301c4f465$b2cd74e0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121337 Kethryn: > If it were me, I would do exactly the same thing as Hermione in > this case. It would be useless to tell people that something bad > would happen if they signed the form and then blabbed; those > people that would be inclined to blab would somehow find a way not > to sign the form. I also happen to believe that this is a war > between the MoM and Hogwarts at this point and I would fully back > Hermione's decision to catch any actual traitors to the group. > > Kethryn who has a very low tolerance for oathbreakers. SSSusan: I have a low tolerance for Marietta's oathbreaking, too, but wouldn't it make MORE sense to tell them something bad would happen if they signed & then told, to *let* those people "find a way not to sign"?? That way you've got no one in the group who might betray you later, no one in the group you're allowing to continue to come to meetings and gather intel on you. AND if they walked without signing, you'd know who to be watching! You'd know there were people who didn't think this was such a good idea, so you'd better be careful how much detail you let out. In short, letting them go without signing would equal damage control in my book. Siriusly Snapey Susan, shutting up on this thread for now. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Jan 7 03:12:32 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 03:12:32 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121338 > SSSusan: > I've seen several people who have remarked that they'd just NOT > like this scenario, and I see their point (though, for me, I can > still see it working out). So I'd like to ask phoenixgod and > others who just do not want to see Harry lose his powers, would > you be okay with his losing his life instead? In other words, > in your minds, would death be a better fate for Harry than life > w/o his magic? I don't think I could decide that. To me the loss of his powers is nearly the same as death. He would never be able to fully function in his chosen society again, never be able to hold even a basic job in it. Never enjoy flying or participating in magical activities with his friends. He can't very well rejoin the muggle world, he's woefully unprepared for it. He'd be reduced to an object of pity in the wizarding world. Die or lose powers, for Harry it's death either way. phoenixgod2000 From kb1195 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 6 23:04:00 2005 From: kb1195 at hotmail.com (katevldz) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:04:00 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . (Sirius) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amdorn" wrote: > > > > What is your "Harry Potter" greatest fear? > I know I'm a little behind replying here (this post got a lot of replies!), but I wanted to throw in my two knuts: My greatest fear is that there will be no further resolution of, meaning in, reason/explanation for Sirius' death, other than death is unfair, arbitrary and random. (I know many of you will disagree, but that reason just doesn't cut it for me!) Sirius doesn't have to stroll back through the veil, talk to Harry through the 2-way mirror, lead Harry on a journey into the veil to talk to James and Lily, communicate in/through dreams, or even make an appearance at all, if he is indeed "properly" dead (is he? - my secret wish is that he is quite alive and will be coming back), but I at least need more reason than he died because that's the way life (and death) is. That's the way "real" life is, but HP is not real life (no matter how much we argue the parallels between the two worlds :))! JKR can do whatever she wants. That's what makes it special, IMHO. Many people have mentioned their fear that Harry will meet his end at the series' end. While I hope and hope that Harry does get the chance to lead a normal, happy life, free of the burden he now carries, I am not sure I would be too sad if he dies. He would be reunited (at least I think so) with James and Lily and Sirius (if he is really dead ;)). I would like to see how JKR would write it and what kind of take she would have as she has lost a parent, and, I suppose, wonders what it would be like to be reunited. best regards, kate, who is extremely sentimental and readily admits it, and who is also relatively new here and marvels at how the wonderful and insightful digests just keep coming to her Inbox even though a new HP book has not been published in well over a year, and who is excited to see what happens here when HBP is released! From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Fri Jan 7 03:59:28 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:59:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta and the DA References: Message-ID: <014401c4f46d$4b3825c0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121340 > Kethryn: > > If it were me, I would do exactly the same thing as Hermione in > > this case. It would be useless to tell people that something bad > > would happen if they signed the form and then blabbed; those > > people that would be inclined to blab would somehow find a way not > > to sign the form. I also happen to believe that this is a war > > between the MoM and Hogwarts at this point and I would fully back > > Hermione's decision to catch any actual traitors to the group. > > > > Kethryn who has a very low tolerance for oathbreakers. > > > SSSusan: > I have a low tolerance for Marietta's oathbreaking, too, but > wouldn't it make MORE sense to tell them something bad would happen > if they signed & then told, to *let* those people "find a way not to > sign"?? That way you've got no one in the group who might betray > you later, no one in the group you're allowing to continue to come > to meetings and gather intel on you. AND if they walked without > signing, you'd know who to be watching! You'd know there were > people who didn't think this was such a good idea, so you'd better > be careful how much detail you let out. > > In short, letting them go without signing would equal damage control > in my book. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, shutting up on this thread for now. > Kethryn again - But that would require a heck of a lot of effort, especially in Marietta's case in particular, where she is not in Gryffindor. I mean, let's face it, none of the trio really trust anyone outside of their own house (and I am assuming the reverse is true also...none of the other students in any other house wouldn't necessarily trust those in Gryffindor for example) and it would be a heck of a lot of work to track someone not in your own house...the students aren't allowed to move that freely and I wouldn't trust it to anyone not in my house. And Marietta could have walked before signing the paper...like I said, no one held a gun to her head. Kethryn From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 04:04:00 2005 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 04:04:00 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121341 > SSSusan wrote: > In the end it worked out that Harry really enjoyed teaching and the DA members learned a lot. But if Hermione had kept the group small at the start 'til they figured out just what they were all about, would Marietta ever have found her way there? Would knowledge of the DA ever have been betrayed? Would DD have had to depart? > *****Marcela: Your questions are very reasonable. I feel that those are the same questions that Harry and Co. will ask themselves in HBP, if there is a younger version of an Order of the Phoenix or something like that... I believe that Jo wrote the Marietta's betrayal and the DA's foundation in such ways because she wanted them to be a 'lesson' for Harry and his friends' future. Now Harry knows that even if someone in his group is a friend of a friend, that doesn't automatically mean it's going to be a friend of his. Plus, we cannot forget about the 'plot device' role of Marietta's and the need for the story to take out DD from Hogwarts. Marcela From mike_dee23 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 6 23:01:29 2005 From: mike_dee23 at hotmail.com (Mike Del Muro) Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:01:29 -0000 Subject: Draco, no longer Harry's antagonist? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121342 Hey all, I'm new to the group... Now to the point: I think that now that Lucius Malfoy has been "outted" and that he seems to be Harry's most dangerous antagonist now, that Draco might have a change of heart. I doubt he'll be a "good guy," but I do think he won't work for someone like Umbridge again... For more evidence, here's the title of a chapter in the new book: Chapter 6 Draco's Detour Let me know what you think about this theory? From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 04:19:11 2005 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra) Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:19:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Draco, no longer Harry's antagonist? Message-ID: <20050107041911.99726.qmail@web51908.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121343 "Mike Del Muro" (or do you prefer mike_dee23?): > Hey all, I'm new to the group... Then welcome to HPfGU! :) > I think that now that Lucius Malfoy has been "outted" and that > he seems to be Harry's most dangerous antagonist now, that > Draco might have a change of heart. I doubt he'll be a "good > guy," but I do think he won't work for someone like Umbridge > again... I am not sure I understand. Can you articulate exactly why public knowledge of Lucius Malfoy's membership in the DEs would lead to Draco having a change of heart and ceasing to be Harry's antagonist? Or why Draco wouldn't be in cahoots with someone like Umbridge again? > For more evidence, here's the title of a chapter in the new book: > Chapter 6 Draco's Detour Hmm...as there are many ways to interpret that title, I am not sure how you tie this in as evidence for your theory. I'm sure you can, but I'm not sure which of the possible ways of doing so is yours. BTW, for your reading pleasure, the HPfGU posts speculating about the three chapter titles released on Halloween begin with http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116853 Petra: "Happy reading!" a n :) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 04:40:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 04:40:26 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality - Combined answers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121344 Potioncat: Haven't you ever known a "bad kid"? No, I don't believe anyone is born bad. And I don't believe a child is destined to be evil... but I've known bad kids. And I've heard of really, really bad kids... I wouldn't be surprised if JKR didn't know someone like Draco and used that basis for the character. And, well, in a work of fiction characters are plot devices. There isn't enough time or enough pages to have characters wandering around for no reason at all. I don't see Draco as 2-D, although Crabbe and Goyle are. But they serve a purpose as well. So for whatever reason, JKR put this narrow minded, self-centered character into the plot and pitted him against Harry. I'm not sure what she'll do with him...to him...about him. But there he is. But it's like real life, if you go to school with a kid who believes very strongly in everything you don't, you still have to put up with that kid until you're both out of school. And if that kid is very good at not getting caught, then it's all the worse. Potioncat who isn't sure she contributed anything at all to this discussion Alla: Actually, I think you contributed A LOT to this conversation. Just to be clear - I will VERY briefly reiterate my POV on Draco. I have NO sympathy for him within the story, for all I care he can go and die slow and painful death tomorrow, because JKR is very very good at manipulating this particular reader, BUT I am annoyed when I look at the character outside of the story. Nevertheless, I hear you loud and clear. Yes, I still don't think that beating us over head that Draco IS evil and WAS evil ever since he appeared in Hogwarts at the age of eleven is a best message , but you convinced me that it could be considered a realistic portrayal ( or close enough to realistic) After all, there are many many children who grew up in the problematic family environment and do not receive proper attentionj, counselling in schools, etc. The only influence they get is family and they grew up exactly as their families teach them. Point very well taken, Potioncat. Still though, since it is a fictional reality, I would love Dumbledore and Co at least try and help Slyths somehow, not just let them be. Sigh... Pippin: He may be a bit more than that eventually. Just for a moment, separate what Snape is asking Harry to do from his pedagogically incorrect methods of getting Harry to do it. Snape wants Harry to study hard, mind his own business, pay attention in class, deal respectfully with his teachers and classmates, stop thinking that wealth, popularity or his family name entitles him to anything, and leave the Voldemort war to the grown-ups. As we all know, Harry doesn't need to be pressured to do most of these things, and would rather receive guidance from the Giant Squid than Severus Snape anyway. But there is another child in Snape's classes who desperately needs guidance in these areas. Whatever potential for good rests in Draco seems to be draining away unregarded. That's tragic, particularly as Snape seems to be the one adult who might be able to reach him in time. Alla: Sorry, Pippin, I am not clear on what are you saying. Are you saying that it will be better if Snape left Harry alone and concentrated on Draco, since he needs his attention more and would benefit from his guidance AND Draco is willing to receive guidance from Snape? Because if you are saying all that, I am wholeheartedly agree. I also think that Snape SHOULD leave Harry alone (could he do the same to Neville, please)? :o) Oh, yes, before Susan will tell me that Snape and Harry have to learn to work together for common good, I have to clarify that Snape should leave Harry alone at least till he is in proper mindset to be with him in the same room, if forever is impossible due to war circumstances :o) Just my opinion, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 04:51:50 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 04:51:50 -0000 Subject: Scholarly journal publishes HP issue Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121345 If you're writing a paper on HP and need to cite sources or are just interested in seeing the series treated as serious literature in a scholarly journal, check this out. TOPIC, the Washington and Jefferson College Review, has devoted a whole issue, Volume 54 (Fall 2004) to the HP series. (Links below.) The Leaky Cauldron, which is where I found the information, also links to the site, including a page where you can download an order form for that issue of the journal. One of the articles has the interesting title, "Tolkien as Rowling's Patronus against the Creatures," erm, "Critics." There's also a second article on Rowling and Tolkien, one on the obvious topic of adult vs. children's lit., one on truth and lies, one on Hermione's "quest for knowledge," one on the "aesthetic beauty" of the books' structure, and one on Harry's trauma in "surviving to bear witness," presumably relating to the graveyard ordeal in GoF, and several others that you may or may not find interesting. You can see the cover at this URL http://www.washjeff.edu/topic/ and the Table of Contents at this one: http://www.washjeff.edu/topic/issues.htm Carol, wishing she had a copy to thumb through right now From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 05:34:49 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 05:34:49 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121346 > Carol wrote: > "What I want to know, SSS, is why you think he might lose the powers > he was born with when his parents were a witch and a wizard. Is it > possible to *become* a Squib if you're not born one?" > > Del replies: > I really don't think he was, but do we know for sure that Harry wasn't > born a Squib? Carol responds: Actually, yes, we do. Hagrid says in SS/PS that Harry's name was down for Hogwarts as soon as he was born--and only magical children can attend Hogwarts. Carol From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 05:04:26 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 05:04:26 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality - Combined answers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121347 >>Nora: >And yes, I do think it will take a public statement, because there are times you have to suck it up and say things like that out loud. This also involves a repudiation of the blood standard of Slytherin House, hence my idea that Slytherin House will have to disavow its foundational idea to join the others.< Betsy: I've reread CoS semi-recently and had some thoughts on S. Slytherin and his House that I've been kicking around. Is Slytherin House all that Pure-Blood obsessed? Was S. Slytherin himself evil? In Prof. Binn's class on the Chamber legend he says, "[The Founders] built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution." (CoS, Scholastic ed, paperback, pg. 150) So when he tells the students that S. Slytherin, "disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, beliving them to be untrustworthy," (ibid) I had a sudden understanding of where S. Slytherin may have developed his distrust of outsiders. It's an understandable complex for those under persecution. There's a discussion thread going on right now on how wise Hermione was to open up the DA group to outsiders, so S. Slytherin's view on taking in children of the enemy shouldn't seem unfamilier. And then, later we get this statement from Ron. "I always knew Salazar Slytherin was a twisted old loony, [..] But I never knew he started all this pure-blood stuff." (ibid, pg 152) Ron has been set up from the beginning as the keeper of common wizard knowlege. Isn't it a bit strange that it's not commonly known that Slytherin is pure- blood crazed? At one point Lee Jordan is explaining why the Slytherins should all be thrown out of the school. He notes that every other House has been victimized, and then says, "Haven't any of the teachers noticed that the Slytherins are all safe? Isn't it obvious all this stuff's coming from Slytherin? The Heir of Slytherin, the monster of Slytherin..." (ibid, pg. 258) If Slytherin House is known to not have any Muggle-borns, as all the other victims are, why doesn't Lee Jordan raise that point as well? Granted, Jordan isn't a detective, and he's playing to the room, but still, it suggests that perhaps Slytherin is no longer perfectly pure-blooded (if it ever was). Hagrid has famously said that there's not a wizard gone bad who didn't come from Slytherin, (to paraphrase) but in CoS we learn that Hagrid has reason for a certain prejudice against Slytherins. Dumbledore lists some very positive traits that S. Slytherin looked for in students, "resourcefulness -- determination -- a certain disregard for rules," (ibid pg. 333). So, though Harry and friends have a clear dislike and distrust for Slytherin House, I'm kind of doubtful that this distrust is accurate. Which makes me wonder if the Slytherins really do need to do some sort of public mea culpa. They may feel like the Gryffindor House owes them some sort of public statement too. Plus, if Slytherin House has to completely "disavow its foundational idea[s]," would it still be Slytherin? >>Nora: >Yes, but the scenario that Slytherin House is needed and the idea that "Harry needs Draco for himself" (so I paraphrase with slightly in-bad-faith intent, but yes, I am giggling at something) do not imply each other in any way, shape, or form.< Betsy (trying and failing to repress school-girl snickering): I agree that the argument that Draco will be redeemed is not a solid one. It does take reading cannon with a bit of wide-eyed optimism, especially after some scenes in OotP, e.g. when Draco seems so eager to see Harry tortured. Things that keep me hopeful are the fact that Draco is the Slytherin we best know, and that with his father in Azkaban and publically and reliably named a DE, Draco could be heading for an epiphany. It's a bit thin -- but I hope. >>Nora: >You may choose not to use the interviews: I do. They make a very handy regulator at times, especially for more general perspectives and thematic projection.< Betsy: I can kind of take or leave the interviews... Depending on whether or not they support my arguments . My main hangup on what JKR says about Draco is that at this point, from what we've read, he *is* a bad boy. *If* JKR is planning on a surprise redemption or something, I think she'd quite happily lead folks astray during interviews. >>Nora: >...if anyone is Draco's double/parallel by this time in the series, it's Ron, not Harry. >:) (which completely deflates The Major Claim of the H/D shippers. not that hard to do...) Betsy: Agreed! Yet another forshadowing that Draco will join Harry's gang and fight by Ron's side... hee! (sorta, kinda, kidding) Betsy From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 06:02:54 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 06:02:54 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality - Combined answers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121348 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: Opening salvo: Salazar is something of a wild-card. One-time best friends to Godric, leaving the school over the blood issue, leaving a giant homicidal snake in a seekrit room in the basement. It doesn't look that good, really. > Betsy: > So when he tells the students that S. Slytherin, "disliked > taking students of Muggle parentage, beliving them to be > untrustworthy," (ibid) I had a sudden understanding of where S. > Slytherin may have developed his distrust of outsiders. It's an > understandable complex for those under persecution. There's a > discussion thread going on right now on how wise Hermione was to > open up the DA group to outsiders, so S. Slytherin's view on > taking in children of the enemy shouldn't seem unfamilier. It raises the question of why he is the isolate of the three, though; the others apparently had no problem, and per the Sorting Hat, Hufflepuff was actively opposed to his policy. > And then, later we get this statement from Ron. "I always knew > Salazar Slytherin was a twisted old loony, [..] But I never knew > he started all this pure-blood stuff." (ibid, pg 152) Ron has > been set up from the beginning as the keeper of common wizard > knowlege. Isn't it a bit strange that it's not commonly known > that Slytherin is pure-blood crazed? Ron seems to know as much as the plot requires, and no more. :) Contra this, it then becomes interesting as to where Tom Riddle picked up the "Slytherin's noble work" idea. Given that we're talking to Young!Tom, it seems probable that he got it from SOMEWHERE. What is unclear is whether it is more solidly historically founded or a projection. Again, given the SH's statement, I now lean more towards the former. > If Slytherin House is known to not have any Muggle-borns, as all > the other victims are, why doesn't Lee Jordan raise that point as > well? Granted, Jordan isn't a detective, and he's playing to the > room, but still, it suggests that perhaps Slytherin is no longer > perfectly pure-blooded (if it ever was). It seems to be speaking more of the fact that no Slytherins are getting nailed. This makes sense, of course, with Tom Riddle Slytherin Fanatic controlling the snake. Lee, competitively minded that he is, picks up on the House thing first: perhaps because if you say 'Slytherin', it's just explicitly *known* that there are no Muggleborns there. [BTW, Tom Riddle is a very unclear case. Halfbloods (wizard/muggle, not 'halfbloods' like Harry) generally admitted, or exceptions made because of the lineage? Also unclear.] > So, though Harry and friends have a clear dislike and distrust for > Slytherin House, I'm kind of doubtful that this distrust is > accurate. Which makes me wonder if the Slytherins really do need > to do some sort of public mea culpa. They may feel like the > Gryffindor House owes them some sort of public statement too. Funny, I didn't see Gryffindor House leading the Inquisitorial Squad, which is what I was primarily thinking of. Even though it was Draco's claque, and other Slytherins were not necessarily involved, they were still the beneficiaries of the IS, per the gems in the hourglass at the end. Like it or not, as they took the free ride, so they have some obligation to disavow the results--if they don't feel like accepting some of the blame for helping perpetuate the conditions. Sitting back and benefiting while keeping your head down is a very Slytherin way to behave. In JKR's world, it doesn't seem to be a very ethical way to behave--hence the possible need for public airings of grievances. I could be wrong, of course. :) Not to mention that we don't have canon for all of them, but a good number of DEs are Slytherin alumni. There's a complex of linkages between interest/use of the Dark Arts, belief in the pureblood ideology, and following Voldemort. In Slytherin, where that ideology is encouraged, it's no shock that DEs come out of there. It's not unique to Slytherin House and it's not a complete profile of the House, but it seems substantial. > Plus, if Slytherin House has to completely "disavow its > foundational idea[s]," would it still be Slytherin? Maybe the House system itself is doomed. But per the Sorting Hat in OotP, Ravenclaw and Gryffindor chose their students on characteristics. Helga took everyone, giving her the high moral ground. But Slytherin's sine qua non was an assignation of quality based on the purity of blood. Ambitious and talented Muggleborns are and were right out, so far as we know--with evidence that that is the case, and none that it isn't. Initially well-intentioned or not, we are now told that again, the sine qua non is blood, making Slytherin the House based on the idea of "Who's your daddy?" I don't think that method of choosing students and assigning differential value to human life can be productive in any way. There's a hierarchy implied in the statement as well; some people are purer of blood than others, so we have a spectrum, not merely a differentation of yes or no. We see that in Bellatrix' ravings, wherein Harry is inferior, but he's better than someone like Hermione. > Betsy: > I can kind of take or leave the interviews... Depending on > whether or not they support my arguments . My main hangup > on what JKR says about Draco is that at this point, from what > we've read, he *is* a bad boy. *If* JKR is planning on a surprise > redemption or something, I think she'd quite happily lead folks > astray during interviews. He does fit some of the criteria of a bad boy, although he is distinctly lacking in objective qualities of attractiveness. ;) You should go and join Pippin in the "JKR is lying to us!" corner, though. I think she's very shifty when people are on to something, but I don't feel that in her Draco responses. She's more "huh?" about people liking him than anything. -Nora goes and hunts for the blue bottle... From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 06:12:27 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 06:12:27 -0000 Subject: your greatest hope In-Reply-To: <20050106214018.46738.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121349 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: > What is your GREATEST HOPE about how the series will end? > I have thought about this and have an answer, but I'd really like to know what you all think first. > > I look forward to your thoughts. > Hans Rieuwers Tonks here: My greatest hope is for the series as a whole. That when it is over people don't just put it on the shelf and go on to the next thing, like an old toy. I hope there is a strong moral teaching that sinks in deeply into the subconscious mind of each reader and that will inspire the youth around the world to make the world a better place in their time. I have very high hopes, not realist I guess but that is my hope anyway. Tonks_op From pjarrett at gmail.com Fri Jan 7 06:13:13 2005 From: pjarrett at gmail.com (Patrick Jarrett) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 01:13:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality - Combined In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3def328f0501062213151914f6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121350 Nicky Joe: > I think Draco's fan club is populated with the optimist in all of > us. We've all known people who are so far from our own life-view as > to be nearly considered "evil" and most of the time we merely wish > that their sheer ignorance could be wiped away and they would be > brought around to our side, the "good" side. I think every single > reader would love Draco to wake up and see Harry's reality ? that > maybe killing off all the muggles and muggleborn isn't such a good > idea. However, most of us do know that there's about a snowballs > chance of hell of that happening, because it simply isn't realistic. > Can anyone think of a single scenario ? plausible scenario ? that > could cause Draco to change his spots? Let's face it, kids who are > raised in an atmosphere of bigotry and hatred RARELY change. Patrick: Well what about this one. Lucius falls from Voldemort's graces and ends up rather dead. Would Malfoy suddenly turn anger toward V? Or what if his life and Harry's life were both in danger and Hermione came and saved them, I suppose that debt could cause him to resent her more but it might also be the first step towards acceptance. So to sum it up, it would have to be a series of unfortunate events for the young Malfoy and a series of serendipitous involvements from those who he despises, but yes I think it could happen. Will it? Probably not. But it could. -- Patrick From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 06:36:06 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 06:36:06 -0000 Subject: Voldemort in hiding In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121351 khinterberg wrote: I came across a strange quote from > > > when Sirius is talking to Pettigrew about why Pettigrew had stayed a rat for twelve years: > > > > > > "Voldemort's been in hiding for fifteen years..." p 370 POA > > > > > > Hold on, fifteen years? Where did that come from? I work at a > > > library, and quickly ran to check all the copies we have: it > > > reads "fifteen" in all of them. But that means Voldemort was in > > > hiding about a year and a half before Harry was born if you > > > count back from the time Sirius was speaking. Has anyone come > > > across this puzzle before? Am I reading too much into something > > > here? > > > Amberlyn (Celestina) > > (snipped) > > I too checked all my copies of the book and checked the copies at > > work (I work in a library too). Was this just a mistake on > > Sirius's part (like when you say you've known someone for 15 years > > because it is a standby number as opposed to say 12 years, 5 > > months, 27 days, 15 hours, 3 min...well, you get my > > point)... > > > Dungrollin added: > > I'm afraid my copy (UK paperback p 271) says 12 years - if we're talking about the same bit: > > "I'll tell you why," said Black. "Because you never did anything for > anyone unless you could see what was in it for you. Voldemort's > been in hiding for twelve years, they say he's half-dead..." > > Was it that bit? Carol notes: Yes, it's the same bit. It must be an error in the American (Scholastic) edition. Mine (p. 370) says fifteen. Wonder if JKR knows? Carol, guessing that it was JKR's error originally and that the English editor caught it but the American editor didn't From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 06:36:00 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 06:36:00 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121352 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > wrote: > > > > > SSSusan: > > I believe the blame for Marietta's presence lies with all three. > > Cho should not have pushed her; Marietta should have just said no, > > thanks; and Hermione should have limited this first meeting to > > people she & Harry knew, while they worked out the details of what > > it was all about. > > Hickengruendler: > > But I believe that's what happened. Hermione was also very surprised > about the number of students, who appeared. I can see it like this: > > Hermione and Ron finally convinced Harry to teach them DADA. Then > they decided, that it wasn't unfair for the other students, and > therefore they told the students they know and consider trustworthy. > The other Gryffindor's from their year, Ron's silblings and those who > openly supported Harry (Luna, Cho and Ernie and I think Hermione > mentioned Hannah as well, but I'm not sure). Then Ron or the twins > told the other members of the Gryffindor Quidditch team, plus Lee > Jordan, because they knew them enough and considered them > trustworthy. Ernie told the other Hufflepuffs, because they are his > friends, Parvati told her sister, Ginny told Michael and probably > Colin. Colin told Dennis and Michael told his friends. And Cho told > Marietta. I think Hermione (but also Ron) should have considered that > this might happen, but I still think it's better than telling nobody > at all and only preparing themselves and not think about the others. > All in all, it's still a very close group, who everybody is vouched > for by at least one other DA members who considered them trustworthy. > The only exception is Zacharias Smith, who overheard Hermione telling > Ernie. And like I said in my previous post, once they were there, it > was impossible for Harry or Hermione not to allow them to join the > group. Not only would it be unfair to exclude somebody by mere > suspicion, it also could have grave consequences, if said students > isn't prepared enough for the war. > > Hickengruendler Doddiehere: Hickengruen...I think you are absolutely right on track...I also think that Hermione never believed anoyone above their year would show up..(Fred, George etc.) Of course we must mention the "flip-flop" factor...who believed/disbelieved the worse or Harry Potter year two (COS) vs. who will believe him now post Tri-Wiz torn....(I'm betting hermione didn't confront too many of those who wore support cedric badges....Perhaps she was not paying close enough attention to notice that Cho eventually removed hers.) I do get the feeling while reading about said meeting at the Hogshead Inn that perhaps Hermione would have sceduled another meeting if she thought anything may be amiss..but as we see from Harry's point of view there are a lot of distractions during the meeting; including who Ginny brought to the meeting(Ron's being upset at her new 'boyfriend'). Reading between the lines, I'm guessing that Willy Windershins connected Marietta with whom she looked like, her mother, and wormed his way out of the exploding toilet charges..The DA meetings went on to long for me to believe it was "Marrietta afraid of upseting her mother" rather than Mother contacting Marrietta and questioning her, finding out the truth and then Marietta's mother directing her to tell D.Umbridge immediately. (Marrietta's mother being a "higher-up" within those who regulate the floo network would have been able to communicate this to her daughter w/o D.Umbridges knowledge as she was Umbridge's contact for floo network operation.. AND I would not be surprised if Marietta's mother either wittingly or unwittingly arranged the message ordering the dementors to privet drive...hence Marrietta shows up to the meeting after her mother is telling her that Harry's trial proved the truth...(because she knew a message was sent from MOM to dementors...yet in light of what happened to Harry tells her to be loyal to the MOM....esp. the one who originated the ORIGINAL messages to the dementors (D. Umbridge)... Perhaps this is a reason why M. Pomphrey cannot/will not cure marrietta...She is warning people that once you "choose a side" you "choose a side"....also a warning for kids to not follow blindly behind their parents...We see most of the children in HP to question authority(HP, Parents, OOP, MOM etc.)...and they should question...book five gave all of us a massive lesson on those who qauestion authority; those who refuse to question authority, also where and when to question it as well as all the possible outcomes of those questioning and those doing little of answering...(a little leeway on either side would probably have resulted in a better outcome). Some questioned too much, some not enough, and some simply asked the wrong questions. Perhaps we all see this, but do not discusss it because this entire issue is better off placed on DD's shoulders more than anyone else's in the books. It may well be on DD's shoulders but throughout book five we have no idea...only a confession at the end...Perhaps DD was hurt more at his removal from certain postitions in the Wizarding community than we realize; after all...the only one he could get to come to Harry's defense was Mrs. Figg..we know he chose her to LIE and she was close on the scene...but I remember in the trial that he did not offer up another wittness (muggle or otherwise), but merely offered to bring Mrs. Figg in again. So, going along these same lines...if not all are happy/safe to question authority..key word: ALL; Then who does DD answer to? I'm sure it's not a prophecy alone, especially from Trelawney. Is there more than one prophecy? (IMO: probably as Harry is known internationally...we know this via Harry's experiences during the quidditch cup and the Centaur's reaction to Harry/Quirellmort in the forbidden forrest in book 1; and again in book five with firenze turning up to teach divination).(I wonder if after having D.Umbridge in their midst for so long that more than one centaur may think firenze has the right idea? And who is this M. Pomphrey that she doesn't even take out the bits of leaves and twigs from D.Umbridges hair while she was in the hospital after the MOM battle?!?*snicker*) Nope Marrieta wasn't pried by cho to go to DADA meetings...but, I think, rather by her mother who told Marrietta that she must look out for her(Mariett's mother) as D.Umbridge was going to be there this term... I just wonder if there's any connection between what Marrietta's mother was saying and Kingsley Shaklebolts experiences in the MOM..After all DD could have given his "big bang" sooner in the scene...seemed like he was prolonging it for Fudge's and Umbridge's delight. Yes, I know I wonder alot...but I know that Marietta is not blameless alone...I believe someone encouraged her to do it...Because she was left for so long with the scars the contract she breached leads me to believe that it may be her REASONS for betraying rather than the actual betrayal why the pustules are still there; OR it may be her CHOOSING a SIDE the reason why the betrayal is still there as it is with so many in OOP. Doddiemoemoe, --Who thinks if Hermione did a protean charm with little/no sweat( or, confurng with H or R...then she could have charmed the paper to dole out swifter punishments "depending"..after all we have been discussing Hermione and values/morals a great deal of late). Yes, we've seen it coming but it certainly did stink to have "three sides in OOP. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 07:14:37 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:14:37 -0000 Subject: JKR a Calvinist?Potterverse Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121353 Renee wrote: > In its strictest form, Calvinism does deny free will. But firstly, > not all Calvinist churches and theologians adhere to the strictest > form of Calvinism. Secondly, even though it has implications for > everyday life, the denial of free will pertains to salvation, the > state of the soul before God. > > As long as JKR avoids controversial references to God and Christian > doctrine in the HP books, she's pretty safe. Authorial comments such > as that about the "innate goodness" of the Trio ought to go down > less well with Calvinist theologians, though. It's this kind of > remark that makes me think that if JKR is a Calvinist, she can't be > a strict one. Which is just as well with me, for otherwise the > notion that our choices *show* who we are, would come uncomfortably > close to the Calvinist predestination doctrine. Carol notes hesitantly: I'm stepping into territory I don't know much about, so please bear with me. As I understand it, JKR is a member of the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian (not a branch of the Church of England, which is of course Anglican). But does Presbyterianism equate with Calvinism? A Calvinist, I would think, would not have much tolerance for Christmas celebrations, but JKR's site had an Advent calendar and the Christmas decorations were left up for the Twelve Days of Christmas and taken down at Epiphany as a proper Anglican would have done. (As an ex-Episcopalian, I took mine down today, too.) My thinking is that her Presbyterianism leans a bit toward Anglicanism and away from Calvinism. also she has said that she doesn't believe in fate, which would also mean that she doesn't accept the doctrine of predestination. Please don't hit me with anything for my ignorance here. I know about the Episcopal and Anglican churches but I know very little about Calvinism after the seventeenth century. Can anyone help me out here without being too OT? It's important because of the question of fate and "innate goodness" vs. free will and choice in the books. Also I think there's something like a Christian view of death in OoP and elsewhere, but it's very ambiguous. Carol, who still believes in Christmas even though all the rest (for her) is Auld Lang Syne From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 7 07:43:38 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 07:43:38 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121354 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "witchypooh67" wrote: Kelly: > Will I reread the seven books over and over for years? Will I need > that "rehab?" Geoff: If the ending of Book 7 is "satisfactory" - for you - the answer will probably be yes. I have read LOTR something like 25-30 times in 50 years (not quite up to speed with Christopher Lee!) and still gain great enjoyment form it and the "media that dare not speak its name" as well. I am just approaching the end of my 9th read (I think) of the HP saga and still find it a worthwhile effort. Just save a place for me in rehab. :-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 08:14:12 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 08:14:12 -0000 Subject: your greatest hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121355 SSSusan: > > Alright, I'll risk the wrath or ridicule of those who think > Harry's living a "regular life" would be a horrible, sickly sweet, > too fairy-taleish ending: I want Harry to live. > > > > And I mean *really* get a chance to live. > snip > > Potioncat: > Pass the schmaltz, I agree. I don't think a book has to be all doom > and gloom to be "good" Doom and gloom has its place, but I hope it > won't be in the HP ending. Having said that, it's not that I would > think JKR was horrible if that's what she's decided to do. > > While I'm at it, I'm hoping Snape lives, but my expection of that > outcome isn't as high. Carol now: Yes to both those wishes, and my hopes for Snape are higher than yours, apparently. How about this: Trelawney's (small p) prophecy, made while she was in what passes for her right mind, comes true, and Harry lives a long (magical) life, becomes Minister for Magic, and has twelve children (in which case, he'd better marry Ginny and let Ron marry Hermione). And Snape, now that Harry and Neville are no longer in his classes, gets to teach DADA as the reward for his services to Dumbledore. I know a lot of people don't want that, but I do. Carol, dreading tomorrow (or really today since it's after 1 a.m.) because she has to get inoculations for a trip to Costa Rica in February From trekkie at stofanet.dk Fri Jan 7 09:25:14 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (trekkie) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:25:14 +0100 Subject: SV: [HPforGrownups] Re: Your greatest fear . . . Message-ID: <73da147c20736dfa2f2c119e3e583b96@webmail.stofanet.dk> No: HPFGUIDX 121356 > > Carol wrote: > > "What I want to know, SSS, is why you think he might lose the powers > > he was born with when his parents were a witch and a wizard. Is it > > possible to *become* a Squib if you're not born one?" > > > > Del replies: > > I really don't think he was, but do we know for sure that Harry wasn't > > born a Squib? > > > Carol responds: > Actually, yes, we do. Hagrid says in SS/PS that Harry's name was down > for Hogwarts as soon as he was born--and only magical children can > attend Hogwarts. > > Carol TrekkieGrrrl: But that may have been a manner of speaking, right? Since both of his parents were skilled witches/wizards, it would naturally be assumed that Harry was a wizard. But he needn't be. Remember that Neville was regarded a squib for years, and he too came from an old magic family. But because he hadn't done any involountary magic it was assumed that he couldn't do any, until almost being dropped out of a window. Likewise could Harry in theory be a squib as I doubt he would do magic at his birth. I don't personally think he's born a squib though, but in theory... he could be. ~TG From timregan at microsoft.com Fri Jan 7 10:08:06 2005 From: timregan at microsoft.com (Tim Regan) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:08:06 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121357 Hi All, amdorn wrote: >>> What is your "Harry Potter" greatest fear? <<< Mine is sad because it is inevitable. My greatest fear is that we will all get to the end of Book 7. Once we're there we'll know most of what we need to know. We'll probably understand Snape's motivations, we'll realise that Lupin wasn't evil, we'll know it wasn't all Pam Ewing's dream etc etc We will still have HP speculations to share, but we'll have far far less of them :-( Cheers, Dumbledad From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Fri Jan 7 12:05:42 2005 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 07:05:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR a Calvinist?Potterverse Destiny In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7442FD27-60A4-11D9-A495-000A95DC8A32@bellsouth.net> No: HPFGUIDX 121358 On Jan 7, 2005, at 2:14 AM, justcarol67 wrote: > ...As I understand it, JKR is a member of the Church of > Scotland, which is Presbyterian (not a branch of the Church of > England, which is of course Anglican). But does Presbyterianism equate > with Calvinism? > > A Calvinist, I would think, would not have much tolerance for > Christmas celebrations, but JKR's site had an Advent calendar and the > Christmas decorations... > > Can anyone help me out here without being too OT? It's important > because of the question of fate and "innate goodness" vs. free will > and choice in the books. Also I think there's something like a > Christian view of death in OoP and elsewhere, but it's very ambiguous. > JKR's hasn't been very forthcoming about her religious beliefs. And while she seems to write from a generally Christian worldview, I see no proof that she is overly religious or overtly Presbyterian for that matter. I really don't see her as defending Presbyterian orthodoxy. Wasn't she raised in England? And does Wales fit in there somehow? Anyway, I'm not sure how deep her Presbyterian roots. There are other examples of CoE practices in her books. The practice of having Godparents, for instance, isn't a Presbyterian practice (at least not in the US.) As far as Calvinism, it can mean different things, but it is generally used for system of theology that quite a few churches subscribe or historically subscribed, including Presbyterians, some Baptists, a few Episcopalians, and various congregational and reformed churches. It was a major the theology of the reformation, and all churches formed in that era have strains of Calvinism that they may reject or embrace. Even Luther, never a "Calvinist" nevertheless wrote a major treatise against free will. Knox (founder of Presyterianism) was a student of Calvin and historic Presbyterianism is almost synonymous with Calvinism. The modern Church of Scotland is mainstream. I think only the "free" Presbyterian churches would have problems with Christmas celebrations. Barbara Roberts [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 7 12:42:12 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:42:12 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA In-Reply-To: <014401c4f46d$4b3825c0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121359 Kethryn: > > > If it were me, I would do exactly the same thing as Hermione in > > > this case. It would be useless to tell people that something > > > bad would happen if they signed the form and then blabbed; > > > those people that would be inclined to blab would somehow find > > > a way not to sign the form. SSSusan: > > Wouldn't it make MORE sense to tell them something bad would > > happen if they signed & then told, to *let* those people "find a > > way not to sign"?? That way you've got no one in the group who > > might betray you later, no one in the group you're allowing to > > continue to come to meetings and gather intel on you. AND if > > they walked without signing, you'd know who to be watching! > > You'd know there were people who didn't think this was such a > > good idea, so you'd better be careful how much detail you let > > out. > > > > In short, letting them go without signing would equal damage > > control in my book. Kethryn again - > But that would require a heck of a lot of effort, especially in > Marietta's case in particular, where she is not in Gryffindor. I > mean, let's face it, none of the trio really trust anyone outside > of their own house (and I am assuming the reverse is true > also...none of the other students in any other house wouldn't > necessarily trust those in Gryffindor for example) and it would be > a heck of a lot of work to track someone not in your own > house...the students aren't allowed to move that freely and I > wouldn't trust it to anyone not in my house. > > And Marietta could have walked before signing the paper...like I > said, no one held a gun to her head. SSSusan: I'm not sure I follow why this would have required a lot of work, tracking people down? I wasn't talking about investigating people in advance. I *was* suggesting that Hermione might've told people who asked that, no, they really didn't want anyone Harry didn't know well involved just yet. But in the original bit I wrote, above, I was talking only about that moment at the HH when Hermione produced the parchment and told people she thought they should sign. What I'm suggesting about this moment is that, rather than strongly encouraging everyone to sign, I think it would have made much more sense to have *strongly* encouraged anyone who had reservations to LEAVE THEN. It didn't have to sound hateful, only as if it was a serious commitment and those with doubts would be better off just moving on. You said it yourself that the trio really didn't trust anyone outside their house/inner circle very much. I think it's a *good* thing that they didn't limit the DA to just Gryffindors. H/R/H and others they knew very well -- F/G, Ginny, Neville -- *had* gotten to know some students from other houses by taking classes with them, playing Quidditch against them, from being Prefects with them, or dating, etc. But the ones Harry didn't know at all? Why pressure them to TO sign if you don't want people around who aren't sure of you or you of them? Common sense would tell you to watch them more closely for signs of discomfort or uncertainty, simply because they're unknowns. Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 7 12:52:08 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:52:08 -0000 Subject: Will Snape betray Dumbledore? Re: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121360 > > Snow: > Snape is a confusing character, for every good reason to believe in Snape you can find an alternate reason to suspect him. snip A good percentage of the people DD has trusted have turned out to be someone they are not and the majority of them were appointed teachers. I'm with Ron and I don't give DD a very good grade in his successfulness at using his legilemency powers unless... Examining the situation with this bit of information, how can you possibly assess Snape logically or trustingly based on DD's faith? Potioncat: Well stated. Sorry I had to snip so much. I also keep thinking of Snape insisting to C!M that DD trusts him. It seemed to be a true statement, but one that didn't go far enough. "DD trusts me." was true, but was it true that Snape was worthy of the trust? snipping >>Snow> (1)The night the Death-eaters were playing a bit of muggle > torture, I found it quite interesting that one of the masked marching > death-eaters that night had specifically tortured the muggle Mrs. > Roberts by turning her upside down revealing her panties (just like > someone else we know that wears gray undies. This was after all a > part of Snape's worst nightmare). Could Snape have been the death- > eater that night that performed this curse on Mrs. Roberts? Potioncat: I've seen this suggested before, but as upsetting as Harry's view of that episode was to Snape, I can't think he'd do that to others. If only because it would remind him of the humiliation. Now, he might not mind flipping any of the Marauders upside down as revenge. But could it be that someone else from that episode was in the group? Someone behind a mask...Lupin? Black? Snow: > (2) The chapter in POA entitled The Servant of Lord Voldemort, > how ironic that this chapter opens with Snape revealing his presence to the marauders and the trio. snip ...but I just can't resist speculating on the fact that JKR can be so obviously unobvious with her clues that you tend to disregard intuition that the clue may be straightforward this time. Potioncat: Odd you should mention this. It jumped out at me with this reading of PoA but I'd never noticed it before. Keep in mind too, that at this point, IIRC, we've never been given any reason to think Snape had ever been a DE. We thought he was the bad guy in most of SS/PS, but I don't think we had a real connection to LV. So, as you've said, another reason to distrust him. Wait, this isn't the way this is supposed to go... From ryokas at hotmail.com Fri Jan 7 13:17:21 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (kizor0) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:17:21 -0000 Subject: The opening chapter of book six Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121361 JKR has mentioned that the first chapter has been considered for the same position for PS, PoA and OotP but 'finally works here', and that it has been about thirteen years in the brewing. I've seen remarkably little discussion of it here though it may be due to my erratic presence. What's your take on this? In my arrogant opinion: - For it to be the same chapter, it'll have to feature basically the same things. Details can change and terms can be added, but it won't spoil what would be added later. - The first chapter very likely won't be told from the perspective of Harry or Voldemort. Too much has changed for the two, especially for the latter. - It can introduce some new abilities or items, etc. but anything added has to make sense with what we already know of the wizarding world. PS and GoF featured disapparation, metamorphmagi and the Avada Kedavra, but all were things that wizards could safely be assumed to be capable of doing. - It has to work with a non-wizard Harry and a fallen Voldemort, a wizard Harry and a fallen Voldemort, /and/ a wizard harry and a risen Voldemort, so it can't really have much direct relation to either. I doubt this one will take place after Harry's fifth school year. - All things considered, we'll likely be revealed some background details related to what was discussed in "The Boy Who Lived". Whatever happens will have to be able to also work as an introduction to the setting. Kizor PS. To further my apparent habit of ending posts with non-sequiturs: Ten euros says that we get to see uncaped Dementors before all this is over. From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 14:34:38 2005 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:34:38 -0000 Subject: your greatest hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121362 > > > > > Potioncat wrote: > > While I'm at it, I'm hoping Snape lives, but my expection of that > > outcome isn't as high. > > Carol wrote > my hopes for Snape are higher than > yours, apparently. > > > > And Snape, now that Harry and Neville are no longer in his classes, > gets to teach DADA as the reward for his services to Dumbledore. > I know a lot of people don't want that, but I do. > Sandy here: this is just for fun, since I'd bet all the galleons in my kid's college fund that it won't happen (or at least JKR won't write it), but here's my hope for Snape. (I think many on the list would be ever- so-pleased with at least parts of it): At the end of VWII, no longer needing to maintain his cover as a spy, Sev is able to resign his tenured position at Hogwarts, give up the teaching he's never been well suited for, and take a job doing what he always wanted to do, potions research. And, drawing on a traumitizing incident from his youth, he dedicates his formidable talents to finding a permanent cure for those unfortunate wizards afflicted by the bite of a werewolf. From happydogue at aol.com Fri Jan 7 14:38:08 2005 From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 09:38:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The opening chapter of book six Message-ID: <00F9F0B6.223E6B68.0B4B226A@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121363 Didn't she say some place that she was thinking of a chapter or had written a chapter that was the explanation of what happened at Godrick's Hollow and it didn't work for the first book? This may be what she is talking about. JMM From gbadams_77 at charter.net Fri Jan 7 16:51:21 2005 From: gbadams_77 at charter.net (Bev & Gary) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 08:51:21 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Renouncing parentage (was: Draco and Slytherin House) References: Message-ID: <002601c4f4d9$1e26b3f0$3102ab18@livingroom> No: HPFGUIDX 121364 Hello. I don't post often and this will be short, but I've been following a bit about Draco and the fact that it seems Slytherin House is for mostly pure-bloods and some half-bloods and whether or not a Muggle-born could be included. I think it all comes down to whether or not the person who is half-blood or Muggle-born would be able to renounce his/her parentage. Since Tom Riddle was a half-blood and was in Slytherin House and Harry is a half-blood but doesn't want to be in Slytherin, the main difference is how they feel about their Muggle parentage. Tom Riddle hated his father and Harry loves his mother deeply. I don't see any half-blood being allowed or wanting to join Slytherin if they feel very loving towards the Muggle parent. Similarly, if a Muggle-born was given the option of being in Slytherin, then they would have to squash any loving feelings towards their parents in order to be accepted. A Muggle-born child who was severely abused or very ashamed and wishing to distance him/herself from their parents would fit in well with Slytherin, IMO. Beverly (who hopes she will be able to keep up with the conversation) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 7 15:03:17 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:03:17 -0000 Subject: SV: [HPforGrownups] Re: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: <73da147c20736dfa2f2c119e3e583b96@webmail.stofanet.dk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121365 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, trekkie wrote: TrekkieGrrrl: > But that may have been a manner of speaking, right? Since both of his parents were skilled witches/wizards, it would naturally be assumed that Harry was a wizard. But he needn't be. Remember that Neville was regarded a squib for years, and he too came from an old magic family. But because he hadn't done any involountary magic it was assumed that he couldn't do any, until almost being dropped out of a window. Likewise could Harry in theory be a squib as I doubt he would do magic at his birth. > > I don't personally think he's born a squib though, but in theory... he could be. Geoff: Bear in mind, though, that Harry /had/ performed involuntary wandless magic before he knew he was a wizard. I know that Neville was considered a Squib but the family, especially Great Uncle Algie, set out on a deliberate policy to de-Squib him. I can't see Petunia and Vernon thinking along those lines :-) From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Fri Jan 7 15:48:02 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:48:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potterverse Destiny (was Re: C. S. Lewis and Potterverse Destiny) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501071048175.SM01300@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 121366 > SSSusan snips all the interesting stuff, to get to this: > > Vivamus, who absolutely believes in destiny (with a small > d), but also > > believes it is also dependent upon free will > > > SSSusan: > Okay, Vivamus, now you're going to have to speak to the > difference between destiny & fate for me! :-) > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Vivamus: Hi, SSSusan I agree with JKR on "fate". I dislike the idea that a random universe creates truly non-random events, and I don't like the idea of a capricious deity playing dice with our lives in one form or another, either. I think both ways of looking at it are attempts by superstitious humans to explain why life often does seem to be non-random -- and I think it very often IS non-random. In today's terms, I think that references to "fate" are often simply ways to justify letting ourselves be chips in the millrace, rather than paddling to where WE want to go -- or as excuses for bad behavior. I find that attitude quite offensive, as, apparently, does JKR. (THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY ((C)1911) defines destiny [in this case synonymous with fate] as "A tyrant's authority for crime and fool's excuse for failure.") I do, however, believe in destiny (with a small d). By that I mean, the intent of the Creator for our future, rather than a personalized deity of some kind. As a Christian, I think of the Creator beingx all-knowing and all-powerful, but NOT all-controlling. He sets our path before us, but we don't HAVE to walk it. We are children, not slaves. Without going into Scripture, perhaps the largest difference between "fate" and "destiny" for me is inevitability. I reject the concept of fate because it is inevitable; I refuse to accept that I cannot take responsibility for my own future. There are literally thousands of examples in history of someone who seemed fated for one direction altogether, and, through an iron will, changed their direction entirely (and sometimes the direction of an entire people.) Destiny, on the other hand, is the future planned out for me by the One who knows me best, but it is still up to me to be faithful to my destiny. He knows the choices I will make, but I am still the one who makes them. Unlike fate, which cannot be avoided, destiny is very fragile, and can indeed be missed, or (in the Potterverse) interfered with by someone who is exposed to prophecy. For someone not a Christian, I guess the concept would be that of a conscious setting forth of the future as it now stands by a deity, for the purpose of helping that future to come about -- but the humans involved still have to create that future themselves. In HP, Harry has a destiny to fight LV, but he still does have to fight, and the final outcome (for those who aren't outside the story as readers) is very much in doubt. WE know he will win, but the characters don't know that. The greatest danger to Harry's destiny is DD himself, who might interfere. DD is a wonderfully complex character, if you think of him in terms of this concept of destiny -- and I think this fits with his character in the books better than any other way of looking at it. (Of course, I could just be deluding myself into seeing my own ideas in JKR's writing, but I don't think so.) JKR has said DD is the epitome of goodness, or something like that. So he is powerful, kind, and good, as well as very, very smart. He knows Harry has a destiny to fight LV, but he knows the future is not set, and destiny can be thwarted. If he does too much, he will mess things up. So he leaves Harry with the horrible Dursleys, both so he is protected, and so no one else in the WW can interfere with his development. He gives Petunia some kind of powerful warning when he does so, so that Harry will at least be provided for in a minimal way, and not turned into a vicious monster. He knows they will provide the things he needs, but they won't be nice to him at all. He'll have a tough upbringing, but he'll come to Hogwarts as prepared to fight LV as possible -- not a Draco Malfoy at all. Once Harry is at Hogwarts, DD watches over him constantly (perhaps that is what those spectacles are for.) He can now give more guidance and help, but again, he does not want to interfere with the destiny that is before Harry. With great wisdom, he returns the invisibility cloak to Harry, and lets him do absurdly dangerous things -- not because he thinks Harry can't get hurt, but because Harry seems to be walking the path of his destiny, and DD MUST allow him to be prepared for what is ahead. In the "confession" scene of OOtP, he still does not tell Harry this, because it would again be interfering with his destiny. Harry is going ahead as he should, as he must, and DD, with a heart full of love for Harry, watches in immense pain as Harry goes through these struggles. He only interferes as much as he would normally do in the course of things, and often less (as when he sees the kids under the cloak in Hagrid's hut.) Harry often wonders why DD doesn't help him more. I think we'll see DD do that much more in the next book, as Harry becomes more set on his path. Before that happens, though, I think Harry is going to step away from his destiny in HBP. His grief, guilt, pain, etc., are going to get the best of him, and he will turn aside altogether. That is when we will see DD step in as an active friend and counselor to Harry, as he has not been up to this point. As long as Harry stays on point, DD must keep hands off, to keep from interfering with Harry's destiny. When Harry turns aside, DD will be free to act more directly, because there is, in effect, nothing to lose. Vivamus From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 7 15:59:00 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:59:00 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121367 > Alla: > > Sorry, Pippin, I am not clear on what are you saying. Are you saying that it will be better if Snape left Harry alone and concentrated on Draco, since he needs his attention more and would benefit from his guidance AND Draco is willing to receive guidance from Snape? > > Because if you are saying all that, I am wholeheartedly agree. I > also think that Snape SHOULD leave Harry alone (could he do the same to Neville, please)? :o)< Pippin: Yes and no. It would be much better for Draco, and it would also be better for Harry and Neville in the sense that their lives would be a little easier, and their potion-making skills might improve more quickly. If that's your priority, then yes. OTOH, Harry and Neville are the prophecy children. It doesn't matter if the prophecy is a load of hooey. Unfortunately Voldemort believes it, and his opinion is the one that matters. If they can't weather adult malice without succumbing to temper or fear, their chances of survival are not good. Voldemort is not going to wait until they have the proper mindset to resist his atttacks. Snape is their training ground. If you want Harry and Neville to live, then I'm afraid they're going to have to suffer. I think, though, that the balance is shifting and Snape is about to suffer more from Harry's animus than vice versa. Pippin From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 7 16:14:22 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:14:22 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality - Combined answers) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121368 Someone said: > > > If Slytherin House is known to not have any Muggle-borns, as all > > the other victims are, why doesn't Lee Jordan raise that point as > > well? Granted, Jordan isn't a detective, and he's playing to the > > room, but still, it suggests that perhaps Slytherin is no longer > > perfectly pure-blooded (if it ever was). And Nora (I think) replied: > >It seems to be speaking more of the fact that no Slytherins are >getting nailed. This makes sense, of course, with Tom Riddle >Slytherin Fanatic controlling the snake. Lee, competitively minded >that he is, picks up on the House thing first: perhaps because if >you say 'Slytherin', it's just explicitly *known* that there are no >Muggleborns there. I am in the process of re-reading *Chamber of Secrets,* and last night I came to the part where the Polyjuiced Harry and Ron follow Draco to the Slytherin common room. The Slytherin password was "Pure-blood." I don't know who gives out the passwords for Slytherin (I think for Gryffindor it's the Fat Lady), but is it likely that a password like that would be used by a house with Muggleborns? Janet Anderson From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 16:28:40 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:28:40 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121369 If you want to start an underground resistance movement you can't limit it to people you have personally known and trusted for many years because then it would be too small to be effective. You need to use something called the ring of trust. If I trust A and A trusts B then I should trust B. So if Hermione made an error it's that she trusted Cho. Eggplant From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Fri Jan 7 16:37:37 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:37:37 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121370 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: Eggplant: > If you want to start an underground resistance movement you can't > limit it to people you have personally known and trusted for many > years because then it would be too small to be effective. You need > to use something called the ring of trust. If I trust A and A trusts > B then I should trust B. So if Hermione made an error it's that she > trusted Cho. Renee: You mean, the error is that she trusted Cho's judgement of Marietta (or of people in general)? Because that's not the same thing. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 7 16:45:17 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:45:17 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121371 Eggplant: > If you want to start an underground resistance movement you can't > limit it to people you have personally known and trusted for many > years because then it would be too small to be effective. You need > to use something called the ring of trust. If I trust A and A > trusts B then I should trust B. So if Hermione made an error it's > that she trusted Cho. SSSusan: But don't you *start* small, Eggplant, when in the planning stages? And then enlarge the ring? That's my chief complaint. First meeting was the time to plan specifics, perhaps even go through a list of people deemed possibilities for inviting. Given Umbridge's feelings about Harry -- or at least her treatment of him -- not to mention how close Harry came to expulsion a few months earlier, this matter of secrecy is no small business. Siriusly Snapey Susan From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 16:51:45 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:51:45 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121372 Eric Oppen wrote: > Hermione probably should have sussed > out her lack of enthusiasm and gently > eased her out of the Hog's Head. Well of course she should have done that, but is it reasonable to expect her to actually do so under those circumstances? Several students demonstrated a lack of enthusiasm and a few did so quite vocally, but unlike some others Marietta never said anything nasty, she just frowned a few times. What do you expect Hermione to do, say "Marietta you frowned, I hear by banish you! Be Gone !" Be honest now, when you first read about the meeting in the Hog's Head did you immediately think Marietta was the most dishonest of the bunch? I didn't. > Our Miss Granger could have done was STFU and stay that way.She > nearly got herself and Harry into the same sort of trouble DU got > into by letting the centaurs know that she had been trying to use > them OK, that is a valid criticism. Eggplant From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Fri Jan 7 17:02:58 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:02:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The opening chapter of book six In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050107170258.14674.qmail@web52001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121373 kizor0 wrote: JKR has mentioned that the first chapter has been considered for the same position for PS, PoA and OotP but 'finally works here', and that it has been about thirteen years in the brewing. I've seen remarkably little discussion of it here though it may be due to my erratic presence. What's your take on this? Luckdragon: One of the scrapbook items you can find on Jo's website is a discarded early chapter of PS/SS in which Hermione, Ron, and Harry are discussing the fact that the Potter's were in possession of the PS/SS prior to there deaths. The only theory I've considered so far for the opening chapter of book six is that Voldemort wanted the stone to ensure his immortality and the Potter's had hidden it from him which is why LV went to Godrich's Hollow. Has anyone discussed the possibility that the reason LV could not kill Harry was similar to the Unicorn blood idea. The AK curse cannot work on an infant or someone so pure and free of sin which is why it rebounded and caused LV to live a half life. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From darkthirty at shaw.ca Fri Jan 7 17:24:13 2005 From: darkthirty at shaw.ca (Dan Feeney) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:24:13 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121374 cubfanbudwoman wrote: > And you're saying that you believe the ambiguity is intentional? Or that JKR just *is* ambiguous in this area? Dan: Gosh, I don't know how to separate intention from being, honestly. Our "way" is where we are, right? There are many responses to whatever Rowling is doing in terms of ethics and morality - the plethora of theories about character intention signals not only that the books can be read partially as detective fiction, but also that Rowling has created a scenario wherein folks can attribute ("project") what motives they find reasonable unto the characters - Rowling doesn't relate these motivations to us directly. I think many novels are not only more explicit in describing motivation, but are almost solely about character motivation. Rowling describes/creates situations, and actions - and puts different characters in them. She does not talk about a character's "being," and she uses "soul" as if it were almost mundane, a structuralist kind of soul. Even when she talks about what's going on inside certain characters' heads, she does it as if parsing tremor data from underground faults, say. So the mental space of the characters is, well, something we gather from the data, their actions. Open to interpretation, yes, but no less "singular" or "real" for all that. cubfanbudwoman: > Can you explain more about what you meant by the "ethical immensity of Rowling's project," since you see her as "clear as day" and her opus as "in large part a cautionary tale." Am I correct that you're referring to your belief that JKR abhors moral procedure, doesn't believe in true omniscience? Dan: Again, I don't know what Rowling "believes," but the central theme seems to be connected to knowledge and deception, to some kind of secular Calvanism (Harry at the Second Task, for example, where he acts without a lot of reflection or philosophy) and to systems of morality, or systems of value that can cloud, but also certainly provide a kind of rubric for such acts (pure blood politics, house separation, eg.). These systems become, well, irrelevant, a kind of noise, even. Before the current mention of fate on the list, I had posted that fate, long a useful concept, has, by way of mainstream instrumentality, become a perfectly inane, banal concept. It is never a debate about external forces vs. internal forces, but about HOW the two come together, as it were, in any individual in any situation. They cannot be separated, IMHO. Now, if Harry is indeed in the closet, and is somehow enacting a kind of creative liberation from it, physically and/or mentally and/or spiritually, as it were, then what we see in the books might just be the mirror of what we can acheive ourselves, a kind of resonating liberation struggle, like the one Hans describes using his readings - hence the mirroring dynamic and the plethora of theories. I am coming from a more existential place, yunno? But I am talking essentially about the same thing. After all, we need different things, are on different paths and all that, and there are, so I've read, many paths to freedom. Dan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 7 17:26:02 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:26:02 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Destiny (was Re: C. S. Lewis and Potterverse Destiny) In-Reply-To: <200501071048175.SM01300@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121375 > > > Vivamus, who absolutely believes in destiny (with a small > > > d), but also believes it is also dependent upon free will > > SSSusan: > > Okay, Vivamus, now you're going to have to speak to the > > difference between destiny & fate for me! :-) Vivamus: > I agree with JKR on "fate". I dislike the idea that a random > universe creates truly non-random events, and I don't like the idea > of a capricious deity playing dice with our lives in one form or > another, either. I think both ways of looking at it are attempts > by superstitious humans to explain why life often does seem to be > non-random -- and I think it very often IS non-random. In today's > terms, I think that references to "fate" are often simply ways to > justify letting ourselves be chips in the millrace, rather than > paddling to where WE want to go -- or as excuses for bad behavior. > I find that attitude quite offensive, as, apparently, does JKR. > (THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY ((C)1911) defines destiny [in this case > synonymous with fate] as "A tyrant's authority for crime and fool's > excuse for failure.") > > I do, however, believe in destiny (with a small d). By that I > mean, the intent of the Creator for our future, rather than a > personalized deity of some kind. As a Christian, I think of the > Creator beingx all-knowing and all-powerful, but NOT all- > controlling. He sets our path before us, but we don't HAVE to walk > it. We are children, not slaves. SSSusan: Okay, I believe I've got you now. Basically you're saying that small- d destiny is the path that a diety would *desire* or *prefer* that we take, although we are perfectly free to screw it up and go in a different direction. Thus, as I have argued here before, Harry *is* perfectly free to choose to NOT fight Voldemort. It's his destiny to meet up with him, but Harry could *choose* to not prepare, to hide, to try to avoid the meeting. Or he could choose to face up to the challenge, do all he can to prepare, and go willingly into the battle. Right so far? Capital-F Fate, on the other hand, is something which is predest-- , no, wait -- predetermined, something which has a *single*, can't-be- avoided-no-matter-what outcome. If you are correct that this small-d destiny is, in fact, what JKR believes, I prefer it as well to capital-F Fate. It leaves room for Capital-C Choice. :-) I do still have a question about small-d destiny, though: Is different from hope? That is, does the deity just *hope* the subject will move along the preferred path? Or does the deity give little nudges and provide special opportunities to help the subject along towards the preferred path? Vivamus: > DD is a wonderfully complex character, if you think of him in terms > of this concept of destiny .... > JKR has said DD is the epitome of goodness, or something like > that. So he is powerful, kind, and good, as well as very, very > smart. He knows Harry has a destiny to fight LV, but he knows the > future is not set, and destiny can be thwarted. If he does too > much, he will mess things up. > Once Harry is at Hogwarts, DD watches over him constantly (perhaps > that is what those spectacles are for.) He can now give more > guidance and help, but again, he does not want to interfere with > the destiny that is before Harry. > With great wisdom, he returns the invisibility cloak to Harry, and > lets him do absurdly dangerous things -- not because he thinks > Harry can't get hurt, but because Harry seems to be walking the > path of his destiny, and DD MUST allow him to be prepared for what > is ahead. > He only interferes as much as he would normally do in the course of > things, and often less (as when he sees the kids under the cloak in > Hagrid's hut.) SSSusan: Are you equating DD with the diety? Or are you saying simply that DD knows about the destiny and so has a role to play in it? It seems to me that, if I'm right that DD set up the SS "obstacle course" as a test of where Harry stood in terms of skill & intention and to find out just what he's made of, it would fit with what you're saying about how DD sees his role, wouldn't it? Vivamus: > Harry often wonders why DD doesn't help him more. I think we'll > see DD do that much more in the next book, as Harry becomes more > set on his path. Before that happens, though, I think Harry is > going to step away from his destiny in HBP. His grief, guilt, > pain, etc., are going to get the best of him, and he will turn > aside altogether. That is when we will see DD step in > as an active friend and counselor to Harry, as he has not been up > to this point. As long as Harry stays on point, DD must keep hands > off, to keep from interfering with Harry's destiny. When Harry > turns aside, DD will be free to act more directly, because there > is, in effect, nothing to lose. SSSusan: Which, again, leads me to the same question I asked above. In your mind, is DD the deity or just a major player in the course of events? If the latter, how does DD know so much about Harry's destiny? Is it because of the prophecy? Siriusly Snapey Susan From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 17:37:50 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:37:50 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA In-Reply-To: <011301c4f465$b2cd74e0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121376 Kethryn wrote: "It's like this, if I knew there was a traitor in the US selling secrets to the fill-in-the-blank of your choice here, I wouldn't hesitate a second to ensure their capture, legally or otherwise." Del replies: This analogy isn't quite correct, in that Hermione didn't *know* there was a traitor, she suspected someone *could* turn traitor, which is widely different. If you know there's a traitor, then your intent should rightfully be on identifying them. But if you suspect that over time someone might turn traitor, then your intent should be on *preventing* that betrayal. Devising *only* a way of making the traitor's identity known once he's betrayed is doing only half the job IMO. To use another analogy : let's say I know that someone I know is mixing up with the wrong crowd a tad too much, and I suspect that someday he could be influenced into doing something wrong. I'm not going to just wait until he does do something stupid and then deal with the consequences. No, I'm *also* going to try my best to *prevent* him from doing something stupid : I'm going to talk to him, I'm going to keep an eye on him, I'm going to lay down rules if that's in my power (say, a parent dealing with a child) and then *enforce* those rules. The only thing Hermione did was lay down a single rule ("we agree not to talk to anyone about it") but she even failed from enforcing the rule. She could at least have told, once everyone had signed, that there would be consequences for anyone who betrayed their word. But she didn't do that, or anything else, to *prevent* any betrayal. In my world, that's called *asking* for troubles. And she got them. Del From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 17:55:55 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:55:55 -0000 Subject: Lilly. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121377 Back in 1999, right after book 3 first came out Rowling gave a interview and somebody asked when we'd learn more about Harry's mother, she said: "You'll find out a lot more about her [lilly] in Book 5, or you'll find out something very significant about her in Book 5" And we did learn more about her, it turns out that Lilly hated her future husband James; but then she said something intriguing: "then you'll find out something incredibly important about her in Book 7." Here is my guess what we will see in book 7: It turns out that James had his faults but compared to Lilly he was a saint. She stuck up for Snape just because she could not stand a lousy Grifendor picking on a fellow Slytherin. Contrary to what nearly everybody thought the protection in Harry's blood came from James not Lilly. She did not save Harry, in reality she was a horrible mother and betrayed her husband and her son to Voldemort. She did not die, she changed her name and became a Death Eater. Her new name is Bellatrix Lestrange. "Do you miss your mommy little baby Potter, do you suck your thumb and cry yourself to sleep at night? No need to weep, she has returned." Then in a oddly deep and wheezy voice she says "I am your mother!" "Nooo! That's imposable!" "Search your feelings Harry, you know it is true. Join we me, together we can rule the world as mother and son!" "I'll never join you!" Then again perhaps not, I can't put my finger on it but somehow I have a feeling that's been done before. Eggplant From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Fri Jan 7 18:20:52 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 13:20:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potterverse Destiny (was Re: C. S. Lewis and Potterverse Destiny) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501071321639.SM01300@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 121378 > Vivamus: > > I do, however, believe in destiny (with a small d). By > that I mean, > > the intent of the Creator for our future, rather than a > personalized > > deity of some kind. As a Christian, I think of the Creator beingx > > all-knowing and all-powerful, but NOT all- controlling. He > sets our > > path before us, but we don't HAVE to walk it. We are children, not > > slaves. > > > SSSusan: > Okay, I believe I've got you now. Basically you're saying that small- > d destiny is the path that a diety would *desire* or *prefer* that we > take, although we are perfectly free to screw it up and go in a > different direction. Vivamus: Very close, but I guess I do mean something a bit more definite than that. If the deity actually knows our choices ahead of time, then prophecy would reflect how things *will* end up without outside interference -- not because we can't do anything else, but because that will be the result of free choices yet to be made (but already known.) In the case of destiny, I do think there would be help along the way from the deity, which might come in the form of seemingly random events, or directly from lieutenants following the deity's instruction. So the deity isn't just hoping we follow a certain path; the path is certain, unless something OUTSIDE the universe in which the prophecy is made acts upon it to interfere. The only thing outside the universe of a prophecy I can think of is knowledge of the prophecy itself. So Harry, knowing his destiny, has for the first time a genuine chance to abandon it. DD, knowing the destiny all along, has always had the opportunity to interfere with it; hence his caution. Hmmm. Isn't there some comment in the HP books about knowledge of a prophecy being a dangerous thing? Perhaps this is why LV was so intent on getting the prophecy -- he could only defeat it if he knew the whole thing. > SSSusan: > Thus, as I have argued here before, Harry *is* perfectly free to > choose to NOT fight Voldemort. It's his destiny to meet up with him, > but Harry could *choose* to not prepare, to hide, to try to avoid the > meeting. Or he could choose to face up to the challenge, do all he > can to prepare, and go willingly into the battle. > > Right so far? Spot on. > Capital-F Fate, on the other hand, is something which is predest-- , > no, wait -- predetermined, something which has a *single*, can't-be- > avoided-no-matter-what outcome. Exactly. > If you are correct that this small-d destiny is, in fact, what JKR > believes, I prefer it as well to capital-F Fate. It leaves room for > Capital-C Choice. :-) Me, too! (That fruit was in the garden for a *reason*.) > I do still have a question about small-d destiny, though: Is > different from hope? That is, does the deity just *hope* the subject > will move along the preferred path? Or does the deity give little > nudges and provide special opportunities to help the subject along > towards the preferred path? Vivamus: I would say that it is definitely different from hope. It is more a concrete prediction, but based on things that can be changed. Since all other stimuli are supposedly taken into account, and the choices known ahead of time, it is more like looking at future events and describing them -- but they can change if outside things affect them. In the case of a particular destiny, I would think that the planned actions of the deity to help things along would be part of the equation, as it were -- not to violate all-important choice, but to help circumstances along in such a way that makes the desired choices easier (or even achievable.) > Vivamus: > > DD is a wonderfully complex character, if you think of him in terms > > of this concept of destiny .... > > > JKR has said DD is the epitome of goodness, or something like > > that. So he is powerful, kind, and good, as well as very, very > > smart. He knows Harry has a destiny to fight LV, but he knows the > > future is not set, and destiny can be thwarted. If he does too > > much, he will mess things up. > > > Once Harry is at Hogwarts, DD watches over him constantly (perhaps > > that is what those spectacles are for.) He can now give more > > guidance and help, but again, he does not want to interfere with > > the destiny that is before Harry. > > With great wisdom, he returns the invisibility cloak to Harry, and > > lets him do absurdly dangerous things -- not because he thinks > > Harry can't get hurt, but because Harry seems to be walking the > > path of his destiny, and DD MUST allow him to be prepared for what > > is ahead. > > > He only interferes as much as he would normally do in the course of > > things, and often less (as when he sees the kids under the cloak in > > Hagrid's hut.) > > > SSSusan: > Are you equating DD with the diety? Or are you saying simply that DD > knows about the destiny and so has a role to play in it? > > It seems to me that, if I'm right that DD set up the SS "obstacle > course" as a test of where Harry stood in terms of skill & intention > and to find out just what he's made of, it would fit with what you're > saying about how DD sees his role, wouldn't it? Vivamus: Great point! He certainly is a godlike figure in many ways, isn't he? No, I think JKR is coming from a general Christian ethos, so she probably would not set an individual up that high. I think of DD more as someone who understands, from his depth of wisdom and experience, the way life works. He wants to do his part to help the destiny come about, but mostly that means not getting in the way -- and I don't think he created the destiny in the first place, although I suppose JKR could take that direction, couldn't she? (Wouldn't that be an odd irony -- to find out that the series has really been about DD and not Harry from the beginning?) The obstacle course of SS does indeed fit that, doesn't it? Good for you; I hadn't thought of that. > Vivamus: > > Harry often wonders why DD doesn't help him more. I think we'll > > see DD do that much more in the next book, as Harry becomes more > > set on his path. Before that happens, though, I think Harry is > > going to step away from his destiny in HBP. His grief, guilt, > > pain, etc., are going to get the best of him, and he will turn > > aside altogether. That is when we will see DD step in > > as an active friend and counselor to Harry, as he has not been up > > to this point. As long as Harry stays on point, DD must keep hands > > off, to keep from interfering with Harry's destiny. When Harry > > turns aside, DD will be free to act more directly, because there > > is, in effect, nothing to lose. > > SSSusan: > Which, again, leads me to the same question I asked above. In your > mind, is DD the deity or just a major player in the course of > events? If the latter, how does DD know so much about Harry's > destiny? Is it because of the prophecy? Vivamus: Most here seem to think that there is more to that prophecy than we've been told, and I think they're right. DD knows more about Harry at the start than the prophecy seems to tell. I hope we'll find out what, how, and why in the next book, but I still see him as a major player (an angel, if you will -- messenger of the gods) but NOT a deity. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 18:21:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:21:58 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House and Snape and Harry and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121379 Alla: Sorry, Pippin, I am not clear on what are you saying. Are you saying that it will be better if Snape left Harry alone and concentrated on Draco, since he needs his attention more and would benefit from his guidance AND Draco is willing to receive guidance from Snape? Because if you are saying all that, I am wholeheartedly agree. I also think that Snape SHOULD leave Harry alone (could he do the same to Neville, please)? :o)< Pippin: Yes and no. It would be much better for Draco, and it would also be better for Harry and Neville in the sense that their lives would be a little easier, and their potion-making skills might improve more quickly. If that's your priority, then yes. OTOH, Harry and Neville are the prophecy children. It doesn't matter if the prophecy is a load of hooey. Unfortunately Voldemort believes it, and his opinion is the one that matters. If they can't weather adult malice without succumbing to temper or fear, their chances of survival are not good. Voldemort is not going to wait until they have the proper mindset to resist his atttacks. Snape is their training ground. If you want Harry and Neville to live, then I'm afraid they're going to have to suffer. I think, though, that the balance is shifting and Snape is about to suffer more from Harry's animus than vice versa. Alla: Ummm, I am not convinced that Snape their training ground AT ALL. At best I can call him "unwilling training ground", but that is just me of course. And frankly, I think Harry and Neville have MUCH better chance of survival getting their training from someone they trust and from someone who is WILLING to train them. Failed attempts at Occlumency is the best proof of that, IMO. Hey, I can always hope that Dumbledore will finally decide to train them. I definitely want them to survive, absolutely, but if for that they have to endure day to day Snape's sadism, I am wondering if the price for such survival will not be too high. I do believe though that JKR differs with me on this one. And if you are right and Snape is about to suffer from Harry's animus, I am going to be VERY happy reader. Because I thing that such course of events is long overdue. But allow me to doubt that this is going to happen. I believe that Harry will be "mastering his emotions" as JKR said and eventually forgive Snape at the end. As to Snape, I can see him dying to save Harry thus achieving his redemption, I can also see him living and acknowledging Harry for who he is eventually. But going back to Draco for a second. I know we never see Snape communicating with Slytherins in the dungeons, but do you think Snape ever tried to reach him at all? Just my opinion, Alla From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 18:25:05 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:25:05 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121380 Eggplant wrote: "If you want to start an underground resistance movement you can't limit it to people you have personally known and trusted for many years because then it would be too small to be effective. You need to use something called the ring of trust. If I trust A and A trusts B then I should trust B. So if Hermione made an error it's that she trusted Cho." Del replies: I have two objections. 1. Underground resistance movements are very often either small, or cut up into small cells, precisely because of the risk that one single person could betray a large chunk of the organisation. 2. I always go back to the problem of the way the DA were first advertised : it wasn't about building an underground anti-Umbridge resistance movement, it was only about learning some practical DADA. In other words, it's one thing to ask A "Do you think B is really interested in learning DADA?", and another thing entirely to ask them "Do you think B can be trusted to keep an underground anti-Umbridge resistance movement secret?". Del From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 18:27:14 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:27:14 -0000 Subject: The opening chapter of book six In-Reply-To: <00F9F0B6.223E6B68.0B4B226A@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121381 JMM wrote: > Didn't she say some place that she was thinking of a chapter or had written a chapter that was the explanation of what happened at Godrick's Hollow and it didn't work for the first book? This may be what she is talking about. > > JMM Antosha: That's what I was thinking. This is the greatest unknown in the series, the pivotal scene out of which everything has sprung. It makes sense that she's been tempted to use it many times, and it makes sense that she's (wisely, if cruelly) held it back. Also, it's about the only scene that I can think of that would fit kizor0's excellent criteria. Think about it from the point of view of PS/SS: We see a scene in which a young couple is at home, at peace, when suddenly Senor Psychopath shows up and all hell breaks loose. We see the couple die, and LV tries to kill the baby... but fails, and is (apparently) destroyed. Then little Harry is picked up by the Jolly Green Giant.... And wakes up in his cupboard ten years later, dreaming of flashes of green light and flying on a motorcycle. Perfect. Not as good a first chapter for PS/SS as the one she wrote, and one that would have given away far too much, but very serviceable. PoA? We'd get the same scene, only now Harry knows what he's watching, and we get the (misdirected) introduction of Sirius-as-Secret-Keeper. Again, it gives away too much, but it works. OotP? Well, given that Harry has just survived the resurrection of LV, it makes perfect sense that he might have a dream/vision of the old dude's destruction. If it segued into a dream of the Graveyard, we'd understand why Dudley is teasing Harry about calling out for his 'boyfriend' Cedric. It would have given us a vision of happy-couple!Potters, which might have made the scene of the two of them yelling at each other in the Pensieve scene more poignant... but it might also have made for one too many flashbacks in a single volume, even one as massive as OotP. Now, if GH!flashback IS the famous floating first chapter, what does that tell us about HBP??? Antosha, whose speculative editorial circuits are now fried.... From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 7 18:27:45 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:27:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: your greatest hope Message-ID: <20050107182745.60848.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121382 In post 121299 I wrote: >I'd like to ask the question, "What is your GREATEST HOPE about how the series will end?" I have thought about this and have an answer, but I'd really like to know what you all think first.< Thanks to the people who responded. I enjoyed reading their answers, particularly Tonks': >My greatest hope is for the series as a whole. That when it is over people don't just put it on the shelf and go on to the next thing, like an old toy. I hope there is a strong moral teaching that sinks in deeply into the subconscious mind of each reader and that will inspire the youth around the world to make the world a better place in their time. I have very high hopes, not realist I guess but that is my hope anyway.< That certainly would be great, I agree. But I don't think that's being unrealistic. I share your hope, but I hope for a lot more as well! Here's my own answer to my question, as promised: My answer is that people wake up to the supernal message hidden in Harry Potter. I hope fervently that somehow millions of people will realise with startling clarity what Harry Potter is saying. It would fill me with the most intense happiness for many years if people realised that everyone has Harry inside their heart; that Harry is demonstrating a process of spiritual development that everyone can put into practice. My happiness for the spiritual progress of all of humanity would be so intense I don't know if I could bear it, if millions of people suddenly had that moment that Harry had in book 3, when he was waiting for his father to turn up to drive off the dementors: 'A terrified excitement shot through him -- any moment now -- "Come on!" he muttered, staring about. "Where are you? Dad, come on --" But no one came. Harry raised his head to look at the circle of dementors across the lake. One of them was lowering its hood. It was time for the rescuer to appear -- but no one was coming to help this time -- And then it hit him -- he understood. He hadn't seen his father -- he had seen himself - Harry flung himself out from behind the bush and pulled out his wand. "EXPECTO PATRONUM!" he yelled. And out of the end of his wand burst, not a shapeless cloud of mist, but a blinding, dazzling, silver animal.' To me this is one of the greatest highlights in all the books so far. And it was really superbly done in the film. This is what I want for the world: the realisation that it's pointless to wait for a saviour to help us out of the mess. The power, the strength, and the courage to "save the world" are within each of us, and their name is: Harry Potter! I hope Jo will make the end so powerful, and at the same time so clear and so obvious that Harry Potter is about self-liberation, that history will literally be changed. If we can really believe that Harry can be born inside us, then there need be no fear about going "cold turkey" when we've read the last page of Book 7. Harry will be there inside our heart, growing stronger every day, taking us on a journey that will take millions of years, but that will lead towards the ultimate purpose of creation: unification with the Potter of the universe, living for ever in a perfect universe where love is the essence of everything, and where there is no suffering, sorrow or death, but an everlasting youth, increasing in beauty, joy and selfless dedication to the happiness of others. ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 7 18:40:05 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:40:05 -0000 Subject: Clear as day (was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121383 Adjusting the attributions a bit, as most posters would be likely to know me as SSSusan than as cubfanbudwoman. SSSusan wrote: > > And you're saying that you believe the ambiguity is intentional? > > Or that JKR just *is* ambiguous in this area? Dan: > Gosh, I don't know how to separate intention from being, honestly. > Our "way" is where we are, right? There are many responses to > whatever Rowling is doing in terms of ethics and morality - the > plethora of theories about character intention signals not only > that the books can be read partially as detective fiction, but also > that Rowling has created a scenario wherein folks can attribute > ("project") what motives they find reasonable unto the characters - > Rowling doesn't relate these motivations to us directly. I think > many novels are not only more explicit in describing motivation, > but are almost solely about character motivation. Rowling > describes/creates situations, and actions - and puts different > characters in them. She does not talk about a character's "being," > and she uses "soul" as if it were almost mundane, a structuralist > kind of soul. Even when she talks about what's going on inside > certain characters' heads, she does it as if parsing tremor data > from underground faults, say. So the mental space of the characters > is, well, something we gather from the data, their actions. Open to > interpretation, yes, but no less "singular" or "real" for all that. SSSusan: This is an interesting take -- that JKR creates situations and actions and then "puts" characters in them. I think you're very right that we often see just the behavior and little of what's inside the person... and even in those times when we get in their heads, we don't get a whole lot of what's in their hearts. We could "blame" this on the POV of the narrator. Or we could "blame" JKR as simply preferring this style, perhaps helping to sustain mystery. Now that you point it out, I see what you mean about JKR's talk of souls. Souls are discussed actually quite a bit, but pretty much in terms of what a dementor can do to one. We're meant to understand that a dementor sucking out one's soul is the most horrid thing which could happen to a person. We're NOT told about what a soul is or contains nor do we witness discussions among characters about the importance of one's soul, etc. As has been remarked here many times, we get little in the way of characters discussing ethics or morality or spirituality. All of this leads me, then, to remain puzzled by your comments in the original post, about things being as "clear as day" to you. I'm a bit embarrassed to admit it, but I didn't find the explanation (below) to help me much with just what it is which is clear as day to you. :-| Dan: > Again, I don't know what Rowling "believes," but the central theme > seems to be connected to knowledge and deception, to some kind of > secular Calvanism (Harry at the Second Task, for example, where he > acts without a lot of reflection or philosophy) and to systems of > morality, or systems of value that can cloud, but also certainly > provide a kind of rubric for such acts (pure blood politics, house > separation, eg.). These systems become, well, irrelevant, a kind of > noise, even. > > Before the current mention of fate on the list, I had posted that > fate, long a useful concept, has, by way of mainstream > instrumentality, become a perfectly inane, banal concept. It is > never a debate about external forces vs. internal forces, but about > HOW the two come together, as it were, in any individual in any > situation. They cannot be separated, IMHO. Now, if Harry is indeed > in the closet, and is somehow enacting a kind of creative > liberation from it, physically and/or mentally and/or spiritually, > as it were, then what we see in the books might just be the mirror > of what we can acheive ourselves, a kind of resonating liberation > struggle, like the one Hans describes using his readings - hence > the mirroring dynamic and the plethora of theories. I am coming > from a more existential place, yunno? But I am talking essentially > about the same thing. > > After all, we need different things, are on different paths and all > that, and there are, so I've read, many paths to freedom. SSSusan: I guess what I need is more explanation about Harry's coming out of the closet and achieving liberation. Is it your contention that JKR *is* rather vague about any "system," and that allows us to be on many different paths to freedom along with Harry? Or is there *a* path she's touting? Sorry -- it's that phrase "clear as day" which just has me hung up, because I'm not seeing what's clear to you. Siriusly Snapey Susan, suspecting she'll be trying patience with this one! From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 7 18:47:30 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:47:30 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House and Snape and Harry and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121384 Alla wrote: > > But going back to Draco for a second. I know we never see Snape > communicating with Slytherins in the dungeons, but do you think Snape > ever tried to reach him at all? > Potioncat: It's really hard to tell. No, we never see any real communication at all. We also have no idea of what we aren't seeing... But a couple of things have sort of jumped out recently. I don't know what they mean. In PoA, (but I don't remember which chapter, it was the one I was reading on the plane if that helps) the wording is something along the lines of "Draco was very subdued after the Quidditch game." There's one episode where the Slytherin Team Captain is yelling at Draco (meaning Draco doesn't have special priviledges within the House) and when Draco first shows off the Potter stinks badge, he appears to be hiding it from Snape. I think, from the House points alone and that Slytherin won the House Cup for so many years, there is somehting to Slyherin House that we don't see. But, if you think about it, we don't see McGonagall interacting very much with her House either. Potioncat again wondering what she just said. From Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com Fri Jan 7 18:53:40 2005 From: Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com (Brenda M.) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:53:40 -0000 Subject: The opening chapter of book six In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121385 > Antosha: > > Think about it from the point of view of PS/SS: We see a scene in which a young couple is > at home, at peace, when suddenly Senor Psychopath shows up and all hell breaks loose. > We see the couple die, and LV tries to kill the baby... but fails, and is (apparently) destroyed. Then little > Harry is picked up by the Jolly Green Giant.... > And wakes up in his cupboard ten years later, dreaming of flashes of green light and flying > on a motorcycle. Perfect. Not as good a first chapter for PS/SS as the one she wrote, and > one that would have given away far too much, but very serviceable. > > PoA? We'd get the same scene, only now Harry knows what he's watching, and we get the > (misdirected) introduction of Sirius-as-Secret-Keeper. Again, it gives away too much, but it works. > > OotP? Well, given that Harry has just survived the resurrection of LV, it makes perfect > sense that he might have a dream/vision of the old dude's destruction. but it might also have made for one too many flashbacks in a single > volume, even one as massive as OotP. Brenda: Whooot! Feeling gooood to be back! I very much agree with what you wrote. I do think we will finally get a glimpse of what happened 15 years ago @ Godric's Hallow. What I can't predict though, is how much of that event we will be allowed to see in the first chapter. Especially if there are alot of colour-revealing going on. After all, we don't know who were present at GH that night. If some juicy drama happened (more than we expected), then IMO it is unlikely we will see the whole picture. Another thing I am curious about, is the writing style of this chapter. Whose point of view will it be written from, and how will this event be introduced? Dream is always an easy route, but it was used twice, in PS/SS and GoF. Will Harry go under some sort of memory- retrival session? If the event is told from a 3rd person's perspective, how would this information get transferred to Harry? Hmm, I wonder, if Harry stares at his parents' photo long enough, would that elicit any form of response on Voldemort's part? As for the connection of Godric's Hallow to HBP... I have no idea, since I'm not too sure who HBP would be (and not too eager to guess, to be honest... no need to ruin the surprise! ;) The name "Godric" is very curious though. Perhaps HBP is Godric Gryffindor, he has magical item or a portrait in GH, and his voice was speaking! All the while protecting lil' baby Harry! Gosh I really need sleep. Brenda From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 18:54:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 18:54:06 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House and Snape and Harry and Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121386 Potioncat: snip. I think, from the House points alone and that Slytherin won the House Cup for so many years, there is somehting to Slyherin House that we don't see. Alla: Well, yes and I also think that it counters the argument that Dumbledore is biased against poor Slytherins somehow. I mean, if he was THAT biased, would he have allowed them to win House Cup for seven years? He can do last minute points awards as he demonstrated quite clearly in PS/SS, so I guess he is fair... most of times anyway. :o) Potioncat: But, if you think about it, we don't see McGonagall interacting very much with her House either. Alla: Yes, but we at least see some interaction here. Potioncat again wondering what she just said. Alla, who thinks that those points in PS/SS were awarded justly, but timing was a bit off. :o) From manawydan at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 7 18:53:58 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:53:58 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy. ( Harsh Morality) References: <1105045487.41236.11319.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001001c4f4ea$40c20c00$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 121387 Eggplant wrote: >Ron informed us about Percy's ambition when he was in the first year >and Percy was in the fifth, at the time that's probably the highest >position he could think of. The Minister is nominally the most >powerful wizard in the world and most of the time he actually is, >but now the most powerful wizard does not want the job and it fell >to a weak man who must be the reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain. I think that's a very good parallel, though it's interesting to consider the post of Minister more generally. Whether it's the most powerful post in the _world_, I'd dispute: it's the head of state in the British Isles, but I haven't seen it suggested that the MoM is an international body - canon seems to point the opposite ways, with International Congresses and the like, and no descriptions of anyone foreign working there. We've also, really, got no canon as to the calibre of previous incumbents of the post, we know the name of Fudge's predecessor but nothing else about her. We also know that the post doesn't necessarily go to the strongest character, otherwise Barty Crouch wouldn't have been sidelined the way he was. Possibly, given that there appears not to be any seperation in the WW between executive, administration, and judiciary, someone only becomes Minister by gaining and retaining the support of as many factions as possible within the bureaucracy. There are many conceivable ways in which that could work, the most extreme being the Soviet Union type, in which the ascendency of a particular faction meant that there was widespread replacement of senior officials when that faction came to power. I don't think (though admittedly on scanty evidence) that the WW is a Soviet-style state - even though Crouch had been an alternative candidate, he retained his post as a head of department even though Fudge was Minister. Less bloody, but also less stable. Possibly again, the reason why Fudge was constantly asking Dumbledore for advice when he was first made Minister was to understand how to negotiate his way around the internal factions of the Ministry rather than in actually doing his job. >Percy is ambitious, I don't think you can seriously deny it, and now >his career with the ministry is dead so he must go to the death >eaters. If the MoM is a Soviet-style bureaucracy, then Fudge's fall will mean that everyone associated with him will fall too. But as I argued above, I don't think it is. Whoever climbs the greasy pole to inherit the job will inherit Percy as an advisor. Percy hasn't done anything against the rules, this time, he's been loyally following orders so he won't face an investigation. If he'd been Umbridge's assistant things might have been different and things like the unauthorised use of a Dementor might have rebounded on his head. But he wasn't. Conceivably he'll be shunted sideways if he's not to the new Minister's taste but he won't lose too much by that. After all, think about his age and the likely length of working life in the WW - in another 100 years' time all this will have been forgotten. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 19:10:37 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:10:37 -0000 Subject: Lilly. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121388 Eggplant wrote: "She did not die, she changed her name and became a Death Eater. Her new name is Bellatrix Lestrange. " Del replies: Actually I would argue it's the other way around : Lily Evans was in fact Bellatrix Lestrange in disguise. Sirius said in OoP that he hadn't seen his cousin since he was about 15, which is also the time Lily Evans really came into the life of the Marauders. So here's my theory : LV knew somehow that James Potter was going to be a problem of cosmic dimensions (another Prophecy maybe?) so he wanted to keep a close eye on him. He chose his devout Bella to help him in a huge undercover operation. Bella or any of the junior DEs had noticed while still at Hogwarts that James Potter was infatuated with Lily Evans, so LV decided to use that to his advantage. Right after Bella graduated, he had Lily kidnapped, and Bella turned into Lily (Polyjuice Potion, most probably) and sent back to Hogwarts. That would have been at the beginning of James and Lily's 5th year. This of course explains why Bella!Lily was so upset at James in the Pensieve scene, since Snape had been the pet of her gang of Slytherins. Over time, Bella got more into her role, even to the extent of successfully pretending to love James and eventually getting him to marry her. Needless to say, LV was pleased! Even more so when the Prophecy was made, as he had an easy access to Harry. But then James took the whole family into hiding, which completely thwarted Bella's plans. She had to find another way of letting LV know how to get to Harry. So she looked around her, and what did she find? Impressionable Peter Pettigrew. The perfect target! So she seduced him (whether as Bella or as Lily, I don't know yet), and got him to work for LV. When James and Sirius started talking about getting the Potter family protected by a Fidelius Charm, Bella!Lily was in fact the one to suggest that they used Peter while keeping the pretense that Sirius was still SK. In particular, she insisted that they didn't tell anyone, even DD, which explains why they didn't trust even DD. This way, nobody would ever know what had happened when LV finally got a hold of Harry and his parents. The plan was to kill Harry and James, and bring Lily Evans (who had been kept away somewhere safe all those years) to the place and kill her too, so that nobody would ever suspect Bella!Lily. But something went wrong. I'm not sure what it is, but it might have to do with the real Lily. Maybe she was under an Imperius spell and broke out of it long enough to try and protect Harry (even though he wasn't her son). Whatever it was, something went wrong, Harry didn't die, LV was vaporised, James and the real Lily died. But Bella managed to escape (I can't quite figure out yet why she didn't take Harry with her, but that's a detail), and she tried to figure out what to do. That's why she led the attack on the Longbottoms: to figure out what had happened and what could be done to repair things now. As for Bellatrix Black's apparent life all those years, it could have been her sister, Narcissa, impersonating her at strategic times and events, like her fake marriage to Rodolphus Lestrange, so that nobody could ever have any suspicion. Note : any other female DE could take the place of Bellatrix in this story, but it wouldn't be half as fun :-D What think ye, Eggplant? You asked for it ;-) Del From cunning_spirit at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 19:30:53 2005 From: cunning_spirit at yahoo.com (cunning_spirit) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:30:53 -0000 Subject: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121389 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "witchypooh67" wrote: > > amdorn wrote: > > Will I have to go to "rehab" for Harry Potter fans?> > > Now Kelly: > > That too is my greatest fear. With the announcement of the > publication date of HBP I was both elated and anxious. While I > crave the rest of this wonderful story, I dread the day that it is > complete. When I finish book seven, will I still need more? I > trust that JKR will tie up all the loose ends. I believe we will > find out more about GH. Personally, I think the chapter that will > appear in HBP that almost made it to PS/SS and CoS might give us > more information about GH. I think we will find out why Dumbledore > trusts Snape and whether or not Snape ever really left the DE. I > think we will even get some "ship" answers. I don't fear unanswered > questions, I fear having to move on from this wonderful obsession I > have with the magical world of Harry Potter. > > Will I reread the seven books over and over for years? Will I need > that "rehab?" > > Kelly Cunning spirit: Even after the last novel comes out, there IS potential for more Potter material being published. After all, Rowling claims to have BOXES of backstory scribblings. I have heard rumors that a possible "Harry Potter Encyclopedia" may be assembled from some of this stuff. As an illustrator, what I'd really love to see is a collection of Rowling's drawings from the Potterverse in print. I've seen a half dozen or so of these pieces and they really add a lot to how I've imagined her world. I think that like the Tolkien franchise, we'll likely see more stuff about Harry and his friends long after the close of book seven. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 19:41:07 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:41:07 -0000 Subject: SV: [HPforGrownups] Re: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121390 Geoff wrote: "Bear in mind, though, that Harry /had/ performed involuntary wandless magic before he knew he was a wizard." Del replies: Well, yes, but in a scenario where Harry was born a Squib but a part of LV's magical powers were transferred to him at Godric's Hollow, Harry *would* show magical abilities after 15 months of age. Del From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Fri Jan 7 20:02:34 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:02:34 -0000 Subject: Lilly. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121391 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: Right after > Bella graduated, he had Lily kidnapped, and Bella turned into Lily > (Polyjuice Potion, most probably) and sent back to Hogwarts. That > would have been at the beginning of James and Lily's 5th year. This of > course explains why Bella!Lily was so upset at James in the Pensieve > scene, since Snape had been the pet of her gang of Slytherins. Over > time, Bella got more into her role, even to the extent of successfully > pretending to love James and eventually getting him to marry her.> But wouldn't James have found out? Doesn't Polyjuice only last an hour? That means that she would have had to wake up during the night to take it, just in case James woke up to go to the bathroom or something. Also, didn't DD say that Lili's love was part of the magic that saved Harry? (Am I getting canon and m*vie confused?) Also, what about the screaming Harry heard, where Lily was screaming and Voldemort told her to step aside that she didn't have to die. Casey, at work and unable to check. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 21:03:32 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:03:32 -0000 Subject: Lilly. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121392 Casey wrote: "But wouldn't James have found out? Doesn't Polyjuice only last an hour? That means that she would have had to wake up during the night to take it, just in case James woke up to go to the bathroom or something." Del replies: First of, just in case I wasn't clear about it, I was *joking* with that theory... About the Polyjuice Potion : one would think that DD would have noticed something wrong about Crouch!Moody and yet he apparently didn't. Granted, DD wasn't (to our knowledge) sleeping with Crouch!Moody, but they were still supposed to be very good friends. James and Bella!Lily... Maybe they didn't share the same room? That would be highly unusual, but it's not impossible. Or maybe it was something else entirely, not PPotion at all? Some kind of Transfiguration spell, or an experimental potion (Snape, anyone?). Casey wrote: "Also, didn't DD say that Lili's love was part of the magic that saved Harry?" Del replies: He could be wrong :-) Or, as I said, maybe Real!Lily did sacrifice herself for Harry, even though she wasn't his mother? Wouldn't that make her sacrifice even bigger in a way, if she sacrificed herself for a baby who was nothing special to her? Or maybe Lily *was* Harry's biological mother? Maybe the game LV and Bella were playing was even trickier than I previously wrote and they did include Real!Lily (probably under Imperio) in it from time to time, especially in order to conceive Harry? (either so that Harry didn't look too much like Bella, or maybe because the hypothetical Prophecy I mentioned about James in my previous post also included Lily) Casey wrote: "Also, what about the screaming Harry heard, where Lily was screaming and Voldemort told her to step aside that she didn't have to die. " Del replies: Hmm... Let's see... Oooohhh !! Let's say that over time Lily and LV developed some kind of, er, intimate relationship. I'm not saying that LV loved Lily, because JKR said he never loved anyone. But it could be that he had some kind of attachment to her. As for Lily, maybe she got some kind of Stockholm syndrome, when hostages or prisoners start sympathesing with their jailers? So anyway : maybe LV had brought Lily to Godric's Hollow in order to force, say, Peter to drink some PPotion before killing him, so he could both get rid of the little rat and keep Lily for himself forever? But maybe the killing of a baby was more than she could take? Especially her own baby if she was really his mother? I'm starting to believe that this theory could actually work, which would demonstrate once and for all that canon can support even the craziest theories :-) Del From udderpd at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 7 21:21:31 2005 From: udderpd at yahoo.co.uk (udder_pen_dragon) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 21:21:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lilly. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050107212131.61521.qmail@web25305.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121393 eggplant9998 wrote: Back in 1999, right after book 3 first came out Rowling gave a interview and somebody asked when we'd learn more about Harry's mother, she said: "You'll find out a lot more about her [lilly] in Book 5, or you'll find out something very significant about her in Book 5" And we did learn more about her, it turns out that Lilly hated her future husband James; but then she said something intriguing: "then you'll find out something incredibly important about her in Book 7." Here is my guess what we will see in book 7: It turns out that James had his faults but compared to Lilly he was a saint. She stuck up for Snape just because she could not stand a lousy Grifendor picking on a fellow Slytherin. Contrary to what nearly everybody thought the protection in Harry's blood came from James not Lilly. She did not save Harry, in reality she was a horrible mother and betrayed her husband and her son to Voldemort. She did not die, she changed her name and became a Death Eater. Her new name is Bellatrix Lestrange. Now UdderPD On the 18th Feb last JKR answered two questions on her website. First: Is Lilly Potter still alive? Answer: I am afraid not. Ergo Lilly is dead. Second: Was Lilly Potter a Death Eater? Answer: How dare you. It doesn't appear that she was a Death Eater either. I refuse to grace any of Eggplant's ideas with a comment. TTFN UdderPD 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 --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrsbonsai at charter.net Fri Jan 7 21:44:43 2005 From: mrsbonsai at charter.net (jastrangfeld) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:44:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses and vulnerability and LIly's eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121394 I just did a quick search on glasses and it wasn't brought up so . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1200-readersdigest-boquet.htm Boquet, Tim. "J.K. Rowling: The Wizard Behind Harry Potter," Reader's Digest, December 2000 Rowling's quality control is legendary, as is her obsession with accuracy. She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the books, outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the clue to his vulnerability?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ok, so with this and knowing she's said on different occasions there's something with the fact that Harry has Lily's eyes . . . .. Wait a minute . . . . you don't think that . . . . hmm. Ok, so here's my thought, reflected spells. I mean, the people who saw the basilisk through reflections didn't die. Was the spell actually aimed at Lily? Did it get reflected to Harry? Did it reflect off Harry? Is this why there's a scar? Well that thought just came to me, I was going to ask why you think this is his vulnerability . . .but now I have a new question there :) Julie From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Fri Jan 7 21:46:59 2005 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:46:59 -0000 Subject: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121395 My greatest FEAR is the ending is going to LAME! Hermione kills Malfoy pere and/or fils, Neville kills Bellatrix, Harry kills and/or is killed by LV/TR and somehow everyone who lives does so happily ever after. No one changes, the injustices of the WW aren't redressed, and we never find out if Remus was *living with* Sirius at Grimmauld Place. My greatest HOPE is that JKR isn't going to keep up with her bigotry about Slytherins. You know, the "Why do you keep going after the bad boys?" rant. Although she keeps comparing them to Nazis, anyone who's actually read about Nazi Germany knows not *all* Germans, and not even *all* Nazis, were murderous genocial maniacs. Maybe *most* Nazis, but certainly not *most* Germans. I truly hope *some* Slytherins will be ambitious enough to support their School, and perhaps the Ministry, because they realize in the Brave New World Voldemort supporters are going to be outcasts. I hope the Slytherins in general, maybe Draco and Pansy in particular, are going to to be the cavalry who come riding in to save the day and their House finally gets the recognition it deserves at Hogwarts. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 21:52:25 2005 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 21:52:25 -0000 Subject: COS - Riddle's Orphanage; Legimency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121396 I'm re-reading and I have two questions. 1) Is anyone curious as to why Riddle was in a Muggle orphanage instead of being adopted by a wizarding family? Maybe it was only an option in his later years, but it looks like the wizarding world would have encouraged that, rather than have a wizard raised by Muggles. (This of course, is in sharp contrast to the fact DD said many wizarding families would have taken Harry in.) 2) Why didn't DD know that Riddle was the culprit in the "old days?" DD said in OOP (I think) that he was a "sufficient Legimens" or something like that. The way I understand it, Legimency does not necessarily allow one to read someone's mind at random, but does allow one to know if someone is tell the truth at a particular time. In COS, when the younger DD meets Riddle after Riddle has met with Dippet, the following occurs: Dumbledore: What are you doing wandering around this late, Riddle? Riddle: I sent to see the headmaster, sir. Dumbledore: Well, hurry off to bed, said, Dumbledore, giving Riddle the kind of penetrating stare that Harry knew so well. Riddle was telling the truth at that point because he had just come from Dippet's office. However, it is also evident that he was planning to go see Hagrid and to get Aragog, but could DD see that? I note that nowhere does JKR show DD asking Riddle whether he knew anything about the Chamber of Secrets. It would be very limiting, wouldn't it, if the skill of Legimens was limited to only those situations in which the Legimens-er asked the Legimens-ee precisely the right question? Angie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 22:02:32 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:02:32 -0000 Subject: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121397 Mizstorge wrote: My greatest HOPE is that JKR isn't going to keep up with her bigotry about Slytherins. You know, the "Why do you keep going after the bad boys?" rant. Although she keeps comparing them to Nazis, anyone who's actually read about Nazi Germany knows not *all* Germans, and not even *all* Nazis, were murderous genocial maniacs. Maybe *most* Nazis, but certainly not *most* Germans. I truly hope *some* Slytherins will be ambitious enough to support their School, and perhaps the Ministry, because they realize in the Brave New World Voldemort supporters are going to be outcasts. I hope the Slytherins in general, maybe Draco and Pansy in particular, are going to to be the cavalry who come riding in to save the day and their House finally gets the recognition it deserves at Hogwarts. Alla: If you take a close look at pure-blood ideology, it sure looks very similar to fascism to me. As to Nazis, at the moment I am debating whether I should start ranting or not, but for now let me just say that any Nazi supporter is guilty of THAT - supporting ideology, which claimed that one race is better than others and willing to kill the people of different ethnicity. Let me refer you to post 108672 about fascism-like ideology of Voldie and Co. I will be the first one to say that Slytherins need help, but untill they get rid of "purebloods are better than everybody else mindset", they do NOT deserve ANY recognition in Hogwarts. Just my opinion, Alla From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 7 22:02:28 2005 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (megalynn44) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:02:28 -0000 Subject: The opening chapter of book six In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121398 In response to theory that opening chapter is V in Godric's Hollow: While I acknowledge that this is most likely the first chapter, what if: It's a flashback to Harry's Parents at school and the marauders I mean in book 1 it would have served to make us care about his parents. and Books 3 and 5 are the ones most strongly about the Marauders. I would certainly love to see a chapter like that. Thoughts? Megs From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 22:05:32 2005 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:05:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses and vulnerability and LIly's eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121399 "jastrangfeld" wrote: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1200-readersdigest- boquet.htm > Boquet, Tim. "J.K. Rowling: The Wizard Behind Harry Potter," Reader's > Digest, December 2000 > Rowling's quality control is legendary, as is her obsession with > accuracy. She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the > books, outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his > glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the clue to his > vulnerability?" > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Ok, so with this and knowing she's said on different occasions there's > something with the fact that Harry has Lily's eyes . . . .. > > Wait a minute . . . . you don't think that . . . . > > hmm. Ok, so here's my thought, reflected spells. I mean, the people > who saw the basilisk through reflections didn't die. > > Was the spell actually aimed at Lily? Did it get reflected to Harry? > Did it reflect off Harry? Is this why there's a scar? > > Well that thought just came to me, I was going to ask why you think > this is his vulnerability . . .but now I have a new question there :) > > Julie Angie replies: I certainly don't kow the answers to your questions, but they made me wonder: Are the glasses the result of Harry's vulnerability or the cause? Will they make him vulnerable at some point by falling off at a critical time or will they somehow provide him a defense in the future? Perhaps there is a spell that will fail because the person casting it cannot look Harry directly in the eyes. Or maybe a spell will be cast that will bound off of his glasses (nerds rule!). Do we even know for sure why he wears glasses? By that, I mean the medical condition. I've always assumed it was related to the failed curse -- the scar is so near his eyes (can't figure out how Lily's eyes fit into this and frankly am too tired to try at this point). From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Jan 7 22:15:56 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:15:56 -0000 Subject: Snape key (getting longish) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121400 I got horribly lost in the archives the other day, and spent a good few hours trying to extricate myself. However, upon emerging (mercifully unscathed), I was reminded of something I wanted to do a while ago, to systematise Snape theories, specifically those concerned with why he left the DEs and turned spy. So. I have a full glass of wine, and an empty ashtray. (Sod new years resolutions, it's Friday...) Care to join me? I realise that this subject has been gone over and over (and over), and I've read a lot (well, some) of the past threads, but with all this talk of morality, I thought it was about time to have another bash at it, perhaps some new ideas or twists can be found. Thus, I humbly offer a key to Snape theories, (which I hope works) with some discussion at the end. I've left out those theories that don't appear to concern themselves with why Snape turned spy in VWI, though between Hypothetic Alley, Yahoo!Mort and some random wandering along interesting looking threads, I think I've covered most of them. *Please* feel free to edit and improve it. Many of the theories mentioned below cover other aspects of Snape's history too, not just his reasons for turning spy and leaving the DEs, and some of them I couldn't find specific references to ? e.g. I've seen Snape's wife and son killed by DEs suggested as a motivation for him leaving, and an acronym for Snape having a dead wife (SWINDLED), so rather cheekily put them together ? if there are names for theories that I've missed, please tell me. Most of them can be found at Hypothetic Alley and Innish Alley. The dichotomous keys that I routinely use in RL are for identifying animals, but sometimes the creature you're looking at just doesn't match what's written in the key. This means a) you've found a new variation or subspecies, b) you've found an undescribed species entirely new to science, or c) the key is badly written. All of which are very realistic possibilities here; however ? please be aware that much angst is caused in taxonomic circles by the description of new species, when actually the specimen in question is an aberration or discoloured example of an already existing species. (I know this is an English list, but you can all speak Metaphor, can't you?) Dichotomous key to Snape theories. (As you may not know how to use a dichotomous key, I'll briefly explain: you are presented with two statements, you choose which one you agree with most, and follow the number to a further two statements ... and so on ... until you arrive at your theory. Oh, and I've tried to edit this so that it looks ok on the webview, no idea how it'll turn out in your emails...) 1. - Snape was a fully-committed DE from the start, he believed in the idea of pure-blood supremacy, and had no ethical problem with using the dark arts 2 - Snape was never a fully committed DE, he originally joined them as a spy for DD OSCAR-WINNER!SNAPE 2. - Snape left the DEs because he changed his mind about what they stood for, for moral reasons, and went searching for redemption. 3 - He did not consider morality in his decision to turn spy and leave, and he still believes in the DE ideals 8 3. - His leaving was caused by an epiphany (big bang) 4 - His leaving was a gradual realisation (steady state) 7 4. - Someone he cared about was killed/threatened by Voldemort, he realises that all deaths are personal to someone, everything comes crashing down and he sees the error of his ways 5 - He was honour-bound to turn spy as he owed a life debt 6 5. - Snape was/is in love with Lily, and once he realised Lily was a Voldy target, he cursed the day he'd ever joined up LOLLIPOPS/EWWW and vars. - Snape had a wife (Florence?) and son who were killed by Voldy and/or the DEs SWINDLED 6. - DD saved Snape's life, and was honour-bound to turn spy MERCY I - Snape owed James and/or Lily a life debt, and was honour-bound to try to save them when he found out they were targets MERCY II 7. - He was always aware of morality, but begins to apply it to himself and those around him GEORGE - His leaving the DEs was the first time he has understood that there is *not* just `power and those too weak to take it', and that he can actually conceive a morality DIANA 8. - He realises that Voldy is only out for power for himself, and that pureblooded ideals are not the priority PRINCE GEORGE - Not as above 9 9. - He was forced to leave the DEs by circumstances beyond his control 10 - He didn't have to leave the DEs, it was a choice to become a traitor 11 10. - DD saved Snape's life at some point and calls in the debt MERCY I - Snape owed his life to James (and/or Lily), when he found out that Voldy was after the Potters, he had no choice (due to the `magical bond') but to try to save them MERCY II 11. - Snape's primary reason for turning against Voldemort is revenge 12 - Snape never cared about anyone or anything enough to want revenge 13 12. - His original motivation for joining the DEs was gaining power, and once he's been humiliated and tortured by Voldie he leaves, bent on revenge PRINCE OF LIES - Voldy killed/threatened Snape's wife and/or child SWINDLED/Snape!Son 13. - Snape has evil-overlord ambitions of his own, wants Harry to defeat Voldemort so *he* can defeat Harry GOLD SIEVE/VAMPISH TRICKSTER - Snape has no evil-overlord ambitions 14 14. - Snape callously left the DEs as after he heard (part of) the prophecy, he realised that DD's was the winning side SWEET MARY JESUS AND JOSEPH - Snape is *ever*-so-evil, and only came over to DD to spy for Voldemort in the first place SIAMESE CAT None of the above = You are a very irritating/ indecisive/unpigeonholeable holist, *or* a genius who has come up with something new, *or* I'm utterly useless and have missed out large chunks of previously espoused theory. Now, the more observant amongst you will have noticed that MERCY I, MERCY II and SWINDLED appear twice. This is because of the morality bit ? LOLLIPOPS could have been in there twice too, Snape could have wanted to save Lily for selfish non-ethical reasons (ahem). But in going through the back-posts, I've tried to be faithful to the original descriptions of the theories, and loving Lily was (I think) originally supposed to be the nudge that Snape needed to embark upon his new ethical life. And just to note, so that I'm not deluged with replies, I'm certain that some of these theories are compatible with each other (e.g. George and Lollipops), and that there will be small niggling differences (probably for every individual). I just hope that some of the distinctions I've made between them may inspire some debate. As a brave attempt to start off some discussion, I'll say that my personal favourite is MERCY II (in the non-ethical sense). I have great difficulty with the idea that Snape developed a distaste for the DE antics and a brand new shiny set of morals, yet kept his meanness and enjoyment of inflicting wounds (if only verbal these days) on the defenceless. I'm an adherent of SPACEMAN ? I like my Snape nasty. But, the idea that Snape had a wife is just... (too much wine speaking here) *wrong*. Much as I like the idea that he switched sides wanting revenge - it seems more plausible than any of the other emotion-based theories - I can't see him getting hitched. Not at the age of twenty, or whatever. He'd stick his neck out (he has been known, on occasion, to be stubborn) and worm his way out of it for as long as he could. (I should emphasise that Snape!Son was not proposed with the idea in mind that Snape had ever indulged in anything as whimsical as *love*). On the other hand, many have argued that DD wouldn't trust him unless he had truly converted to the good guys side. I, however, think that DD would be far more likely to trust a non-philosophical reason ? I just can't picture the scene: Snape convincing DD that he's really honestly genuinely unequivocally a nice chap now. DD the legilimens + Snape the Occlumens = stalemate. Nah, sorry, I don't buy it, and I don't think DD did. But if he could show DD that he logically had absolutely no choice but to leave the DEs why would DD not accept his help? Once Voldy knows he's a traitor, Snape would never be allowed back, and if Voldy wins the war, he's dead. If he's protected at Hogwarts, Snape will do everything he can to help DD (and, by extension, Harry) even though he may not like them, even though he agrees with Voldy, because once he's *left* Voldy, he's got no choice. I'd trust Snape's sense of self-preservation a million times more than I'd trust some newly-emerged sense of right and wrong. There is, of course, the possibility that Snape didn't intend Voldy to find out that he was a traitor. Snape can't have known how GH was going to turn out, he may have wanted to pay off James's debt by saving his life in return, then slip back into the DE ranks without Voldy noticing. In which case, something went horribly wrong. (I'd like to see some theories about this, but mine may have to wait until the alcohol content of my blood-stream is a little lower.) We don't know anything about Snape's trial, except that DD gave evidence and Snape was cleared. His trial obviously happened after GH, because in GoF, Sirius didn't know that he had ever been a DE. Was someone other than Karkaroff a snitch? If so, who? Was it a DE? Was it someone else who was later cleared? Would DD *really* have insisted after Voldy's fall that Snape turn himself in for a full criminal trial, certain that he'd get off with DD's support? (I've never seen this discussed before, if someone can point me to a post, I'd be much obliged.) So anyway, poor Snapey's left working for people he doesn't like, for a cause in which he doesn't believe, in order to defeat a Dark Lord he reveres, and the friends with whom he agrees. Poor chap. Dungrollin Now, where's the rest of that wine...? From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 7 22:17:57 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:17:57 -0000 Subject: Sorting-Slytherins (wasRe: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121401 Alla wrote: > I will be the first one to say that Slytherins need help, but untill > they get rid of "purebloods are better than everybody else mindset", > they do NOT deserve ANY recognition in Hogwarts. > > Just my opinion, > Potioncat: So far there has been no firm JKR hint that Slytherins will be anything other than the baddies. There have been vague hints (or rather some of us have inferred vague hints) that we may be surprised with some good Slytherins. What if, the hat sorts you according to ambition/cunning and being of Pure blood, but not necessarily according to your pureblood mindset? For expample, when I was in junior high (the year our schools were integrated) if you put all the white students in one room, a great many would have been pureblood racists. But not all of us. And some of us would have been in the process of un-learning years of training, although not all way there yet. Potioncat: just for thought, not to start a raging debate. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 22:20:03 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:20:03 -0000 Subject: Good blood/bad blood (was Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121402 Alla wrote: "I will be the first one to say that Slytherins need help, but untill they get rid of "purebloods are better than everybody else mindset", they do NOT deserve ANY recognition in Hogwarts." Del replies: I'm not arguing against that. But I've been re-reading CoS and I found that little tidbit, that Hagrid said to Arthur: "Yeh should've ignored him, Arthur. Rotten to the core, the whole family, everyone knows that. No Malfoy's worth listenin' ter. Bad blood, that's what it is." Even some of the good guys seem to have a problem with the issue of good and bad blood. I find it particularly interesting that Hagrid should say that in CoS, the very book that deals with the blood issue. Del From hallisallimalli at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 22:23:08 2005 From: hallisallimalli at yahoo.com (halli) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:23:08 -0000 Subject: SV: [HPforGrownups] Re: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121403 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, trekkie wrote: > > TrekkieGrrrl: > > But that may have been a manner of speaking, right? Since both of > his parents were skilled witches/wizards, it would naturally be > assumed that Harry was a wizard. But he needn't be. Remember that > Neville was regarded a squib for years, and he too came from an old > magic family. But because he hadn't done any involountary magic it > was assumed that he couldn't do any, until almost being dropped out > of a window. Likewise could Harry in theory be a squib as I doubt he would do magic at his birth. > > > > I don't personally think he's born a squib though, but in theory... > he could be. > hallisallimalli: I don't nessecarily agree with this idea, but I can see how it could be true. Reguarding Neville, could both of them (Harry and Neville) have been squib-like? (both the prophecy children, as I've heard them called) and by Voldemort marking one of them as his equal, merely giving that child the extra power to become a fully fledged wizard, as opposed to a not-quite-up-to-par-but-still-able-to-pass wizard? > Geoff: I know that Neville was > considered a Squib but the family, especially Great Uncle Algie, set out on a deliberate policy to de-Squib him. I can't see Petunia and Vernon thinking along those lines :-) Hallisallimalli: Even if Petunia and Vernon did think along those lines, judging by their attitude towards magic, it would make sense that they would do the *exact* opposite, and keep him as downtrodden as possible, and *not* try to dangle him out balcony windows. They don't want him de- Squibbed. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 22:26:00 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:26:00 -0000 Subject: Good blood/bad blood (was Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121404 Alla wrote previously: "I will be the first one to say that Slytherins need help, but untill they get rid of "purebloods are better than everybody else mindset", they do NOT deserve ANY recognition in Hogwarts." Del replies: I'm not arguing against that. But I've been re-reading CoS and I found that little tidbit, that Hagrid said to Arthur: "Yeh should've ignored him, Arthur. Rotten to the core, the whole family, everyone knows that. No Malfoy's worth listenin' ter. Bad blood, that's what it is." Even some of the good guys seem to have a problem with the issue of good and bad blood. I find it particularly interesting that Hagrid should say that in CoS, the very book that deals with the blood issue. Alla: Oh, without any doubt many in WW have a problem with "blood" to one extent or another. It is just when we start to compare, Slytherin ideology comes as that of the worst degree. Besides Hagrid is one of those who was personally hurt by Slytherin. No wonder he says things like that. JMO, Alla From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 22:25:59 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:25:59 -0000 Subject: COS - Riddle's Orphanage; Legimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121405 gelite67 wrote: > I'm re-reading and I have two questions. > > 1) Is anyone curious as to why Riddle was in a Muggle orphanage > instead of being adopted by a wizarding family? Maybe it was only an > option in his later years, but it looks like the wizarding world > would have encouraged that, rather than have a wizard raised by > Muggles. (This of course, is in sharp contrast to the fact DD said > many wizarding families would have taken Harry in.) Meri here: I always assumed that the reason he was sent to a Muggle orphanage was because no one knew he was a wizard after his mother died. She was, IIRC, a witch who was spurned by her husband (Tom, Sr.) when he found out what she was. Mrs. Riddle then gave birth to her son and died, leaving baby Tom with nothing but a name because I am assuming that his mother had no family. I'm guessing that, like Harry, he had no idea who he really was until the Hogwarts letter came. There at school he probably found out who his parents were and that, of course, led to his killing of his dad and grandparents. And as to why no WW family volunteered to take baby Tom while many would have raised Harry as their own, I think the answer to that is fairly simple: Harry was the Boy Who Lived and Tom was just some random baby. As much as I hate to write it, people's compassion is not always evenly applied, and taking in the baby that defeated LV is much more attractive than taking in some random foundling. Meri - hoping she did not insult anyone who adopts, is adopted or is thinking about adopting... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 22:28:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:28:59 -0000 Subject: Sorting-Slytherins (wasRe: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121406 Potioncat: So far there has been no firm JKR hint that Slytherins will be anything other than the baddies. There have been vague hints (or rather some of us have inferred vague hints) that we may be surprised with some good Slytherins. Alla: Agreed Potioncat: What if, the hat sorts you according to ambition/cunning and being of Pure blood, but not necessarily according to your pureblood mindset? For expample, when I was in junior high (the year our schools were integrated) if you put all the white students in one room, a great many would have been pureblood racists. But not all of us. And some of us would have been in the process of un-learning years of training, although not all way there yet. Alla: Agreed again. And that is why we are awaiting the good Slytherins, right? I do hope that they are not all lost causes, but do you see Draco racing to save the Light? Do you have any doubt about HIS mindset? Potioncat: just for thought, not to start a raging debate. Alla: LOL! From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 22:38:57 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:38:57 -0000 Subject: The opening chapter of book six In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121407 > Brenda: > > Whooot! Feeling gooood to be back! > > I very much agree with what you wrote. I do think we will finally get > a glimpse of what happened 15 years ago @ Godric's Hallow. > > What I can't predict though, is how much of that event we will be > allowed to see in the first chapter. Especially if there are alot of > colour-revealing going on. After all, we don't know who were present > at GH that night. If some juicy drama happened (more than we > expected), then IMO it is unlikely we will see the whole picture. > > Another thing I am curious about, is the writing style of this > chapter. Whose point of view will it be written from, and how will > this event be introduced? Dream is always an easy route, but it was > used twice, in PS/SS and GoF. Will Harry go under some sort of memory- > retrival session? If the event is told from a 3rd person's > perspective, how would this information get transferred to Harry? > > Hmm, I wonder, if Harry stares at his parents' photo long enough, > would that elicit any form of response on Voldemort's part? > > As for the connection of Godric's Hallow to HBP... I have no idea, > since I'm not too sure who HBP would be (and not too eager to guess, > to be honest... no need to ruin the surprise! ;) The name "Godric" is > very curious though. Perhaps HBP is Godric Gryffindor, he has magical > item or a portrait in GH, and his voice was speaking! All the while > protecting lil' baby Harry! > > Gosh I really need sleep. > > Brenda Antosha: On the subject of what form the chapter will take, I agree that a dream is unlikely (as you point out, PS/SS and GoF both start that way), as is a straight flashback. What if Harry's occlumency practice unlocks something in Harry's mind, if it is, as you say, a recovered memory? Antosha, who hadn't considered the connection between Godric and his Hollow in terms of HBP-dom From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 22:51:21 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 22:51:21 -0000 Subject: Good blood/bad blood (was Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121408 Alla wrote: "Oh, without any doubt many in WW have a problem with "blood" to one extent or another. It is just when we start to compare, Slytherin ideology comes as that of the worst degree." Del replies: One problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be *one* Slytherin ideology. There seems to be a spectrum instead, from those who simply believe that purebloods are better but won't harm a Muggleborn, to those who recommend a genocide on all Muggles and Muggleborns. Originally, Old Salazar Slytherin apparently only wanted not to teach the Muggleborns. He wasn't asking for their death, only for their shunning, with is very similar to what Hagrid suggests concerning the Malfoys. There's the Basilisk, of course. But he might have intended the Basilisk to only scare the Muggleborns away from Hogwarts. As Tom Riddle proved, using it to kill each and every Muggleborn at Hogwarts was simply impossible. And finally, when talking about his parents and those like them, Sirius explained that they thought LV had the right idea (ie : pureblood superiority) but that they came to disagree with his methods (genocide). So it doesn't look like the pureblood mentality in general supports the concept of a Muggle-genocide. Alla wrote: "Besides Hagrid is one of those who was personally hurt by Slytherin. No wonder he says things like that." Del replies: Hum, Hagrid was talking about the Malfoys, not about the Slytherins in general. Has he been hurt by the Malfoys? Moreover, even if he had been speaking about the Slytherins, that's not really an excuse. Considering how magic was considered in the Middle-Ages, I would say that Old Slytherin might also have had a very good reason to distrust the Muggles and to refuse to accept them in the school he'd helped found. IMO, a personal hurt doesn't justify a general dislike. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 23:03:04 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 23:03:04 -0000 Subject: Good blood/bad blood (was Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121409 Del replies: One problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be *one* Slytherin ideology. There seems to be a spectrum instead, from those who simply believe that purebloods are better but won't harm a Muggleborn, to those who recommend a genocide on all Muggles and Muggleborns. Originally, Old Salazar Slytherin apparently only wanted not to teachthe Muggleborns. He wasn't asking for their death, only for their shunning, with is very similar to what Hagrid suggests concerning the Malfoys. There's the Basilisk, of course. But he might have intended the Basilisk to only scare the Muggleborns away from Hogwarts. As Tom Riddle proved, using it to kill each and every Muggleborn at Hogwarts was simply impossible. And finally, when talking about his parents and those like them, Sirius explained that they thought LV had the right idea (ie : pureblood superiority) but that they came to disagree with his methods >(genocide). So it doesn't look like the pureblood mentality in general supports the concept of a Muggle-genocide. Alla: I am sorry, but I disagree in a sense that I don't see very large spectrum here. They all support the idea of pureblood superiority and those who go to serve Voldie support genocide. That's about it, right? The key part TO ME is pure blood superiority, which all Slytherins seem to support (Boy, oh boy, I hope not :o)) and then it evolves to its ugliest form - genocide. Sorry, but I am not buying leaving basilisk in school to scare Muggle borns only. :o) And Murttle did die. Why do you say that more people could not die because of Basilisk? Alla wrote previously: "Besides Hagrid is one of those who was personally hurt by Slytherin. No wonder he says things like that." Del replies: Hum, Hagrid was talking about the Malfoys, not about the Slytherins in general. Has he been hurt by the Malfoys? Moreover, even if he had been speaking about the Slytherins, that's not really an excuse. Considering how magic was considered in the Middle-Ages, I would say that Old Slytherin might also have had a very good reason to distrust the Muggles and to refuse to accept them in the school he'd helped found. IMO, a personal hurt doesn't justify a general dislike. Alla: I have not said that it was an excuse. I said " no wonder he says things like that" meaning that I understand why he feels this way. Do I think he is justified in them? NO, of course not. The best analogy will be Snape and Harry, of course. :o) Do I understand why Snape feels this way towards Harry? Yes, of course I do. Do I think it is an excuse for him to say what he says to the boy? NO, definitely not. Just my opinion, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 7 23:12:54 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 23:12:54 -0000 Subject: Sorting-Slytherins (wasRe: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121410 > Alla: > > Agreed again. And that is why we are awaiting the good Slytherins, > right? I do hope that they are not all lost causes, but do you see > Draco racing to save the Light? Do you have any doubt about HIS > mindset? Potioncat: I fully completely with all my heart and without reservation see Draco as one very bad hat. From mrsbonsai at charter.net Fri Jan 7 23:19:55 2005 From: mrsbonsai at charter.net (jastrangfeld) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 23:19:55 -0000 Subject: Scam !!! There's a site offering book 6 as a download!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121411 There's a huge scam apparent here at: http://www.harrybooks.info/ They claim to have book 6 for immediate download!!! I know it's not available until July, so someone should stop the scam! Julie From ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com Fri Jan 7 23:27:43 2005 From: ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com (ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 18:27:43 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality - Comb... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121412 In a message dated 1/7/2005 1:34:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, pjarrett at gmail.com writes: Or what if his life and Harry's life were both in danger and Hermione came and saved them, I suppose that debt could cause him to resent her more but it might also be the first step towards acceptance. I can't see that happening at all. That would be like Snape saying 'thank you' to James after getting saved from Remus. All it would do is make Drao hate Hermione more. She's a mudblood, and it would be embarassing to be saved by her. I think he'd take it as and insult, and, if asked, would say that he'd rather die than be saved by Hermione. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 00:00:17 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:00:17 -0000 Subject: Good blood/bad blood (was Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121413 Alla wrote: "I am sorry, but I disagree in a sense that I don't see very large spectrum here. They all support the idea of pureblood superiority and those who go to serve Voldie support genocide. That's about it, right?" Del replies: Yes, but how many of those who agree with the pureblood superiority ideology support LV's idea of genocide? Sirius's parents, evil as they were, didn't. I would say it's a minority who go from "purebloods are best" to "let's kill all Muggles and Muggleborns". Alla wrote: "The key part TO ME is pure blood superiority, which all Slytherins seem to support (Boy, oh boy, I hope not :o)) and then it evolves to its ugliest form - genocide." Del replies: I see several problems here. First, as you hope, it is possible that not all Slytherins support the pureblood ideology. Second, it is possible that some non-Slytherins do support this ideology, at least to some extent. Third, the evolution into genocide is far from being automatic. There are many people out there in RL who wouldn't let their children marry people from such or such background, but who wish those people all the best otherwise. It's a very common attitude : "I love X people (pick your "favourite") : I have many X friends, we visit each other often, we go on holidays together. My boss and one of my co-workers are X, and I love working with them, they're great people. My neighbours are X, and we regularly invite each other over for dinner, we take care of each other's pets when we go for the week-end, our children play together. But hey, I wouldn't let my daughter marry one of *them*." Those people would *never* agree with an idea of eliminating all X people, even though they *do* believe that they are inherently better than X people. Alla wrote: "Sorry, but I am not buying leaving basilisk in school to scare Muggle borns only. :o) And Murttle did die. Why do you say that more people could not die because of Basilisk? " Del replies: Many reasons : - too many attacks would more likely lead to the school being closed down than to the Muggleborns leaving it - the culprit would be found before he had time to kill all Muggleborns - the tightened security after the first attacks would make it very hard to conduct any further attacks Tom Riddle was a fanatic, and yet he killed "only" one Muggleborn. Ginny was possessed by someone who couldn't care less about her, and she didn't manage to kill anyone. OK, her victims were lucky. But had the first couple of attacks been more "successful", the school would have been closed down, which would have put an end to the attacks. Del From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 00:56:58 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:56:58 -0000 Subject: Percy. ( and WW government) In-Reply-To: <001001c4f4ea$40c20c00$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121414 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "manawydan" wrote: > Possibly, given that there appears not to be any seperation in the > WW between executive, administration, and judiciary, someone only > becomes Minister by gaining and retaining the support of as many > factions as possible within the bureaucracy. It seems to me that a classic problem in the WW is actually a *lack* of a professional bureaucracy. That is to say, people are put in positions more for reasons of connections and nepotism than for individual merit. We've been given pretty strong hints that this is how the system works; Molly's statements about how Arthur has been stuck due to his views, Percy's sudden rise, the employment of a number of ex-DEs in nice positions, Lucius Malfoy's exercise of influence. This being the case, I think individuals are far more vulnerable to the winds of political change than in a system where the bureaucracy is more strongly neutral. In addition, in every system, certain kinds of bureaucratic chiefs are almost always political appointments, which leads to point numbah two... > If the MoM is a Soviet-style bureaucracy, then Fudge's fall will > mean that everyone associated with him will fall too. But as I > argued above, I don't think it is. If we're playing the game that the British system is a model for the fictional WW, then scandals like Fudge's HAVE been known to take down both a central figure and a lot of other people who end up unwillingly along for the ride. (I'm also thinking about things like the Prufumo scandal, which ended up taking down the government in elections.) Assistants are often sacked along with everyone else to avoid the taint of possible associations. The unfortunately unknown factor here is the presence or lack of political parties and exactly what happens when the WW changes governments. We know via website and comments that Fudge is out. I'm cheerfully looking for at least some of the government to go with him. Association with Fudge is a recipe for political suicide, given the (projected) backlash. This may or may not affect Percy--but who knows, maybe he has had his taste of bureaucracy? I but guess. But it's not only in a Soviet-style system where people take associated falls. -Nora would be mightily tickled to find out about the existence of rival wizarding political parties, as this would bolster the argument very greatly From chrissilein at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 01:42:35 2005 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (LadyOfThePensieve) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:42:35 -0000 Subject: Scam !!! There's a site offering book 6 as a download!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121415 Hi jastrangfeld, I although found a link to the website. I sent a message already to http://the-leaky-cauldron.org and www.mugglenet.com. TLC already answered me. I reconised it appeared as a banner at a very serious Severus Snape wensite and at hpana. I don?t think at all that?s funny to do so. Greetings! --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jastrangfeld" wrote: > > There's a huge scam apparent here at: > > http://www.harrybooks.info/ > > They claim to have book 6 for immediate download!!! > > I know it's not available until July, so someone should stop the scam! > > Julie From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 01:55:19 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:55:19 -0000 Subject: Snape key (getting longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121416 > Dungrollin wrote: > > Dichotomous key to Snape theories. > > Neri: Ah! A fellow theorist and zoologist. Greetings! I agree very much with your key as it is now, but I'd point out that it systematizes only 3/5 of the Snape enigma. It refers to the mysteries of why did he join the DEs in he first place, why did he left them and why does DD trust him. There are at least two additional Snape mysteries: why (assuming he's reformed and DD trusts him) is he so nasty now, and how is he spying on the DEs (if indeed he is) in OotP. Admittedly, adding these two mysteries to the key would be very difficult, as many theories don't really address them. Also, allow me to direct you to my own theory, Mind-linked!Snape, later officially christened as the VASSAL (Voldy And Snape Share A Link), which takes a stab at all five mysteries. It is detailed in: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116369 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116370 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116371 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/116373 A warning: this theory has a little hole in it, but at least it is a thoroughly inspected hole. Also, JKR had recently shot down my Neville-related speculation in the VASSAL (this woman is one mighty sharpshooter) but luckily this speculation was never an obligatory part of the theory. Even if VASSAL isn't strictly true, it suggests a more general possibility that is not explicitly represented in your key: Snape left the DEs because he had discovered some secret weakness of Voldy (most likely the same weakness that enables Snape to spy on Voldy now). If Voldy ever finds out that Snape knows, then Snape is toast. So Snape went to DD and told him about it, asking for his protection. DD trusts Snape because Snape doesn't really have the option to return to Voldy, and because Snape is awared that if he ever betrays DD, DD can reveal the secret to Voldy and then Snape dies no matter what. Personally, I tend to agree with you that Snape is not really reformed, and that he is on DD's side more out of necessity (and now perhaps also out of genuine respect to DD's power an knowledge). This is not to say that I don't believe in redeemed!Snape. On the contrary, I want to read the epiphany and redemption in real time and not just off-page or even in a Pensieve memory. So I prefer to think that they are still in the future, most likely in Book 7. Neri, finishing his own bottle of Friday Bosca. From kirsty_lowson at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 13:50:35 2005 From: kirsty_lowson at yahoo.com (Kirsty Lowson) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 13:50:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The opening chapter of book six In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050107135035.36890.qmail@web53710.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121417 kizor0: > > JKR has mentioned that the first chapter has > been considered for the > same position for PS, PoA and OotP but 'finally > works here', and that > it has been about thirteen years in the > brewing. I've seen remarkably > little discussion of it here though it may be > due to my erratic > presence. What's your take on this? > > > - All things considered, we'll likely be > revealed some background > details related to what was discussed in "The > Boy Who Lived". Whatever > happens will have to be able to also work as an > introduction to the > setting. > Kirsty: My 2p's is that we're finally going to find out exactly what happened at Godric's Hollow. It's the only thing I can think of that would have even been considered for three other books... Kirsty ===== "If men are always wrong, what does that mean when he tells a woman she looks beautiful?" ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From jonkc at att.net Fri Jan 7 16:13:30 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (johnkclark) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:13:30 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121418 "delwynmarch" wrote: > There's another reason I hold Hermione primarily > responsible along with Cho and Marrietta: > she was the only one who had imagined that > there could be a traitor I understand that, what I don't understand is why that is a fault not a virtue. > but she didn't do anything to *prevent* a betrayal. She didn't implement a ironclad procedure that would make betrayal impossable because she couldn't think of one; I can't either, if I could I'd be the head of the CIA. She did the best she could, she put a hex on the parchment which if nothing else that at least ensured nobody could betray them twice. And yet, many here say even doing that was too much. When half the people say you're doing too much and the other half say too little you're probably doing about right. Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 02:04:10 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 02:04:10 -0000 Subject: The opening chapter of book six In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121419 OK it has to be something she hasn't done before. And Harry always starts out at Privot Drive and this time he will not be there long, and we know it is for a positive reason. SO what can we put together that fits all of this? She's already done the Quidditch match thing. What other nice reason would take him away from Privet Drive early and tell us something about GH? Does Aunt Petunia take him somewhere? Nah... And DD is still probably afraid of the LV/ Harry mind connection to call him to do something with him... Maybe Snape is assigned occumency again? But I doubt it. What would take Harry away from Privet Drive and tell us something that could have been used in book one and two?? Mrs. Figg has an old friend visit... and Harry sneaks over to her house, and the friend knows about Harry's family and events of GH. Or the old family friend comes to the Dursley's house. Knows Petunia of course, and Vernon is not too happy about it. He is more than happy to have Harry leave on a trip with the old guy.. and away they go. to .. GH. Tonks_op From sroginson at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 7 16:41:58 2005 From: sroginson at sbcglobal.net (stephen roginson) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 08:41:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potterverse Destiny (was Re: C. S. Lewis and Potterverse Destiny) In-Reply-To: <200501071048175.SM01300@devbox> Message-ID: <20050107164158.90871.qmail@web81503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121420 Vivamus wrote: I agree with JKR on "fate". For someone not a Christian, I guess the concept would be that of a conscious setting forth of the future as it now stands by a deity, for the purpose of helping that future to come about -- but the humans involved still have to create that future themselves. In the "confession" scene of OOtP, he still does not tell Harry this, because it would again be interfering with his destiny. Harry is going ahead as he should, as he must, and DD, with a heart full of love for Harry, watches in immense pain as Harry goes through these struggles. He only interferes as much as he would normally do in the course of things, and often less (as when he sees the kids under the cloak in Hagrid's hut.) Harry often wonders why DD doesn't help him more. I think we'll see DD do that much more in the next book, as Harry becomes more set on his path. Before that happens, though, I think Harry is going to step away from his destiny in HBP. His grief, guilt, pain, etc., are going to get the best of him, and he will turn aside altogether. That is when we will see DD step in as an active friend and counselor to Harry, as he has not been up to this point. As long as Harry stays on point, DD must keep hands off, to keep from interfering with Harry's destiny. When Harry turns aside, DD will be free to act more directly, because there is, in effect, nothing to lose. --------------------------------- I love this discussion. Sorry to leave so much text, but snipping what I did was hard enough. I'm still pretty brand new, but I have to give it a stab. I have often thought of the DD/Harry relationship in context of a Kung Fu/Martial Arts Master and Student. The teacher providing a context and subtle clues for the student to find the 'way' or path. Asking questions... In this particular post, however, I couldn't help but draw a parallel to the discussion between Krishna and Arjuna (I think) in the Bagahavad Gita, from an ancient Hindi text called The Mahabparta (probably butchered the spellings). The discussion concerns 'dharma' or fate/destiny. Purpose on earth. Your path. Krishna guides Arjuna beyond choice to help him discover and understand his dharma. I think the conversation between DD and Harry at the end of OotP would have been a great place to discuss 'fate' and 'prophecies'. I expect that we will see this soon. SR From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Fri Jan 7 16:51:40 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 16:51:40 -0000 Subject: Draco and Slytherin House Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121421 Patrick writes: >Well what about this one. Lucius falls from Voldemort's graces and ends up rather dead. Would Malfoy suddenly turn anger toward V? Or what if his life and Harry's life were both in danger and Hermione came and saved them, I suppose that debt could cause him to resent her more but it might also be the first step towards acceptance. >So to sum it up, it would have to be a series of unfortunate events for the young Malfoy and a series of serendipitous involvements from those who he despises, but yes I think it could happen. Will it? Probably not. But it could. Wow, you *are* an optimist! Okay, let's walk down that path. LV kills Lucius. I think LV's supporters all know that's a very big risk they take when they follow the evil sucker. I really don't think it would turn Draco into an LV hater (Since they all pretty much hate him anyway. They just follow him to gain whatever he can gain them.) I'm sure he'd be upset, because they bizarrely seem to be a fairly close family (Narcissus wouldn't let Draco go to Durmstrang because she would miss her iddy Dracokins too much) but I don't think he'd snatch up his wand and go gunning for LV. And frankly, the way he's been protrayed in the series, I think he'd rather die than be saved by Harry and/or Hermione. Well, maybe not. Picture Draco hanging from a cliff by one hand; Harry reaches down to help him. Does Draco let go? No way, he's been shown to be a coward time and again, so he definitely wouldn't want to die. He might even beg Harry to help him. Harry, being Harry, helps him up. Draco accepts his aid, recovers a bit, then turns Harry into a lemur and tells him he's a bloody imbecile for helping him. "Should've let me die, stupid!" Ha ha ha ha! Nope, can't see Draco ever turning around. Thank goodness. I love the snotty little beast just the way he is. Everyone needs an enemy to keep the blood pumping, don't you think? Nicky Joe From suedepatch at hotmail.com Fri Jan 7 19:46:15 2005 From: suedepatch at hotmail.com (danni_yetman) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 19:46:15 -0000 Subject: Curse Scars/Cats/Occulmency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121422 Well I've been re-reading the HP series, and I've got some little oddities/coincidences that I hope have not already been exhausted and that some others will be interested to discuss. The first, curse scars. Obviously the most promenent is Harry's. But towards the end of GoF Fudge says to Dumbledore "You'll forgive me, Dumbledore, but I've heard of a curse acting as an alarm bell before..." (GoF-The Parting of Ways, pg.613 British version) I think that's very interesting. Also, Ron's welts, obviously Madam Pomfrey thinks they could have a lasting effects, and how about Hermione? I doubt whether their wounds will have as much a role as Harry's...but maybe they could be important...but who is Fudge talking about, and what was it an alarm bell for? The second, cats and squibs. Filch has Mrs. Norris, and Mrs. Figg has several, and Mr. Tibbles is the one we saw in OotP. Both Filch and Mrs. Figg seem to be able to communicate with their cats...and I cannot recall if there was another possible hint about cat-Squib connection. I think it's also interesting that the cats has name beginning with Mr and Mrs...it gives them a very human quality...important? Mrs. Figg...indicates she is or was married...that could also be relevant...although maybe not! Any thought? Finally, we were introduced to Occulmency in OotP, but JKR seems to have dropped hints about it, more specifically Snape's connection to it, at least this is what I've noticed in re-re-re-re-re-reading the first 2 books so far...trying to really read between the lines. Harry has said several times that it is almost as if Snape can read minds. I don't know if this refers to Snapes being a skilled Occulmens. Harry having his mind penetrated was something he was aware of in OotP, but can a mind be penetrated by other means? hmmmm! Hope these aren't just idle speculations of mine!!! Let's get some replies please! "danni_yetman" From minervakab at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 00:52:51 2005 From: minervakab at yahoo.com (minervakab) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 00:52:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses and vulnerability and LIly's eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121423 Julie says: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/120 0-readersdigest-boquet.htm > Boquet, Tim. "J.K. Rowling: The Wizard Behind Harry Potter," Reader's > Digest, December 2000 > Rowling's quality control is legendary, as is her obsession with > accuracy. She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the > books, outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his > glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the clue to his > vulnerability?" > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Ok, so with this and knowing she's said on different occasions there's > something with the fact that Harry has Lily's eyes . . . .. > > Wait a minute . . . . you don't think that . . . . > > hmm. Ok, so here's my thought, reflected spells. I mean, the people > who saw the basilisk through reflections didn't die. > > Was the spell actually aimed at Lily? Did it get reflected to Harry? > Did it reflect off Harry? Is this why there's a scar? Minervakab says: How was it reflected? Off glasses? Did Harry wear glasses at one year? Did Lily wear glasses? Why are glasses not mentioned in the descriptions of Lily? If Harry has her eyes, shouldn't she also need glasses just as Harry does? Do wizards and witches wear contact lenses? How can Harry have his mother's eyes but need glasses if she did not. My daughter has my own green almond shaped eyes and is as blind as I am. My son has his father's eyes and can see very well. I am no opthamologist but I did believe the shape of the eye had something to do with how well we see. I did not wear my glasses when I was fifteen because of vanity but I would not have been able to tell Snape he needed to wash his underpants without my glasses as Lily does in Chapter twenty eight "Snape's Worst Memory" in Order of the Phoenix. I am wondering now if Harry's glasses have nothing to do with his father needing them and something to do with the curse. If Harry has his mother's eyes, he should see as well as her (I think) and not need glasses at all. At least that is my opinion. What do you think? Minervakab PS I have only posted one other time so please let me know if I did this correctly or what I need to do to make it right. Thanks. From Rachel_Maine at baylor.edu Fri Jan 7 20:33:32 2005 From: Rachel_Maine at baylor.edu (raesstienway) Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:33:32 -0000 Subject: The opening chapter of book six In-Reply-To: <20050107170258.14674.qmail@web52001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121424 Luckdragon: > > One of the scrapbook items you can find on Jo's website is a discarded early chapter of PS/SS in which Hermione, Ron, and Harry are discussing the fact that the Potter's were in possession of the PS/SS prior to there deaths. The only theory I've considered so far for the opening chapter of book six is that Voldemort wanted the stone to ensure his immortality and the Potter's had hidden it from him which is why LV went to Godrich's Hollow. > > Has anyone discussed the possibility that the reason LV could not kill Harry was similar to the Unicorn blood idea. The AK curse cannot work on an infant or someone so pure and free of sin which is why it rebounded and caused LV to live a half life. I think Luckdragon mentions something very interesting and plausible. Is it also possible that the PS/SS was in Harry's blankets and put there by Lily to protect Harry from LV? Also this would explain how DD could so easily retireve the stone and have it hidden Gringotts all these years until the opening of book one? I know he was holding it for Flamel, but could that perhaps also be becuase DD was the only one to protect the stone from LV and not simply because of Flamels decison not to live forever? "Rachel" From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 02:50:24 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 02:50:24 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121425 I, Del, wrote earlier: "There's another reason I hold Hermione primarily responsible along with Cho and Marrietta: she was the only one who had imagined that there could be a traitor" Eggplant answered: "I understand that, what I don't understand is why that is a fault not a virtue. " Del replies: I never said *that* was a fault, don't make me say what I didn't say by separating the two parts of my argument. Eggplant wrote: "She didn't implement a ironclad procedure that would make betrayal impossable because she couldn't think of one;" Del replies: One very easy measure would have been to tell the DA, *after* they had all signed, that there would be nasty consequences for whoever decided to betray. It wouldn't have made Hermione very popular, but it would have given the DA a sense of the seriousness of the whole matter. Another easy measure was to *talk* to each member of the DA. It's no wonder Marrietta could betray them so easily: none of the Trio knew her, and she didn't know them. Wasn't one of the big problems in OoP the fact that DD wouldn't talk to Harry, and that as a consequence Harry lost his trust in DD? Talking is vital, if people are to work together. Eggplant wrote: "she did the best she could, she put a hex on the parchment which if nothing else that at least ensured nobody could betray them twice." Del replies: Betray them *twice* ?? Somehow I don't see Umbridge letting the DA survive once she knew about them, which wouldn't give anyone a chance to betray them a second time. Eggplant wrote: "And yet, many here say even doing that was too much. When half the people say you're doing too much and the other half say too little you're probably doing about right." Del replies: Except that you're mixing apples and oranges. Some say that Hermione's hex was too cruel a *punishment*, I say that it was too weak (totally inefficient in fact) as a *preventive measure*. Not the same thing at all. Del From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 02:54:20 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 02:54:20 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherine(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121426 >>Nora: >Opening salvo: Salazar is something of a wild-card. One-time best friends to Godric, leaving the school over the blood issue, leaving a giant homicidal snake in a seekrit room in the basement. It doesn't look that good, really.< >>Nora: >It raises the question of why he is the isolate of the three, though; the others apparently had no problem, and per the Sorting Hat, Hufflepuff was actively opposed to his policy.< Betsy: I see your point, but first of all did Salazar leave over the blood issue? According to Prof. Binns, yes. But he also says that there was a split between Salazar and Godric; he doesn't mention Helga and Rowena. However, the Sorting Hat (who has intimate knowledge of all four founders and was a sort of eye witness to history) claims that there was fighting between all four founders; "The Houses that, like pillars four,/Had once held up our school,/Now turned upon each other and,/ Divided sought to rule." (OotP, Scholastic, pg. 206) The Hat also claims that the fighting occured after "Hogwarts worked in harmony / for several happy years," (ibid, pg. 205) Which makes me wonder what the cause of the break was. Why would it have been only the pureblood issue when Salazar set it up as one of his requirements from the beginning? And if it was between the four, did another founder agree with Salazar's caution? I can see that the issue of blood being one of the reasons for fighting, but the Hat seems to imply that the founders were fighting amongst each other, not all piling on Salazar. In fact, when Salazar leaves the others are left, "quite downhearted," (ibid 206). Which seems to imply that it wasn't a case of, 'don't let the door hit you on the way out.' At least, not after he leaves. As to the snake in the super-seekrit room (hee!), perhaps that was a sort of nuclear option. A kind of, "the fools don't realize what kind of danger they're putting themselves in. I'll just leave ol' Bad Billy the Basilisk here to pull their fat out of the fire when the witch hunters come to call." >>Nora: >Contra this, it then becomes interesting as to where Tom Riddle picked up the "Slytherin's noble work" idea. Given that we're talking to Young!Tom, it seems probable that he got it from SOMEWHERE. What is unclear is whether it is more solidly historically founded or a projection. Again, given the SH's statement, I now lean more towards the former.< Betsy: And then along comes Crazy Tom and his power hungry ways, and he twists poor Bad Billy into a weapon used against the very school Salazar was trying to protect. Or, um... something like that. Seriously though, I've come to believe that Voldemort's pureblood schtick is just that, schtick. He hates and despises Muggles, so those wizards big on Muggle-baiting would have attracted him. But I can't see him caring about purebloodedness, not being one himself. And his casual disposal of Regulus Black, (and his choosing Harry) suggests the same thing. I think he took what he wanted from Salazar's tenets and twisted it to what suited him. Each time he opened the Chamber he nearly destroyed the school, something I doubt Salazar was for. [This is an aside, but I sometimes wonder if Voldemort isn't after the destruction of the WW too. Exposure is the WW's biggest fear, and exposure is what Voldemort's after. After all, his mother abandoned him too.] >>Nora: > [BTW, Tom Riddle is a very unclear case. Halfbloods (wizard/muggle, not 'halfbloods' like Harry) generally admitted, or exceptions made because of the lineage? Also unclear.]< Betsy: And here I will prove my hypocrisy by going to the interviews : I believe there is a sheet of paper done up by JKR with Hogwart students listed with their blood status. And I believe that paper shows that Millicent Bulstrode (Slytherin) has one Muggle parent. >>Nora: >Funny, I didn't see Gryffindor House leading the Inquisitorial Squad, which is what I was primarily thinking of. Even though it was Draco's claque, and other Slytherins were not necessarily involved, they were still the beneficiaries of the IS, per the gems in the hourglass at the end. Like it or not, as they took the free ride, so they have some obligation to disavow the results--if they don't feel like accepting some of the blame for helping perpetuate the conditions. Sitting back and benefiting while keeping your head down is a very Slytherin way to behave. In JKR's world, it doesn't seem to be a very ethical way to behave--hence the possible need for public airings of grievances. I could be wrong, of course. :)< Betsy: Of course, the IS was being perfectly Slytherin. I think they would have seen the gems in the hourglass as their due for handling things the right way. To channel my inner Slytherin I think they would say, "Listen, you all (Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff) were foolish enough to challenge the powers that be in a head to head fight you couldn't win. You mess with the bull, you get the horns. However, if any of you had thought to include a Slytherin in the DA, none of you would have been caught. So who is owed an apology again?" (Only, you know, more British like. ) I can't see Slytherin House actually liking Umbridge after she cuts down their head in his own classroom. They'll suck up to her to get what they want, but I don't think she had their loyalty. >>Nora: >Not to mention that we don't have canon for all of them, but a good number of DEs are Slytherin alumni. There's a complex of linkages between interest/use of the Dark Arts, belief in the pureblood ideology, and following Voldemort. In Slytherin, where that ideology is encouraged, it's no shock that DEs come out of there. It's not unique to Slytherin House and it's not a complete profile of the House, but it seems substantial.< Betsy: It does follow that Tom Riddle would do his recruiting in his house. And who knows how many folks Lucius Malfoy brought with him. Maybe you could say that Voldemort is all that's twisted and wrong about Slytherin and there needs to be someone to stand up and be the correct Slytherin. Draco? Please? >>Nora: >Maybe the House system itself is doomed.< Betsy: Ooh, I'd hate the House system to go. I think there's a lot of good to the House system and I hate to see the baby thrown out with bathwater. Though the Sorting Hat does say, "And never since the founders four / Were whittled down to three / have the Houses been united / As they once were meant to be," (ibid pg. 206). Which makes me think that there must be a way for the Houses to be united without completely getting rid of the Houses. >>Nora: >But per the Sorting Hat in OotP, Ravenclaw and Gryffindor chose their students on characteristics. Helga took everyone, giving her the high moral ground. But Slytherin's sine qua non was an assignation of quality based on the purity of blood. Ambitious and talented Muggleborns are and were right out, so far as we know--with evidence that that is the case, and none that it isn't.< Betsy: I go back to the more positive traits Dumbledore brought up to Harry back in CoS. It wasn't just blood, and I really think for Salazar it was more a worry about outsiders. If it was just blood, why was the Hat so keen on Harry being in Slytherin? Harry is not pure. And as you pointed out, neither was Tom, and according to JKR, neither is Bulstrode. >>Nora: >You should go and join Pippin in the "JKR is lying to us!" corner, though. I think she's very shifty when people are on to something, but I don't feel that in her Draco responses. She's more "huh?" about people liking him than anything.< Betsy: I don't know about lying to us, more a misdirection in my mind. If I remember correctly the questions are usually along the lines of, "Will Draco / Snape be a good guy in the end?" And instead of answering JKR goes into a song and dance about how they're such bad boys and don't date bad boys and it's all the actors' charisma and manages to completely avoid the question. Thereby helping folks like me remain hopeful. ;D Betsy From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 03:23:54 2005 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:23:54 -0000 Subject: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121427 Alla: If you take a close look at pure-blood ideology, it sure looks very similar to fascism to me. As to Nazis, at the moment I am debating whether I should start ranting or not, but for now let me just say that any Nazi supporter is guilty of THAT - supporting ideology, which claimed that one race is better than others and willing to kill the people of different ethnicity. I have this vague memory of a Slytherin that was not a pure blood. I'm sure that he she or it was ridiculed in some way, does anyone know what I am speaking of. A-Mac From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 03:27:00 2005 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:27:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses and vulnerability and LIly's eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121428 > Angie replies: > > I certainly don't kow the answers to your questions, but they made me > wonder: Are the glasses the result of Harry's vulnerability or the > cause? Will they make him vulnerable at some point by falling off at > a critical time or will they somehow provide him a defense in the > future? > > Perhaps there is a spell that will fail because the person casting it > cannot look Harry directly in the eyes. Or maybe a spell will be > cast that will bound off of his glasses (nerds rule!). > > Do we even know for sure why he wears glasses? By that, I mean the > medical condition. I've always assumed it was related to the failed > curse -- the scar is so near his eyes (can't figure out how Lily's > eyes fit into this and frankly am too tired to try at this point). Why doesn't he get Lasic OR use a magical method of deliverance. People don't need braces so most likely he could magically fix his sight. This has bothered me for a while. A-Mac From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 03:33:28 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:33:28 -0000 Subject: your greatest hope In-Reply-To: <20050107182745.60848.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121429 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: > > My answer is that people wake up to the supernal message hidden in Harry Potter. I hope fervently that somehow millions of people will realise with startling clarity what Harry Potter is saying. It would fill me with the most intense happiness for many years if people realised that everyone has Harry inside their heart; that Harry is demonstrating a process of spiritual development that everyone can put into practice. My happiness for the spiritual progress of all of humanity would be so intense I don't know if Icould bear it, if millions of people suddenly had that moment that Harry had in book 3, when he was waiting for his father to turn up to drive off the dementors: (snip) This is what I want for the world: the realisation that it's pointless to wait for a saviour to help us out of the mess. The power, the strength, and the courage to "save the world" are > within each of us, and their name is: Harry Potter! > > I hope Jo will make the end so powerful, and at the same time so clear and so obvious that Harry Potter is about self-liberation, that history will literally be changed. > > If we can really believe that Harry can be born inside us, then there need be no fear about going "cold turkey" when we've read the last page of Book 7. Harry will be there inside our heart, growing stronger every day, taking us on a journey that will take millions of years, but that will lead towards the ultimate purpose of creation: unification with the Potter of the universe, living for ever in a perfect universe where love is the essence of everything, and where there is no suffering, sorrow or death, but an > everlasting youth, increasing in beauty, joy and selfless dedication to the happiness of others. > > Hans Andr?a Tonks here: Hans you said it all and so very well. Thank you. This is my greatest wish as well. Truely from the heart, one by one we can change the world. I think that JKR came to us with this great gift of hers at the right time in human history. "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear". Tonks-op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 03:38:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:38:03 -0000 Subject: Who can be in Slytherin Was: Re: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121430 A-Mac: I have this vague memory of a Slytherin that was not a pure blood. I'm sure that he she or it was ridiculed in some way, does anyone know what I am speaking of. Alla: Yes, but what does it prove, if I may ask? Tom was a half blood, so theoretically Slytherins could be half bloods (I sincerely that they could be muggleborns, but in theory anything is possible) What determinitive is a mindset, IMO, or at least a predisposition to certain way of thinking. I can see a half-blood wisard thinking that purebloods are better than everybody else quite clearly. It is harder to iamgine muggleborn doing so. Again, could you please clarify your point? JMO, Alla From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 03:41:44 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:41:44 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherine(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121431 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > And then along comes Crazy Tom and his power hungry ways, and he > twists poor Bad Billy into a weapon used against the very school > Salazar was trying to protect. Or, um... something like that. > Seriously though, I've come to believe that Voldemort's pureblood > schtick is just that, schtick. He hates and despises Muggles, so > those wizards big on Muggle-baiting would have attracted him. I don't buy that, for various and sundry reasons. Unfortunately, my connection is slow and Yahoo!Mort is rude, so I don't have post numbers for you (but I've written a lot about this). Dumbledore, at least, thinks that part of the reason he attacked Harry instead of Neville was the perception that Harry was 'like' him--similarly tainted. This speaks to Voldemort believing in the ontological reality of the distinction. (Oh, if I could find the "Why Voldemort is a fascist" post, there's more in that...). It's partly power, but I also think signs and the virulence of his opinion point to him actually believing that half-bloods are tainted and inferior. To invoke interview (hehehe), that *is* how the DEs think, in essentialist terms--I would not be so quick to discount Voldemort as a solid believer in his own ideology. Up to a point. > Betsy: > And here I will prove my hypocrisy by going to the interviews > : I believe there is a sheet of paper done up by JKR with > Hogwart students listed with their blood status. And I believe > that paper shows that Millicent Bulstrode (Slytherin) has one > Muggle parent. I know what you speak of, but that ain't even good interview canon-- it's not written out, but an interpretation of a blurry snapshot of what very well could be a preliminary chart. We know she changed things, so that is unclear enough (no corroboration) that I don't want to pin anything on it. > Betsy: > Of course, the IS was being perfectly Slytherin. I think they > would have seen the gems in the hourglass as their due for > handling things the right way. To channel my inner Slytherin I > think they would say, "Listen, you all (Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and > Hufflepuff) were foolish enough to challenge the powers that be in > a head to head fight you couldn't win. You mess with the bull, > you get the horns. However, if any of you had thought to include > a Slytherin in the DA, none of you would have been caught. So who > is owed an apology again?" (Only, you know, more British like. > ) I can't see Slytherin House actually liking Umbridge after > she cuts down their head in his own classroom. They'll suck up to > her to get what they want, but I don't think she had their loyalty. Really? I can see them liking her just fine, as much as they like anyone--she's their route to power. That subplot, IMO, really torpedoed the idea (prevalent in fanfic and other outre realms) that the Slytherins were oh-so-deeply loyal to Snape. Nope, little opportunists they are, and have you noticed how the opportunistic and self-interested seem to be at the very, very bottom of the moral slagheap in JKR's world? :) They may well have thought it their right. In doing it, they sold out the rest of the school to a malevolent power, the incarnation of the banality of evil. I humbly suggest that from an internal perspective of the moral rules of the Potterverse, that is Not A Good Thing. From my perspective, it is also deeply crappy. If the other three houses didn't care for them before (and it's carefully but often noted that the Slytherins do not play nice--the Quidditch team is brutal, and they're the sort to smirk and gloat over their benefit at the misfortunes of others, instead of playing fair), what's going to happen now? Without some sort of mea culpa, the other Houses have absolutely no reason to like, let alone trust, the Slytherins. > Betsy: > It does follow that Tom Riddle would do his recruiting in his > house. And who knows how many folks Lucius Malfoy brought with > him. Maybe you could say that Voldemort is all that's twisted and > wrong about Slytherin and there needs to be someone to stand up > and be the correct Slytherin. Draco? Please? I think we do need Slytherins to stand up. I bet you money it won't be Draco. Now, if I could find the fascism post, I will raise you an argument that Voldemort is half Kantian radical evil/Nietzschean will to power, and half generated by the societal support encoded in the pureblood ethos. JKR has told us (per interview, natch) that the DEs go back aways, as the "Knights of Walpurgis" (which I once hilariously saw someone try to translate as 'Walpurgisknechts', which not only gets the plural wrong, it means 'menial servants'). There is a lot of evidence that the nasty essentialism of Lucius Malfoy and ilk has been a strong feature in society for some time-- note the habits of the Black family, would-be Muggle hunters. Voldemort is in part a lot of things that are twisted in wizarding society (the general way that they view other creatures, the ethic of force). The Dark Arts are connected to this idea of natural superiority, as they are fundamentally the arts of taking what you want regardless of consent, depriving another person of their subjectivity. And Slytherin House is the ideological locus of this behavior, although it's not the only place we find it. > Betsy: > I go back to the more positive traits Dumbledore brought up to > Harry back in CoS. It wasn't just blood, and I really think for > Salazar it was more a worry about outsiders. If it was just > blood, why was the Hat so keen on Harry being in Slytherin? Harry > is not pure. And as you pointed out, neither was Tom, and > according to JKR, neither is Bulstrode. Harry is not pure by a different standard than Tom. JKR tells us that the standards are created by those for whom those things matter, but there is an objective difference (although no ontological difference...you know what I mean) between the child of two wizards, one of whom is Muggleborn, and the child of a wizard and a Muggle. One of these would trigger security concerns, one probably would not. But Tom is also potentially the exception, as mentioned above--this needs to be asked of her. Lexicon Steve? Please? :) The positive traits do not ameliorate the sine qua non. That's why, on this very list, so many people felt gobsmacked by the SH song in OotP--they'd focused so strongly on the characteristics as defining Slytherin House and the search for a positive image thereof, and then find out that "no, it's blood, it is". -Nora ponders going to look for "Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame", a classic work of analysis, but more for where she misplaced her own (*&*%$%$* post From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Sat Jan 8 04:08:24 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 23:08:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta and the DA References: Message-ID: <010601c4f537$b4edb460$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121432 replying back to SSSusan and Del people in the same thread...sorry for the lateish replies, hockey game tonight...but it is very convenient that I managed to write one arguement that counters, neatly, both of yours *G* Kethryn: > > > If it were me, I would do exactly the same thing as Hermione in > > > this case. It would be useless to tell people that something > > > bad would happen if they signed the form and then blabbed; > > > those people that would be inclined to blab would somehow find > > > a way not to sign the form. SSSusan: > > Wouldn't it make MORE sense to tell them something bad would > > happen if they signed & then told, to *let* those people "find a > > way not to sign"?? That way you've got no one in the group who > > might betray you later, no one in the group you're allowing to > > continue to come to meetings and gather intel on you. AND if > > they walked without signing, you'd know who to be watching! > > You'd know there were people who didn't think this was such a > > good idea, so you'd better be careful how much detail you let > > out. > > > > In short, letting them go without signing would equal damage > > control in my book. > Kethryn wrote: > "It's like this, if I knew there was a traitor in the US selling > secrets to the fill-in-the-blank of your choice here, I wouldn't > hesitate a second to ensure their capture, legally or otherwise." > > Del replies: > This analogy isn't quite correct, in that Hermione didn't *know* there > was a traitor, she suspected someone *could* turn traitor, which is > widely different. If you know there's a traitor, then your intent > should rightfully be on identifying them. But if you suspect that over > time someone might turn traitor, then your intent should be on > *preventing* that betrayal. Devising *only* a way of making the > traitor's identity known once he's betrayed is doing only half the job > IMO. Of course it makes more sense to me to do it that way. But, I am an adult and have adult experiences behind that. Hermione is the daughter of two muggle dentists...it's not like she was raised by Jack Bristol of the CIA. I do have to admit that it is very human (and young) to want revenge on sneaks/oathbreakers but we have all done it at one time or another. I think Hermione knew she would not be able to control the possible dissentors in the group and took the best counter measures that she could come up with. Note, that was counter measures and not preventative ones...it is actually very hard to do preventative measures, even with a smallish group, in terms of ~ponders what term to call this~ monitoring other people's behavoir. Had she told them she hexed the paper after they signed, I would lay even odds that Marietta would have told Umbridge about the curse (after all, telling people about the curse was NOT part of what they signed), gotten it lifted, and then squealed like a pig and no one in the DA would have had a clue that she ratted them out. Ergo, it only makes sense not to tell anyone about the curse itself and that justifies her actions completely in my own mind. Actually, if you want to talk about where Hermione starts to tread in very dangerous waters, the coins that she made for the DA, in my mind, are the closest I have seen her come yet. And, yet, I can't quite figure out why that bothers me the most out of all that she has done. Kethryn From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Jan 8 04:09:55 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 04:09:55 -0000 Subject: Lilly. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121433 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: She did not die, she changed her name and became a Death Eater. Her new name is Bellatrix Lestrange. > Valky: ROFLMAO, um "How Dare You!!"...... Shooting down emm hmm /everything/ about this theory would be too ridiculously easy, so I assume you can't possibly be serious. For the sake of good humour I will just put an end to it once and for all, Lily and Bella have different family trees, neither could be the other, one is a Black and the other an Evans, and we have ample canon validating the separate existence of both families. Ok, end of story. Personally, I believe the revelation about Lily, in Book 7 will be related to the meaning of her green eyes. I think we will discover that they are a sort of divine genetic inheritance. From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 04:14:00 2005 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 04:14:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses and vulnerability and LIly's eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121434 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > > > Angie wrote: > > Do we even know for sure why he wears glasses? By that, I mean > the > > medical condition. I've always assumed it was related to the > failed > > curse -- the scar is so near his eyes (can't figure out how Lily's > > eyes fit into this and frankly am too tired to try at this point). > A-Mac responded > Why doesn't he get Lasic OR use a magical method of deliverance. > People don't need braces so most likely he could magically fix his > sight. This has bothered me for a while. Angie again: I'm sure Harry did well just to get the Dursley's to pay for glasses -- I can't see them springing for Lasic! I don't know why wizards can regrow bones but can't fix their eyes. But remember, DD wears glasses, too, and there are references to other magic folk with glasses (like McGonagall). I have to fall back on the totally unsatisfactory (as of now) conclusion that Harry has glasses because JKR wants him to have glasses. > > From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 04:29:35 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 04:29:35 -0000 Subject: Percy. ( and WW government) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121435 >>Nora >It seems to me that a classic problem in the WW is actually a *lack* of a professional bureaucracy. That is to say, people are put in positions more for reasons of connections and nepotism than for individual merit.< This is a link to a completely brilliant essay by Pharnabazus on the government of the WW: http://www.livejournal.com/community/hp_essays/7250.html It's long (10 parts with an appendix), but it's so well put together and well written that it's an easy read. It gives some major insights into the power structure of the WW, shows the DA in a new light, and helps explain some of the actions Percy and for that matter Lucius Malfoy have taken. At this risk of sounding like a squealing fangirl (too late?), everyone and their dog should read it. Betsy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 04:33:23 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 04:33:23 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses and vulnerability and LIly's eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121436 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jastrangfeld" wrote: > Boquet, Tim. "J.K. Rowling: The Wizard Behind Harry Potter," Reader's > Digest, December 2000 > Rowling's quality control is legendary, as is her obsession with > accuracy. She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the > books, outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his > glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the clue to his > vulnerability?" > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Tonks here: I assume that Harry is near sighted. I am very near sighted and if I dropped my glasses I would be totally helpless... practically blind. I think that this may be what she is talking about. Somewhere in the future, he is going to have his glasses whisked away and he will be helpless in battle. He will have to rely on other people to help him to even find his way out of the door or what ever. It is our hero's greatest weakness. Wonder what LV's greatest weakness is? Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 04:53:21 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 04:53:21 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses and vulnerability and LIly's eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121437 >>Julie >I just did a quick search on glasses and it wasn't brought up so . . . > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1200-readersdigest- boquet.htm >Boquet, Tim. "J.K. Rowling: The Wizard Behind Harry Potter," Reader's Digest, December 2000 >Rowling's quality control is legendary, as is her obsession with accuracy. She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the books, outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the clue to his vulnerability?" > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Betsy: So here's my guess: Harry has Lily's eyes, but unlike his mother, he doesn't see people for who they are as well as she could - hence the glasses. Betsy From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 05:28:08 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:28:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses and vulnerability and LIly's eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121438 Julie wrote: I just did a quick search on glasses and it wasn't brought up so . . . http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1200-readersdigest- boquet.htm Boquet, Tim. "J.K. Rowling: The Wizard Behind Harry Potter," Reader's Digest, December 2000 Rowling's quality control is legendary, as is her obsession with accuracy. She's thrilled with Stephen Fry's taped version of the books, outraged that an Italian dust jacket shows Harry minus his glasses. "Don't they understand that they are the clue to his vulnerability?" Betsy responded: So here's my guess: Harry has Lily's eyes, but unlike his mother, he doesn't see people for who they are as well as she could - hence the glasses. vmonte now: Will Harry Time travel again? JKR: "Not telling!" [AOL-00] Page 427, PoA, U.S. edition, paperback: Harry looked up at him. Dumbledore wouldn't laugh--he could tell Dumbledore... "I thought it was my dad who'd conjured my Patronus. I mean, when I saw myself across the lake...I thought I was seeing him." "An easy mistake to make," said Dumbledore softly. "I expect you'll tire of hearing it, but you do look extraordinarily like James. Except for the eyes...you have your mother's eyes." I love how every book makes sure to remind us about how much Harry looks like James. If he goes back in time will he be mistaken for James? And captured by the DEs? What if Snape (if he's still a DE at this time) realizes that Harry is not James, because of his eyes? And I'm not saying that Harry will be able to save his parents, especially if he gets caught on the way to GH. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 05:36:50 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:36:50 -0000 Subject: what is in a name? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121439 This is going to seem way off the wall. But I was just thinking about the fact that the founders of each house have a first and last initial that are alike. Now maybe this means nothing. But what if there is a message in it all somehow, like with the writing around the mirror. HH, SS, GG, RR. put together with the name Hogwarts. Has anyone ever tired to make some code meaning out of any of this? Maybe is was just a way to think up cute names, or is it something more? If Tom Riddle turns into Lord Voldemort, what does the names of the founders turn into? I am not clever enough to try this. Anyone else want to give it a try? ;-) do I have to sign my name to this one? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 05:43:15 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:43:15 -0000 Subject: JKR a Calvinist?Potterverse Destiny In-Reply-To: <7442FD27-60A4-11D9-A495-000A95DC8A32@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121440 Carol earlier:> > > ...As I understand it, JKR is a member of the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian (not a branch of the Church of England, which is of course Anglican). But does Presbyterianism equate > > with Calvinism? > > > > A Calvinist, I would think, would not have much tolerance for Christmas celebrations, but JKR's site had an Advent calendar and the Christmas decorations... > > > > Can anyone help me out here without being too OT? It's important because of the question of fate and "innate goodness" vs. free will and choice in the books. Also I think there's something like a Christian view of death in OoP and elsewhere, but it's very ambiguous. > > > Barbara Roberts responded: > JKR's hasn't been very forthcoming about her religious beliefs. And while she seems to write from a generally Christian worldview, I see no proof that she is overly religious or overtly Presbyterian for that matter. I really don't see her as defending Presbyterian orthodoxy.> Wasn't she raised in England? And does Wales fit in there somehow? > Anyway, I'm not sure how deep her Presbyterian roots. There are other examples of CoE practices in her books. The practice of having > Godparents, for instance, isn't a Presbyterian practice (at least not in the US.) The modern Church of Scotland is mainstream. > I think only the "free" Presbyterian churches would have problems with Christmas celebrations. Carol responds: For the record, I didn't mean an objection to the Christmas celebrations per se. I just thought it was odd that if she were a Calvinist, as some people have suggested, that she would recognize the Church seasons--Advent (Dec. 1-Dec. 24), Christmas (Dec. 25-Jan. 26), Epiphany (Jan. 6-?)--that are celebrated in the Anglican, Episcopal, and (I think) Catholic Churches. I was watching specifically to see when she would take the decorations down, and she did it when a traditional Anglican or Episcopalian would, on Epiphany, the day after the Twelfth Day of Christmas (January 5). I don't know whether a Presbyterian (Church of Scotland) would follow that tradition. But to me both the way she celebrates Christmas (as a *season* between Advent and Epiphany) and the tradition of godfathers (and therefore of christening, or baptism as it's called in the Episcopal church) in her books seems CoE to me, with no suggestion of Calvinism. Geoff, what do you think? Am I way off base here? Carol, reminding the List Elves that these posts relate to the depiction of fate vs. free will in the HP books and are not as OT as they may appear From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 05:45:41 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 05:45:41 -0000 Subject: Why the shortest stay? (was: The opening chapter of book six) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121441 >Tonks: > > OK it has to be something she hasn't done before. And Harry always > starts out at Privot Drive and this time he will not be there long, > and we know it is for a positive reason. SO what can we put together > that fits all of this? > > She's already done the Quidditch match thing. What other nice reason > would take him away from Privet Drive early and tell us something > about GH? Does Aunt Petunia take him somewhere? Nah... And DD is > still probably afraid of the LV/ Harry mind connection to call him > to do something with him... Maybe Snape is assigned occumency > again? But I doubt it. What would take Harry away from Privet Drive > and tell us something that could have been used in book one and two?? > > Mrs. Figg has an old friend visit... and Harry sneaks over to her > house, and the friend knows about Harry's family and events of GH. > > Or the old family friend comes to the Dursley's house. Knows Petunia > of course, and Vernon is not too happy about it. He is more than > happy to have Harry leave on a trip with the old guy.. and away they > go. to .. GH. > > Tonks_op All good thoughts! Another that someone mentioned on another site was the possibility of a wedding. Whoohoo! The one that was suggested blew my mind: Mme. Maxime and Hagrid! Can you imagine the size of the cake! We'd better hope that none of our young friends get injured when they toss the bouquet/garter! Any other possible nuptials? Bill/Fleur? Fudge/Umbridge? (Just kidding) Antosha From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Jan 8 06:10:02 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 06:10:02 -0000 Subject: what is in a name? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121442 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > This is going to seem way off the wall. But I was just thinking > about the fact that the founders of each house have a first and last initial that are alike. Now maybe this means nothing. But what if there is a message in it all somehow, like with the writing around the mirror. HH, SS, GG, RR. put together with the name Hogwarts. > Anyone else want to give it a try? > Valky: Ok I'll give it a try... HH -o- GG -wa- RR -t- SS The founders name's initial letters are spaced evenly in the word Hogwarts, as letters 1,3,6 and 8. The extra letters are owat, which leads me nowhere, but is fun to ponder. lol Anyway, this places Helga/Godric of the founders and Salazar firmly on opposites sides of 'waR' that ends with Rowena. Additionally, Helga and Godric are joined by an 'o' while Salazar and Rowena have a 't' between them. Which is entirely too cryptic to be useful, isn't it? ;P From juli17 at aol.com Sat Jan 8 06:55:11 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 01:55:11 EST Subject: The opening chapter of book six Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121443 kizor0 wrote: JKR has mentioned that the first chapter has been considered for the same position for PS, PoA and OotP but 'finally works here', and that it has been about thirteen years in the brewing. I've seen remarkably little discussion of it here though it may be due to my erratic presence. What's your take on this? Luckdragon: One of the scrapbook items you can find on Jo's website is a discarded early chapter of PS/SS in which Hermione, Ron, and Harry are discussing the fact that the Potter's were in possession of the PS/SS prior to there deaths. The only theory I've considered so far for the opening chapter of book six is that Voldemort wanted the stone to ensure his immortality and the Potter's had hidden it from him which is why LV went to Godrich's Hollow. Has anyone discussed the possibility that the reason LV could not kill Harry was similar to the Unicorn blood idea. The AK curse cannot work on an infant or someone so pure and free of sin which is why it rebounded and caused LV to live a half life. I haven't read the scrapbook item, but if the Potters were in possession of the stone, maybe the reason LV wasn't killed by the rebounded curse (JKR said this was the important point no one had asked about) is because he was holding the PS/SS when the curse rebounded. It gave him a sort of immortality, but it didn't preserve his body. Kind of like the picture of Dorian Grey... Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at comcast.net Sat Jan 8 07:00:07 2005 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (Debbie) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 07:00:07 -0000 Subject: Snape key (getting longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121444 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > Thus, I humbly offer a key to Snape theories, (which > I hope works) with some discussion at the end. I've > left out those theories that don't appear to concern > themselves with why Snape turned spy in VWI, though > between Hypothetic Alley, Yahoo!Mort and some random > wandering along interesting looking threads, I think > I've covered most of them. *Please* feel free to edit > and improve it. Oooh! A Snapetheory quiz! And a very good one, too. Alas, I'm far enough outside the mainstream theories that I had trouble with the key in spots, but let's see how well I can fit within the existing theories. > 1. > - Snape was a fully-committed DE from the start, he believed in the > idea of pure-blood supremacy, and had no ethical problem with using > the dark arts 2 > - Snape was never a fully committed DE, he originally joined them as > a spy for DD OSCAR-WINNER!SNAPE Alas, Snape's pensieve memories ("I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!") have all but forced me to cast aside my original notion that Snape didn't give a fig about anyone's ancestry but that instead, Snape willingly joined the DEs primarily because he rejected Dumbledore for *failing* him as mentor and sought a substitute in Voldemort, who was much more aligned with his love of the Dark Arts, anyway. Yet I continue to doubt that Snape joined the DEs for ideological reasons. Surely someone who arrived at Hogwarts knowing more curses than most seventh-years would likely have received plenty of overtures from the older DEs-in-waiting. And wouldn't someone so jealous of James' popularity take his friends and mentors where he could find them, pureblood fanatics or not? (How else would he become Lucius Malfoy's lapdog?) Yeah, I'm not convinced that Snape didn't borrow those *mudblood* epithets just because his friends used them. But I'll go with the first answer anyway. > 2. > - Snape left the DEs because he changed his mind about what they > stood for, for moral reasons, and went searching for redemption. > 3 > - He did not consider morality in his decision to turn spy and > leave, and he still believes in the DE ideals 8 I don't think that Snape ever cared what Voldemort stood *for*; rather, he joined because of who he was fighting *against*. He does not, however, believe in sycophancy (too much of a control freak for that!), which is what Voldemort expects of his followers. He needs respect which Voldemort cannot give. Thus, he no longer believed that Voldemort had anything to offer him, nor did he retain any respect for his fellow DEs and sycophants. > 3. > - His leaving was caused by an epiphany (big bang) 4 > - His leaving was a gradual realisation (steady state) 7 Steady state, definitely. > 5. > - Snape was/is in love with Lily, and once he realised Lily was a > Voldy target, he cursed the day he'd ever joined up > LOLLIPOPS/EWWW and vars. > - Snape had a wife (Florence?) and son who were killed by Voldy > and/or the DEs SWINDLED Admitting to much LOLLIPOPS ambivalence, I must also acknowledge that the Pensieve scene carries with it such strong overtones that it must be taken into account, even under "Snape left the DEs for moral reasons" theories. But the two are completely compatible: Snape had long since become disgusted with the DEs and had been looking for an opportunity to leave. Learning that Lily -- who had always treated him with kindness -- had been targeted by Voldemort provided him both with the final impetus to get out *and* a useful bit of information he could offer to Dumbledore to convince him of his sincerity. So, I want to answer this question even though I'm a steady-state believer. Perhaps the key should be changed so steady-state responders don't jump over this question? As I believe you state at the end of your post, LOLLIPOPS can be made to fit many theories. > 7. > - He was always aware of morality, but begins to apply it to himself > and those around him GEORGE > - His leaving the DEs was the first time he has understood that > there is *not* just `power and those too weak to take it', > and that he can actually conceive a morality DIANA Unquestionably, GEORGE. My theory is fundamentally Georgian in that it assumes that he rejected the moral vision offered by Dumbledore. >From Snape's (presumed) POV, Dumbledore may have talked the good talk about making hard choices, but Dumbledore himself didn't abide by them when dealing with James and Sirius, the charismatic and popular Gryffindors who also happened to be incorrigible rulebreakers. For them to have received the laurels (culminating in James' selection as Head Boy in spite of his rulebreaking) and avoided the punishments (especially Sirius for the Prank) must have been like rubbing salt on an open wound. To digress, I believe that the Pensieve showed Snape's abusive father and that while at Hogwarts he was looking to Dumbledore to serve as a mentor, if not a surrogate father, so that joining the DEs was a rejection of Dumbledore and what he stood for. > 8. > - He realises that Voldy is only out for power for himself, and that > pureblooded ideals are not the priority PRINCE GEORGE > - Not as above 9 Hmm. I think Snape always had some awareness that Voldemort was out for absolute power, but believed he was joining up to fight the enemy, and that there would be opportunities for him there. > 9. > - He was forced to leave the DEs by circumstances beyond his control > 10 > - He didn't have to leave the DEs, it was a choice to become a > traitor 11 He made a choice. > 11. > - Snape's primary reason for turning against Voldemort is revenge > 12 > - Snape never cared about anyone or anything enough to want revenge > 13 How about "none of the above? You see, I don't think he sought revenge when he left; it was more about who could satisfy his need for a father figure. OTOH, I *do* think he joined the DEs with revenge in mind, and he *does* care, at least about himself, and about succeeding at what he does. > 12. > - His original motivation for joining the DEs was gaining power, and > once he's been humiliated and tortured by Voldie he leaves, bent > on revenge PRINCE OF LIES > - Voldy killed/threatened Snape's wife and/or child > SWINDLED/Snape!Son Well, I can definitely buy the part about leaving the DEs after being humiliated by Voldy, as long as there's more than revenge involved. Though I wouldn't say that Snape wants power so much as wants to be in control. > None of the above = You are a very irritating/ > indecisive/unpigeonholeable holist, *or* a genius who has come up > with something new, *or* I'm utterly useless and have missed out > large chunks of previously espoused theory. What, you didn't find my theory buried in 120,000 posts in a couple of days' searching? I am astonished! ;-) Rest assured, most people find me unpigeonholeable. As far as I can tell, I am a Steady State LOLLIPOPS PRINCE OF LIES GEORGEian. I was late to the Snape party and the theories had all been named and claimed by the time I spoke up, but here's my original Snape post with at least part of the theory. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/37699 I guess I should give the theory a name. How about WHO'S MY MENTOR? (Who Helps Our Snape, Mentors Youth, Meanwhile Earns Necessary Trust Or Revulsion?). > As a brave attempt to start off some discussion, I'll say that my > personal favourite is MERCY II (in the non-ethical sense). I have to say that, after reflecting on each of the theories captured in your excellent synopsis, while I still *like* my theory as much as ever, the life-debt theories like MERCY II are exceedingly plausible. However, I think I would be disappointed if Snape's defection from the DEs was magically motivated. I'd find it much more satisfying for him to agonize over the decision rather than solely agonize over the irony of being compelled to save his worst enemy, and then his enemy's son. I have > great difficulty with the idea that Snape developed a distaste for > the DE antics and a brand new shiny set of morals, yet kept his > meanness and enjoyment of inflicting wounds (if only verbal these > days) on the defenceless. I'm an adherent of SPACEMAN ? I > like my Snape nasty. I can see how this may be hard, but I think my theory holds together because it posits that (i) Snape understood the moral issues all along, (ii) ditched them along with his rejection of Dumbledore for a better mentor, and (iii) ditched Voldemort in favor of Dumbledore because Voldemort only wanted toadies and had nothing to offer in return. Besides, plenty of moral people harbor grudges. And act on them. > But, the idea that Snape had a wife is just... (too much wine > speaking here) *wrong*. Much as I like the idea that he switched > sides wanting revenge - it seems more plausible than any of the > other emotion-based theories - I can't see him getting hitched. No wife! Revenge, OTOH, seems very Snape-like, yet I can't see him acting *solely* for revenge. > On the other hand, many have argued that DD wouldn't trust him > unless he had truly converted to the good guys side. I, however, > think that DD would be far more likely to trust a non- philosophical > reason ? I just can't picture the scene: Snape convincing DD > that he's really honestly genuinely unequivocally a nice chap > now. DD the legilimens + Snape the Occlumens = stalemate. Nah, > sorry, I don't buy it, and I don't think DD did. Snape Is Not A Nice Chap. Yet he can still be really and truly on the good guys' side. Dumbledore has more to offer him than Voldemort (even if Dumbledore won't use Dark Arts and refuses to give Snape the DADA job so he can use them). If nothing else, Dumbledore will protect him as Voldemort would not. (Coward!Snape, anyone?) Surely Dumbledore the legilimens sees all this when Snape shows up on the doorstep. > We don't know anything about Snape's trial, except that DD > gave evidence and Snape was cleared. His trial obviously happened > after GH, because in GoF, Sirius didn't know that he had ever > been a DE. Was someone other than Karkaroff a snitch? If so, who? > Was it a DE? Was it someone else who was later cleared? Would DD > *really* have insisted after Voldy's fall that Snape turn himself in > for a full criminal trial, certain that he'd get off with DD's > support? (I've never seen this discussed before, if someone can > point me to a post, I'd be much obliged.) I'm sure this has come up before. I don't believe Snape was ever formally tried, because the trials were public (Fudge says in GoF that Harry could have found the names of the acquitted DEs in old reports of the trials), yet no one seems even to be aware that Snape was accused. Moreover, Crouch Sr. says that Snape was "cleared" not "acquitted" and that Dumbledore "vouched for" him. Whoever accused Snape must have done so in a secret, grand-jury type hearing, and Dumbledore must have stepped forward right away to give his evidence so that Snape would not be brought to Azkaban. Karkaroff's testimony (which also named Snape) must have occurred in such a hearing. I'm sure Karkaroff was not the only suspect to engineer a secret deal to get off without a trial in exchange for providing information. > So anyway, poor Snapey's left working for people he doesn't > like, for a cause in which he doesn't believe, in order to defeat > a Dark Lord he reveres, and the friends with whom he agrees. Poor > chap. I knew there was something I didn't like about MERCY! Debbie From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 8 07:53:08 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 07:53:08 -0000 Subject: JKR a Calvinist?Potterverse Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121445 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > For the record, I didn't mean an objection to the Christmas > celebrations per se. I just thought it was odd that if she were a > Calvinist, as some people have suggested, that she would recognize the > Church seasons--Advent (Dec. 1-Dec. 24), Christmas (Dec. 25-Jan. 26), > Epiphany (Jan. 6-?)--that are celebrated in the Anglican, Episcopal, > and (I think) Catholic Churches. I was watching specifically to see > when she would take the decorations down, and she did it when a > traditional Anglican or Episcopalian would, on Epiphany, the day after > the Twelfth Day of Christmas (January 5). I don't know whether a > Presbyterian (Church of Scotland) would follow that tradition. But to > me both the way she celebrates Christmas (as a *season* between Advent > and Epiphany) and the tradition of godfathers (and therefore of > christening, or baptism as it's called in the Episcopal church) in her > books seems CoE to me, with no suggestion of Calvinism. > > Geoff, what do you think? Am I way off base here? Geoff: One point, I think in your list of dates above Christmas should be 25th December-5th January. In general terms, most people in the UK follow the "Twelve Days of Christmas" tradition in terms of decorations whether they are in the Anglican or Roman churches, free churches or non-believers. We took our decorations down as usual on the 6th. Again, most churches mark Advent nowadays with readings and the lighting of an additional candle each week to mark the four Sundays and a final fifth one on Christmas Day itself. This is a tradition which has become much more widespread as is the holding of Christingle services. When I was first a Christian in the early 1960s, most non-conformist churches stuck just to the immediate Christmas season. From lavaluvn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 08:23:52 2005 From: lavaluvn at yahoo.com (lavaluvn) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 08:23:52 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121446 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol : > Yes. I think you've hit on what most of us fear, an unsatisfactory > ending. I don't think for a moment that JKR would cheat us with an "it > was all a dream" ending, but I am afraid that she'll have Harry doing > something that violates the moral code she seems to be setting up > here, specifically, I'm afraid that she'll have Harry murder Voldemort > with an Unforgiveable Curse. (I don't care that Voldemort deserves it; > I don't want Harry to be stained with the evil of his enemy's weapons.) > Now Andromeda: I don't think you have to worry about that, exactly. We (and Harry) already know that an Unforgivable Curse isn't going to kill Voldemort. It can't, no doubt due to whatever spellwork it was that Voldemort had done to "never die". No, I think Jo's hints that we need to understand why Voldemort survived his own powerful AK curse implies that Harry will need to find it out himself. Maybe if Harry can undo the spell(s), Voldie will die of natural causes? Lose his powers? Ok, maybe not, but I'm sure it will be more complex than just using an Unforgivable curse, which Jo has clearly labelled "unforgivable", or even just outright killing. My personal belief is that Harry will defeat Voldemort and yet not end up a murderer. How, I have no idea. I have some faith in JK! -Andromeda, free again from the clutches of Yahoomort From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 14:19:21 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:19:21 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear....The Potions Master chapter, SS/PS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121447 Potioncat: Here are two sections that made me wonder. It's nothing the Snape opposition hasn't been saying all along, but for some reason, it hit home when I read it this time. I'm not fully converted, but my faith in Snape is shaken! PoA "The Servant of Lord Voldemort" (chp 19) Snape speaking, "Ive told the headmaster again and again that you've been helping your old friend Black into the castle, Lupin, and here's the proof. Not even I dreamed you would have the nerve to use this old place as your hideout--" ... "Two more for Azkaban tonight," his eyes now gleaming fanatically.I shall be interested to see how Dumbledore takes this...he was quite convinced you were harmless, you know Lupin...a *tame* werewolf--" Then in "Owl Post Again" chp 22 Harry and Hermione over hear Sanpe and Fudge. Snape is speaking and Harry hears him in mid sentence, "...only hope Dumbledore's not going to make difficulties," Snape was saying. "The kiss will be performed immediately?" In the first case, Snape has been telling DD about Lupin all along and is eager to be proven right. But he shows no regret for the pain this will cause DD. snip vmonte responds: I have a feeling you're right potioncat. Didn't JKR recently tell her fans that they should be thinking about how Harry and Voldemort both survived at GH? I wonder if Snape put a stopper on Voldemort's death. And do you think that Snape has used the "Draught of Living Death" before? And if so why? Page 138, SS: "For your information, Potter, asphodel and wormwood make a sleeping potion so powerful it is known as the Draught of Living Death. A bezoar is a stone taken from the stomach of a goat and it will save you from most poisons. As for monkshood and wolfsbane, they are the same plant, which also goes by the name aconite." Didn't Dumbledore's brother get in trouble for doing inappropriate spells on a goat? Do you think he is taking medication for some poison he was given? Is wolfsbane the potion that Lupine takes? Just wondering... From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 8 14:50:20 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:50:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Predictions. Was: Your greatest fear . . . Message-ID: <20050108145020.94909.qmail@web25106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121448 Alla: Hans, I can see all of your predictions coming true more or less, but I have to tell you if Harry will find Sirius behind the Veil AND bring him back permanently, I will love you forever. :o) Hans: Darn. You won't love me forever. Just a few days perhaps? I'm afraid Sirius will never come back. Sirius is where he belongs, as far as I can understand. Alla: Although I want to see it happens, at the most I can only see Sirius temporarily coming back as host or spirit to help Harry. May I ask you why are you so sure? Hans: Yes you may ask. I'm so sure because I'm sure Harry Potter is not fiction. Yes, of course there are fictional aspects. Jo's fantasy is just SUPERB! But basically she is symbolising the process of alchemy which I have been studying all my life. Naturally I've been trying to put it into practice as well, and whatever progress I have made is totally born out by the theory. Putting alchemy into practice is an extremely rare thing, not because it's secret, but because people are just not interested. "Many are called but few are chosen" applies here. By "chosen" here I mean choosing to do it. As I have repeatedly said since April 2003 alchemy is one name for the process of liberation that has been taught by all the great messengers like Jesus the Christ, Gautama the Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc. and by the 17th century Rosicrucians who wrote "The Alchemical Wedding". In the 20th century it was brought by a totally unknown (to the masses) man who wrote under the name of Jan van Rijckenborgh. In about 1950 he wrote a book called "The Coming New Man." This book describes how a person can change from a mortal earthly person to an immortal, divine child of God. I had read this book before, but when I read it again just a couple of months ago, my hair stood on end. There, in part one, was a detailed description of Sirius Black, Peter Pettigrew and Harry Potter, and their relationship to each other. I couldn't believe my eyes! I really had to rub them to make sure I wasn't dreaming. But I have no doubt. Jan van Rijckenborgh and Jo Rowling share not only the same initials, but also the same source of inspiration. If you do a search on Rijckenborgh you will find him as the author of a commentary on "The Alchemical Wedding" as well as other books. Unfortunately "The Coming New Man" is out of print, but is to be republished next summer I believe. To understand in depth why Sirius had to leave earth you will have to wait for my character posts to finish. However to put it simply: It was never the intention that the human race should live on earth, but stay in "Paradise". When we undergo alchemical transfiguration our highest spiritual self moves to the Kingdom of Heaven, or Nirvana, ahead of us. We as the lower spiritual part, the personality, go later. This idea is reflected in the New Testament as "I go to prepare a place for you." To put it in childish terms: Sirius has gone to heaven and he won't come back. However in my opinion he will definitely help and inspire Harry from where he is. I agree with you there. I don't know how Jo will describe that. "The Coming New Man" doesn't tell us. But as Harry and Sirius are united like Jesus and Christ, Harry will obviously live in Sirius' love and divine power. These things are a mystery to me, but I do know that any one who goes on this alchemical journey faces a future that is so overwhelmingly beautiful, filled with such almost unbearable joy and ecstasy, that there are no words. Alla: I can also see Harry travelling in the underworld, but failing to get Sirius out of there. Oh, well, I would LOVE for you to be right on this one. Hans: Yes I think that's what will happen. I'm sure Jo will succeed in explaining why Sirius can't come. Maybe I'm wrong. That stage of alchemy is extremely far ahead of me. Book SEVEN, where are you? Alla: So, according to Liberation theory, Harry after choosing not to go Heaven or some equivalent of it and stay on Earth will become ... who? Someone who realised what Divine power means? Will he be human or God like? Sorry, this question still buggs me. Hans: Don't apologise! That's a wonderful question. Unfortunately it's hard to explain for many reasons. One is that our language is geared for use in a three dimensional world, while the divine world is multidimensional with no concrete structures and objects like we have here. There is no basis of comparison between the two universes. To explain it as simply as possible: Liberation means the birth of a new soul (Harry) followed by a new consciousness. Harry Potter is basically the story from the birth of the new soul to the birth of the new consciousness. As I've said before, and in my essay, the earthly human being is tied to the three dimensional world by seven chains. Each book describes Harry cutting one chain. When Harry has cut the last chain in book 7, symbolised in my opinion by the Gate of Saturn (the archway with the veil), he will be liberated from all ties to this fallen universe. That means his soul and his consciousness will be Divine. But that's only the beginning! That's only the first step in the return to the unification with God. That journey takes many many millennia, and can under no circumstances be described because there are no words for the spectacular glory of changing from a human being to a God. So to answer your question: Harry will be human in the body and faculties, but his soul and consciousness will be God-like. It's a transition stage. I have an intuitive feeling that Jo will make Harry choose to stay behind to become gate-keeper, symbolising the liberated person who gives up the joy of returning to God because of the compassion for people who are still held captive in this non-divine life. I hope I have answered your questions, but the problem is that in this sort of discussion every answer leads to ten more questions (which you're welcome to ask). ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 14:53:51 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 14:53:51 -0000 Subject: Why Harry is the only one that can defeat Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121449 I've been wondering why the prophecy claims that only one person can take down Voldemort. The prophecy is extremely ambiguous. And was made before Neville and Harry were born. Is it possible that either child could have caused Voldemort's 1st downfall? Is it possible that Lily and Neville's mom were both friends and each put the same protection spell on their child? But since Voldemort chose Harry, the prophecy is now certainly about HP. I also wonder if Harry's connection with Voldemort is so strong that if someone were able to kill Voldemort, Harry would also die. If DD is grooming Harry for the final confrontation, perhaps Harry is the only person who can sever his connection with Voldemort. And only then can someone else take Voldemort down. What if Neville's protection is still intact? Vivian From cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 12:03:34 2005 From: cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com (David & Laura) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:03:34 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121450 > > Carol : > > Yes. I think you've hit on what most of us fear, an unsatisfactory > > ending. I don't think for a moment that JKR would cheat us with > > an "it was all a dream" ending, but I am afraid that she'll have Harry > >doing something that violates the moral code she seems to be setting up > > here, specifically, I'm afraid that she'll have Harry murder Voldemort > > with an Unforgiveable Curse. > Now Andromeda: > I don't think you have to worry about that, exactly. We (and > Harry) already know that an Unforgivable Curse isn't going to kill > Voldemort. . My personal > belief is that Harry will defeat Voldemort and yet not end up a > murderer. How, I have no idea. I have some faith in JK! David: I agree that LV will not be done in by a wand and curse. My wild guess is that the trio collaborates to somehow zot LV back through the veil where Sirius and LV's other victims await. I would enjoy greatly the vision of Sirius pounding the crap out of LV...my fantasy anyway. I can see where the MOM might be the scene of the final battle, as I believe at some point LV has to try to get whatever power is studied in the mystery room to nullify Harry's great strength. Tonks asked in a message just earlier, 'what is LV's greatest weakness'? My belief is that he overestimates his invincibility and underestimates the powers of others. Basically, that's how Harry's escaped him to this point. David From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Jan 8 15:24:13 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:24:13 -0000 Subject: Predictions. Was: Your greatest fear . . . In-Reply-To: <20050108145020.94909.qmail@web25106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: > Alla: > I can also see Harry travelling in the underworld, but failing to get Sirius out of there. Oh, well, I would LOVE for you to be right on this one. > > Hans: > Yes I think that's what will happen. I'm sure Jo will succeed in explaining why Sirius can't come. Maybe I'm wrong. That stage of alchemy is extremely far ahead of me. Book SEVEN, where are you? > Valky: Well that makes three of us. I think someone else here said that Sirius could become Harry's link to his parents, perhaps his mother this time. I'd like to ask, Hans, in your recent study of the characters did you find anything that might indicate Sirius' spirit might connect Harry to his mothers love and guidance in some way? From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Jan 8 15:27:54 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 15:27:54 -0000 Subject: Decorating traditionsRe: JKR a Calvinist?Potterverse Destiny In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121452 > Carol: I was watching specifically to see > > when she would take the decorations down, and she did it when a > > traditional Anglican or Episcopalian would, on Epiphany, the day > after the Twelfth Day of Christmas (January 5). Potioncat: I've stayed away from the moral/Calvin posts...just too deep for me. I happened across this one and was captivated. Being the canon thumper that I am, I was within seconds of pulling out the set of HP books. I could not remember anything in the books about the decorations coming down! Did I miss it? If Flitwick put them up so gently, did Snape stride through the castle, waving his wand and sending tinsil and trinkets crashing to the floor before evanescoing them away? Then just as I started, I realised you were talking about the web site!!! Of course, it could be JKR's schedule or it could be her web designer's schedule or she could be like our family and one parent looks at the other and says, "When are you taking all this stuff down?" Potioncat (who hasn't yet) From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 16:58:23 2005 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 16:58:23 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses and vulnerability and LIly's eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121453 Minervakab My daughter has my own green almond shaped eyes and is as blind as I am. My son has his father's eyes and can see very well. I am no opthamologist but I did believe the shape of the eye had something to do with how well we see. I did not wear my glasses when I was fifteen because of vanity but I would not have been able to tell Snape he needed to wash his underpants without my glasses as Lily does in Chapter twenty eight "Snape's Worst Memory" in Order of the Phoenix. I am wondering now if Harry's glasses have nothing to do with his father needing them and something to do with the curse. If Harry has his mother's eyes, he should see as well as her (I think) and not need glasses at all. At least that is my opinion. What do you think? Both of my parents wear glasses, but I have 20/10 vision. I have almond shape eyes. I do not think that the shape of your eye makes a difference on your sight, but heredity would be a huge player. A-Mac From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 17:02:18 2005 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:02:18 -0000 Subject: Who can be in Slytherin Was: Re: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121454 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > A-Mac: > > I have this vague memory of a Slytherin that was not a pure blood. > I'm sure that he she or it was ridiculed in some way, does anyone > know what I am speaking of. > > > Alla: > > Yes, but what does it prove, if I may ask? Tom was a half blood, so > theoretically Slytherins could be half bloods (I sincerely that they > could be muggleborns, but in theory anything is possible) > > What determinitive is a mindset, IMO, or at least a predisposition > to certain way of thinking. > > I can see a half-blood wisard thinking that purebloods are better > than everybody else quite clearly. It is harder to iamgine > muggleborn doing so. > > Again, could you please clarify your point? > > > JMO, > Alla People generalize that all Slytherins are pure bloods and all Slytherins share the same mindset. I was merely showing that if they aren't all pure bloods then they might not all have the same mindset. A-Mac From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 17:10:15 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:10:15 -0000 Subject: Who can be in Slytherin Was: Re: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121455 A-Mac: I have this vague memory of a Slytherin that was not a pure blood. I'm sure that he she or it was ridiculed in some way, does anyone know what I am speaking of. Alla: Yes, but what does it prove, if I may ask? Tom was a half blood, so theoretically Slytherins could be half bloods (I sincerely that they could be muggleborns, but in theory anything is possible) What determinitive is a mindset, IMO, or at least a predisposition to certain way of thinking. I can see a half-blood wisard thinking that purebloods are better than everybody else quite clearly. It is harder to iamgine muggleborn doing so. A-Mac: People generalize that all Slytherins are pure bloods and all Slytherins share the same mindset. I was merely showing that if they aren't all pure bloods then they might not all have the same mindset. Alla: OK, thank you. But you were showing that Slytherins may not share same mindset and using Tom Riddle as an example? Alla From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 17:21:29 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:21:29 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121456 Eggplant wrote: > > She (Hermione) didn't implement a ironclad procedure that would make betrayal > impossable because she couldn't think of one; I can't either, if I > could I'd be the head of the CIA. She did the best she could, she > put a hex on the parchment which if nothing else that at least > ensured nobody could betray them twice. Ginger: Quite true. Kind of like a restraining order. It is supposed to keep you from harm by telling the person who wishes to harm you that it is not allowed. Oooh, that'll work. Once. And as we saw with Merietta, once is plenty. Personally, had it been me, I'd have somehow charmed the parchment so that when the bird sang, the score was tacit. Follow me into my imagination: Hermione charms the parchment so that when a person goes to tattle, they instead start quoting great works of literature. Thus: DU: You wanted to see me, Marietta? ME: Yes, Professor, it's important. DU: Have a seat, Marietta. ME: I am Sam. DU: I thought you were Marietta. ME: Sam I am. DU: Well, then, Sam, go on. ME: Do you like green eggs and ham? Several chapters later: DU: Not you again! I don't care how important it is! I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them, Sam I am! Or something like that. Marietta wouldn't have been able to tell, and DU would have issued another educational decree forbidding the recitation of Muggle literature, so Hermione would have known that someone had tried. Eggplant continues: And yet, many here say even > doing that was too much. When half the people say you're doing too > much and the other half say too little you're probably doing about > right. Ginger: Ah, the variety of the list. Don't like an opinion? Hang on a second and one will come your way that you do. Or you can always write it yourself. So, for the half that think Hermione did too much, we'll just have ME reciting Dr. S in front of DU, and for the rest of us, we'll have the charm also result in ME's eyes looking like green eggs and her mouth like a slice of green ham. If we want to get nastier, we could learn that Crabbe and Goyle are attracted to a girl who combines food and Slyth colours, but this is getting out of hand, so we'll stop here. Ginger, who thinks that Marietta got what she deserved if we have all the evidence, but as was the case of Percy, the eloquent Del has caused her to view the matter from the other side and continue to ponder. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 17:30:40 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:30:40 -0000 Subject: Why Harry is the only one that can defeat Voldemort. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121457 I think it's clear that the reason Harry is the only one who has a chance of defeating Voldemort is because he has more of the thing behind the locked door in the ministry than anyone else. But that's not very helpful because it just begs the question, what exactly is in the locked room? What is this enormously powerful thing that Harry has and Voldemort does not? Love no doubt has something to do with it but I don't think that's all or even the most important part because Dumbledore says it's not only wonderful it is also more terrible than death. Perhaps courage and skill and sacrifice and "old magic" and something else that's hard to put a finger on; I guess you could say the room contains what Tom Wolfe called "The Right Stuff". Chuck Yeager had it, so does Harry Potter. So why is the room locked? I don't think the wizards locked the door and are in fact trying to unlock it, but without success. I think in book 7 Harry will find a way to unlock it, something even Dumbledore couldn't do. He knows that opening the door is the only way to destroy Voldemort but Harry also knows that if he does so he will die too; remember that powerful "old magic" involves sacrifice. I predict that in the last chapter of book 7, the one just before epilog where the adult lives of the surviving characters are described, in the chapter entitled "The Man Who Died", he opens that door. And Harry Potter is no more. Eggplant From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 17:35:49 2005 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 17:35:49 -0000 Subject: Curse Scars/Cats/Occulmency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "danni_yetman" wrote: > > Well I've been re-reading the HP series, and I've got some little > oddities/coincidences that I hope have not already been exhausted and > that some others will be interested to discuss. > The first, curse scars. Obviously the most promenent is Harry's. But > towards the end of GoF Fudge says to Dumbledore "You'll forgive me, > Dumbledore, but I've heard of a curse acting as an alarm bell > before..." (GoF-The Parting of Ways, pg.613 British version) I think > that's very interesting. (snip> who is Fudge talking about, and > what was it an alarm bell for? Mhbobbin writes: I wonder if this remark by Fudge was one of those mistakes that was edited for later editions. In my paperback edition, Fudge says "I've never heard of a curse acting as an alarm bell before...". But you are not the first poster to quote it this other way. "danni_yetman": > Cats and Squibs: Filch has Mrs. Norris, and Mrs. Figg has several, and Mr. Tibbles is the one we saw in OotP. Both Filch and > Mrs. Figg seem to be able to communicate with their cats...and I > cannot recall if there was another possible hint about cat-Squib > connection. I think it's also interesting that the cats has name > beginning with Mr and Mrs...it gives them a very human > quality...important? Mrs. Figg...indicates she is or was > married...that could also be relevant...although maybe not! Any > thought? mhbobbin writes: Interesting observation about the cats' names. Maybe Crookshanks is not Mr. Crookshanks because he's half-kneazle, and he clearly isn't living with a Squib in Hermione. I think Mrs. Figg is something more than she appears and I don't completely trust that she's a squib. And there's this strange association with Perkins. Very weird. "danni_yetman": > Finally, we were introduced to Occulmency in OotP, but JKR seems to > have dropped hints about it, more specifically Snape's connection to > it, at least this is what I've noticed in re-re-re-re-re-reading the > first 2 books so far...trying to really read between the lines. Harry > has said several times that it is almost as if Snape can read minds. > I don't know if this refers to Snapes being a skilled Occulmens. > Harry having his mind penetrated was something he was aware of in > OotP, but can a mind be penetrated by other means? hmmmm! > Hope these aren't just idle speculations of mine!!! Let's get some > replies please! > mhbobbin: In re-reading COS, it was apparent that one scene that didn't make sense at the time to me was DD practicing legilmens on Harry--the scene where Harry is called to DD's office, and after DD stares into Harry's eyes, tells Harry he knows him to be innocent. He then asks Harry if there's anything he'd like to tell him. Harry's mind runs through a series of scenes and Harry replies no. But clearly DD then knew about the Polyjuice Potion plot etc. that the trio are cooking up. DD does not choose to intervene. Snape is not the only suspected Legilmens. There are many times that Harry observes Lupin seems to be reading his mind as well. Mhbobbin From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 18:04:47 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 18:04:47 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121459 "delwynmarch" wrote: > One very easy measure would have been > to tell the DA, *after* they > had all signed, Yes, and if she had told them AFTER they signed there would be howls from the revisionists saying this clearly proved that Hermione was more unfair and treacherous than Snape or Marietta could dream of. And if she had told them BEFORE they signed the revisionists would say this proved she was really dumber than Lockheart because by then it was too late they already knew too much. Everybody loves to play Monday morning quarterback but considering it was the first time she tried to play the part of a secret agent Hermione did pretty well. > Another easy measure was to *talk* > to each member of the DA As I said before many members of the DA said some very inflammatory things, but Marietta did not. Eggplant: >> she put a hex on the parchment which >> if nothing else that at least ensured >> nobody could betray them twice." > Betray them *twice* ?? John Walker and Aldrich Ames were intelligence agents who betrayed their organizations HUNDREDS of times for over 20 years. Hermione ensured that nothing like that could happen to them. Yes one betrayal is still far too many but it's better than nothing. Eggplant From fmsyv at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 03:19:50 2005 From: fmsyv at yahoo.com (Darynthe) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 21:19:50 -0600 Subject: 666 and Harry Potter Message-ID: <010301c4f530$ea2030b0$142d01de@AJATIVA> No: HPFGUIDX 121460 I was doing some investigation related to my theory of Harry's having the Mark of Cain as a paralel to the prophecy about his being marked by the Dark Lord when I found the UNTHINKABLE. I found a website related to the hidden codes in the Bible. This is a way of finding hidden messages that have foretold most of present and past happenings in History. They have found amazing related phrases that are absolutely impossible statistically but these articles have been published in serious scientific magazines. The site is: http://www.hiddencodes.com/6_6_6.htm Well while perusing this site, I found the searches done for the number 666 (not for Harry Potter or anything, just for that number). The person who did the work found some words that he couldn't understand what meant (she thought it was something about Bill and Hillary Clinton) but I found them striking. They were clear to me! The words related are: 666 Hillary Bill Chuck Harry Will, Will Occult, Ulterior, Hidden Babel Author, maker, productive, Potter How on earth is the Harry Potter hidden there?? Please tell me I am dreaming! This cannot be truth! ::crying::: From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 8 19:34:18 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 19:34:18 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121461 > Eggplant: > >> she put a hex on the parchment which > >> if nothing else that at least ensured > >> nobody could betray them twice." Del: > > Betray them *twice* ?? Eggplant: > John Walker and Aldrich Ames were intelligence agents > who betrayed their organizations HUNDREDS of times for > over 20 years. Hermione ensured that nothing like that > could happen to them. Yes one betrayal is still far > too many but it's better than nothing. Pippin: Eggplant, I think you have something there. Hermione must have been focusing on the danger that someone had *already* told DU about the meeting. No doubt she hoped any mole would be revealed in a flourish of purple pustules as soon as they signed the parchment. Very dramatic -- but when it didn't happen, she may have felt a little ashamed of herself for suspecting them and that's why she didn't tell anyone what she'd done. After all, why not tell Harry and Ron about the hex immediately...she didn't think they were potential traitors, did she? You've also given me some insight into JKR's plotting. This device ensures we know that Marietta wasn't reporting to Umbridge all along. I think though, that considering Marietta as a sneak misreads her character (as JKR expects us to.) Cho has pretty good taste in friends otherwise and she says Marietta is a lovely person, so she can't have been a sneak all along. I think Marietta shows us the limitations of trying to be nice to everyone as opposed to deciding what's right. Marietta went to the meetings to appease Cho, tried to leak some information to appease her mother, and then tried to squeal on the DA to appease Umbridge. Or that's how I see it. Pippin From msmerymac at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 19:53:09 2005 From: msmerymac at yahoo.com (Meredith) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 19:53:09 -0000 Subject: what is in a name? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121462 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > > This is going to seem way off the wall. But I was just thinking > > about the fact that the founders of each house have a first and > last initial that are alike. Minerva McGonagall, Severus Snape, Dedalus Diggle... There are many instances of alliterative names in the Potterverse. It's one of those things that seems very literary, especially in a fantasy sense. However, it's only secondary characters with the same initials - none of the Weasleys, Potters, Hermione, Lupin, Dumbledore, Hagrid, or Sirius have the same initials. As a person with three of the smae initial, I admit that I enjoy it. We know that JKR's names usually mean something, but I can't quite grasp the meaning of the initials. ~Luckie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 20:30:51 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 20:30:51 -0000 Subject: Must Harry Die? - sort of.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121463 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > I am tired of people saying that Harry must die for LV to die, so I > figured we could disect the prophecy. If that has already been done > then slap me in the face. > bboyminn: Oh, it's been done alright, but there is enough 'greyness' to the Prophecy to leave plenty of room for interpretation and analysis. > "'The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... > etc... > > This is the plain and simple part. No arguements hopefully. > > "'...and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can > live while the other survives...etc...'" > > This is the part that seesm to cause trouble. > > Let us take this apart... > > "'either must die at the hand of the other'" > either means = Harry OR Lord Voldemort > neither means = Not Harry AND Not Lord Voldemort > > Harry OR Lord Voldemort must die becuase Not Harry and Not Lord > Voldemort can live. > > Plain and simple. ... > > A-Mac bboyminn: Oh, I really wish it were that simple. "...either must die at the hand of the other..." True that's simple and straight forward enough, BUT... "...for neither can live while the other survives..." Is not so simple. The first and most obvious problem is that they are both surviving and both living, but the Prophecy says that can't happen. It seems to imply that if one of doesn't die by some independant means, then both of them are doomed to death; each, meaning both, of them are doomed to death as long as his counterpart continues to survive. Extended further that opens the possibility for both of them to die. At this point let me say what I have said (too) many times before... "There is death, then again, there is death; the two not necessarily being the same." I speculate (once again... and again... and again...) that perhaps in the moment of the death of one, the other becomes more vulnerable to death. For a brief period, in the absents of his counterpart, the remaining wizard become exceptionally susceptible to death. Of course, since it is Voldemort who has taken 'steps' to prevent his death, he is the one who is truly vulnerable in this small window of succeptablility. So, I speculate (as I often do) that Harry will die by some technical definition. Remember that in the real world people die all the time, every day, and are brought back to life through CPR, through cardio-electro-shock, etc.... Some survivors even recount there experiences with death. They see a long tunnel with a bright pure white light at the end, and frequently meet a dead favorite relative, spirit quide, or guardian angle who tells them it is not their time and that they must go back. So I further speculate that with or without Harry's knowledge, Dumbledore will arrange or allow Harry to sustain death by some technical definition, although he will make provisions to revive Harry. Naturally, this will be a 'cliff-hanger'; Harry will have be be revived within a hopelessly short period of time. During this brief twilight of death while Harry is moving toward the 'light', Voldemort will be at his maximum succeptablity to his own death. Then Neville will curse Voldemort to death, and someone, hopefully, will revive Harry. Possibilities- With or without Harry's knowledge, Dumbledore has been feeding Harry the Elixer of Life. (Not the whole time, just in the 7th book at a critical part, '...more tea Harry?'. Remember the Draught of Living Death that Snape told the students about in their first Potions class. What's up with that? Other, yet to be introduced, mysteries. Can't say my position is totally supported, but given the uncertain interpretation of the Prophecy, it as good as most. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From gelite67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 8 22:30:42 2005 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:30:42 -0000 Subject: COS - Riddle's Orphanage; Legimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121464 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > > gelite67 wrote: > > > I'm re-reading and I have two questions. > > > > 1) Is anyone curious as to why Riddle was in a Muggle orphanage > > instead of being adopted by a wizarding family? > Meri here: I always assumed that the reason he was sent to a Muggle > orphanage was because no one knew he was a wizard after his mother > died. She was, IIRC, a witch who was spurned by her husband (Tom, > Sr.) when he found out what she was. Mrs. Riddle then gave birth to > her son and died, leaving baby Tom with nothing but a name because I > am assuming that his mother had no family. And > as to why no WW family volunteered to take baby Tom while many would > have raised Harry as their own, I think the answer to that is fairly > simple: Harry was the Boy Who Lived and Tom was just some random > baby. As much as I hate to write it, people's compassion is not > always evenly applied, and taking in the baby that defeated LV is > much more attractive than taking in some random foundling. > > Meri - hoping she did not insult anyone who adopts, is adopted or is > thinking about adopting... Angie replies: Yes, I'm sure it would have been bragging point for the wizarding family that took Harry in, but shame on the wizarding world if that's the reason for not taking Riddle in! It looks to me like the school would have an obligation, if "only" a moral obligation, to try to find Riddle a wizarding home. They knew where he lived -- they sent his letters to him. And of course, all of this begs the question of how it was explained to the orphanage where Riddle went during the schoolyear. From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 8 23:34:07 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:34:07 -0000 Subject: COS - Riddle's Orphanage; Legimency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121465 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gelite67" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" > wrote: > > > > gelite67 wrote: > > > > > I'm re-reading and I have two questions. > > > > > > 1) Is anyone curious as to why Riddle was in a Muggle orphanage > > > instead of being adopted by a wizarding family? > > > > Meri here: I always assumed that the reason he was sent to a Muggle > > orphanage was because no one knew he was a wizard after his mother > > died. She was, IIRC, a witch who was spurned by her husband (Tom, > > Sr.) when he found out what she was. Mrs. Riddle then gave birth to > > her son and died, leaving baby Tom with nothing but a name because > I > > am assuming that his mother had no family. > And > > as to why no WW family volunteered to take baby Tom while many > would > > have raised Harry as their own, I think the answer to that is > fairly > > simple: Harry was the Boy Who Lived and Tom was just some random > > baby. As much as I hate to write it, people's compassion is not > > always evenly applied, and taking in the baby that defeated LV is > > much more attractive than taking in some random foundling. > > > > Meri - hoping she did not insult anyone who adopts, is adopted or > is > > thinking about adopting... > > Angie replies: > > Yes, I'm sure it would have been bragging point for the wizarding > family that took Harry in, but shame on the wizarding world if that's > the reason for not taking Riddle in! It looks to me like the school > would have an obligation, if "only" a moral obligation, to try to > find Riddle a wizarding home. They knew where he lived -- they sent > his letters to him. And of course, all of this begs the question of > how it was explained to the orphanage where Riddle went during the > schoolyear. Geoff: About 15 months ago, there was a lot of discussion about Tom Riddle and his background. Much of it stemmed from the famous (or infamous) "Vauxhall Road" threads - which were to do with where Tom got the diary. This then led to speculation about Stockwell Orphanage and on to Tom's mother and her dealings with the Muggle and Wizarding worlds. If you pick up at nmessage 83683 or thereabouts (No Sex Please, We're British) there is a lot of discussion about her status. Follow it through - the threads do change names on occasions. From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 00:25:44 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:25:44 -0000 Subject: 666 and Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <010301c4f530$ea2030b0$142d01de@AJATIVA> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121466 Darynthe wrote: > I found a website related to the hidden codes in the Bible. This is a way of finding > hidden messages that have foretold most of present and past happenings in History. > They have found amazing related phrases that are absolutely impossible statistically > but these articles have been published in serious scientific magazines. > Well while perusing this site, I found the searches done for the number 666 > The words related are: > > 666 > Hillary > Bill > Chuck > Harry > Will, Will > Occult, Ulterior, Hidden > Babel > Author, maker, productive, Potter > > > How on earth is the Harry Potter hidden there?? > > Please tell me I am dreaming! > > This cannot be truth! ::crying::: Laurasia replies: Well, here in Australia there is a rebel documentary maker (named John Safran who is like a younger version of Michael Moore) who used the exact same technique that the Bible Code people use, but on the complete lyrical works of Vanilla Ice, 1990s rapper. He came up with the same allegedly 'statistically impossible' results. Call me crazy, but if you can just put in rap lyrics into the program and get predictions that the World Trade Centre will be destroyed, such predictions apparently found hidden in the Bible lose any uniqueness. Even if it really is special, how do you explain Hillary, Bill and Chuck? Surely if 666 was *really* a secret message about Harry Potter, then *every* result would be relevant. Besides, what does that mean for all the other people in the world called Harry Potter? Or Chuck Potter, for that matter? As you said, the person who found this code thought it meant something about Hillary and Bill Clinton. If you are to convince me that there really are secret messages hidden in the Bible about Harry Potter, then I'll need something less ambiguous with an perfectly unique meaning- "Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, Ronald Weasley." Not something like, "Toothbrush, poison, toaster, Louise, Hanson, White, Beard, Bee." Look! It has "White Beard Bee", clearly a message about Albus Dumbledore- and the word poison! This means that he really has been taking Polyjuice Potion all this time and.... ;-) I'm a skeptic. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 00:39:25 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:39:25 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121467 So, now we know - January 9. Waves at Potioncat. Is it close enough to what you wished for? Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 00:55:11 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:55:11 -0000 Subject: Ring of trust (Was: Marietta and the DA). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121468 Eggplant wrote: > > If you want to start an underground resistance movement you can't > limit it to people you have personally known and trusted for many > years because then it would be too small to be effective. You need > to use something called the ring of trust. If I trust A and A trusts > B then I should trust B. So if Hermione made an error it's that she > trusted Cho. Carol responds: Taking this idea in a slightly different direction, Harry trusts Hermione, right? And Hermione trusts Dumbledore and Dumbledore trusts Snape. So Harry, by your reasoning, "has" to trust both Dumbledore and, by extension, Snape. And so do we, if we trust Harry (or Hermione or Dumbledore). Carol, who's not sure about your "ring of trust" idea but does trust Snape (And Dumbledore) despite their fallibility From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 01:01:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:01:26 -0000 Subject: Ring of trust (Was: Marietta and the DA). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121469 Eggplant wrote: If you want to start an underground resistance movement you can't limit it to people you have personally known and trusted for many years because then it would be too small to be effective. You need to use something called the ring of trust. If I trust A and A trusts B then I should trust B. So if Hermione made an error it's that she trusted Cho. Carol responds: Taking this idea in a slightly different direction, Harry trusts Hermione, right? And Hermione trusts Dumbledore and Dumbledore trusts Snape. So Harry, by your reasoning, "has" to trust both Dumbledore and, by extension, Snape. And so do we, if we trust Harry (or Hermione or Dumbledore). Alla: Hey, Carol! I think Eggplant was talking about the people UNKNOWN to the leaders of the resistance, whose roles are supposedly played by Harry, Ron and Hermione. Snape is VERY well known to him, therefore Harry has no need to rely on somebody else's judgment of him and can form his own (OK, maybe he needs to know more facts, before he can form complete judgment of Snape, just as we all would love to know that :o)) Carol, who's not sure about your "ring of trust" idea but does trust >Snape (And Dumbledore) despite their fallibility Alla, who trusts Dumbledore in everything except his trust of Snape and who does trust Snape and does not trust Snape at the same time. :o) Makes sense? :o) From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 9 01:44:11 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:44:11 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121470 Alla wrote: > So, now we know - January 9. Waves at Potioncat. Is it close enough > to what you wished for? > Potioncat: Thanks, Alla! I've never noticed before that the date changes on the calendar before midnight. Does it only do that when an important date is on it? OK, begin: Does the Happy Birthday mean SS "is" really a good guy? How does Trelawney's description of being born midwinter apply to Snape? Does this have any impact on how we see the Pensieve incident or think of the Prank? Does anyone have some spare candles? Potioncat From minervakab at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 01:54:56 2005 From: minervakab at yahoo.com (minervakab) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:54:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's glasses and vulnerability and LIly's eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121471 A-Mac wrote: > Both of my parents wear glasses, but I have 20/10 vision. I have > almond shape eyes. I do not think that the shape of your eye makes a > difference on your sight, but heredity would be a huge player. Minervakab says: Let me explain myself better. I remember learning in sixth grade biology that the shape of the eye from front to back causes the light to shine on the correct part of the eye for seeing or to miss it by shining the light either in front of or in back of this eye part. (I have forgotten the name of part of the eye - retina maybe?) It has nothing to do with the parts of the eyes that we can see when we look at a person. The parts of my daughter's eyes that I can see are the same shape as mine so I assume that the back to front is also the same and that is why she cannot see well just like me. My son's eyes are a different shape all together and he can see well. Neither of my parents wore glasses until their forties but they also did not have my eye shape. In fact, no one else in the family had my eye shape until my daughter. It was an inheritance from an unknown ancestor. So if the shape of the eyes does make a difference in how well a person sees and Lily could see well, then Harry should see well too. He obviously does not see well because of the glasses. And since JKR likes to throw people off, it could be that she made James wear glasses so we would not guess that Harry's need of glasses is another injury left-over from the curse. Possibly, Lily and/or Harry reflected the curse back on Voldemort with their eyes alone vaporizing Voldemort's body, killing Lily, making Harry unable to see well and leaving the scar on his forehead. If this theory is correct, Harry will have to face Voldemort without his glasses in the end. This would be a very terrifying thing for a person who cannot see well since one does feel vulnerable without one's glasses. Minervakab From M_corker at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 01:47:41 2005 From: M_corker at yahoo.com (m_corker) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:47:41 -0000 Subject: Good blood/bad blood (was Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121472 Del: > Tom Riddle was a fanatic, and yet he killed "only" one Muggleborn. > Ginny was possessed by someone who couldn't care less about her, and > she didn't manage to kill anyone. OK, her victims were lucky. But had > the first couple of attacks been more "successful", the school would > have been closed down, which would have put an end to the attacks. Reply: Tom Riddle did not plan to kill Myrtle she just happened to be hiding in the bathroom and opened the door when she heard tom's male voice. Then she died not because the basilisk was set on her but because it happened to be out of the chamber talking with Tom she met the eyes of it and died. Tom did not like muggleborns but he did not intend to kill Myrtle. -Michele From hitokiri.dragonfly at gmail.com Sat Jan 8 23:14:33 2005 From: hitokiri.dragonfly at gmail.com (Magnus) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 18:14:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: COS - Riddle's Orphanage; Legimency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <886a4f54050108151410d9755a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121473 Meri wrote: > And > > as to why no WW family volunteered to take baby Tom while many > would > > have raised Harry as their own, I think the answer to that is > fairly > > simple: Harry was the Boy Who Lived and Tom was just some random > > baby. As much as I hate to write it, people's compassion is not > > always evenly applied, and taking in the baby that defeated LV is > > much more attractive than taking in some random foundling. I am new to the group. It is very nice to meet all of you. I felt myself with the need to bring up a few points about LV that these posts stir up. I would have to agree that is it sad as far as Tom Riddle not being adopted. It is an unfortuante happening that occurs all over the world every day. What I want to know, however, is from whom did Tom Riddle find out about his past? His being sent to a muggle orphanage would surely suggest that his mother had to give birth in a muggle hospital. If this is true, where would he have possibly found any information about his father? Yes, his name would have given him an idea of what to look for but after going to Hogwarts would he have really cared enough to look for his father? How too would he have known that his mother was a decendent of Salazar Slytherin? I'm afraid that this is an ongoing case of each answered question raising even more questions. "Magnus" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 02:34:45 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 02:34:45 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121474 Alla wrote: > > So, now we know - January 9. Waves at Potioncat. Is it close enough > > to what you wished for? > > > > Potioncat: > Thanks, Alla! I've never noticed before that the date changes on the > calendar before midnight. Does it only do that when an important > date is on it? > > OK, begin: Does the Happy Birthday mean SS "is" really a good guy? > How does Trelawney's description of being born midwinter apply to > Snape? Does this have any impact on how we see the Pensieve incident > or think of the Prank? Does anyone have some spare candles? Carol responds: Thanks, Alla! I've been watching for Sevvie's birthday and asked Potioncat to watch it for me while I was in California. We both assumed that it would be in midwinter (not that, technically, we've reached midwinter yet), though originally I guessed November. (Right, Del?) Anyway, a cold, snowy month is appropriate for the cold-loving, black-wearing Potions master. Anyway, I'm very happy that Snape, like Flitwick and McGonagall, has been wished a happy birthday, and I take that as a good sign. Now I'll start guessing a birthday for Dumbledore. (Mid-April like Alla and me?) And yes, I think Trelawney's description of Harry (which she thought suggested he was born in midwinter) could be applied, with a bit of stretching, to Snape: "Your dark hair, your mean stature, tragedy in early life" (quoted from memory). True, we don't know that his early life was tragic per se, but it was certainly unhappy. And although he isn't described as short ("mean stature"), he's shorter than Sirius and quite thin. Spare candles? I think we'll have to ask the Birthday Elves on the OT Chatter list. Or, well, erm, I'll try to conjure some with a Bic pen, but I don't think it will work. Carol, raising a glass of leftover New Year's eggnog to Sevvie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 03:20:43 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:20:43 -0000 Subject: Harry a Squib? (Was: Your greatest fear . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121475 Geoff wrote: > "Bear in mind, though, that Harry /had/ performed involuntary wandless > magic before he knew he was a wizard." > Del replied: > Well, yes, but in a scenario where Harry was born a Squib but a part > of LV's magical powers were transferred to him at Godric's Hollow, > Harry *would* show magical abilities after 15 months of age. Carol responds; I still think Hagrid's comment that Harry's name was down in the Hogwarts book since the time of his birth can be taken at face value. Also I'm pretty sure that Harry must have demonstrated indications that he was a wizard even in babyhood--enough that his parents would believe the Prophecy about his being the One to destroy Voldemort. Also Squibs are very rare and it seems unlikely that two powerful wizards (one excelling at Transfiguration and the other at Charms) would be likely to produce one. We don't know what powers other than Parseltongue were transmitted to Harry at GH, but I'm guessing that his parents passed on many if not most of their powers to him. Certainly Harry's skill in Quidditch comes from James rather than Voldemort! I think his so/so performance in Charms and Transfiguration is more a lack of interest (he's more concerned, understandably, about DADA) than a lack of ability. And surely the ability to produce a Patronus--to fight against the powers of evil with a protective father symbol--comes from James rather than Voldemort? I'm unable to imagine LV conjuring up a Patronus because he has no happy memories, and if he did, it would probably be Salazar Slytherin or the Dark Mark or a basilisk, all of which would be more likely to join the Dementors than scare them away. Anyway, I know you don't really think that Harry was born a Squib. You were just challenging my assumption that he was born a Wizard. For the record, I only suggested the Squib idea to describe what he would become if he lost all his powers in the final confrontation with Voldemort. IMO, it's unlikely that he would lose the powers he was born with (as opposed to those he acquired from Voldemort, which I think he can and *will* lose). And now I'm trying to support my view that he was, indeed, born with powers of his own. Carol, thinking that even with an unreliable narrator and a lot of missing information, there are a few things we can safely take for granted (and this is one) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 03:29:54 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:29:54 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121476 >>Betsy: >I've come to believe that Voldemort's pureblood schtick is just that, schtick. He hates and despises Muggles, so those wizards big on Muggle-baiting would have attracted him.< >>Nora: >I don't buy that, for various and sundry reasons. Unfortunately, my connection is slow and Yahoo!Mort is rude, so I don't have post numbers for you (but I've written a lot about this). Dumbledore, at least, thinks that part of the reason he attacked Harry instead of Neville was the perception that Harry was 'like' him--similarly tainted. This speaks to Voldemort believing in the ontological reality of the distinction. (Oh, if I could find the "Why Voldemort is a fascist" post, there's more in that...). It's partly power, but I also think signs and the virulence of his opinion point to him actually believing that half-bloods are tainted and inferior. To invoke interview (hehehe), that *is* how the DEs think, in essentialist terms--I would not be so quick to discount Voldemort as a solid believer in his own ideology. Up to a point.< Betsy: Oh, I don't doubt that the DEs are all over the pureblood stuff, hence Bellatrix's shock and horror at Harry's big reveal. But I wonder if it's seriously Voldemort's big thing. I do think he sees anyone not him as tainted and inferior. And with his virulent hatred of anything Muggle, it makes sense that he'd see something even more tainted in those with Muggle blood. But I do wonder if he has any extra respect for those who are pureblooded themselves. Maybe we're coming at this from different angles? Voldemort does have it in for anything tainted by Muggles, but is he enamored of everything pureblood? >>Betsy: >Of course, the IS was being perfectly Slytherin. >I can't see Slytherin House actually liking Umbridge after she cuts down their head in his own classroom. They'll suck up to her to get what they want, but I don't think she had their loyalty.< >>Nora: >Really? I can see them liking her just fine, as much as they like anyone--she's their route to power. That subplot, IMO, really torpedoed the idea (prevalent in fanfic and other outre realms) that the Slytherins were oh-so-deeply loyal to Snape. Nope, little opportunists they are, and have you noticed how the opportunistic and self-interested seem to be at the very, very bottom of the moral slagheap in JKR's world? :) < Betsy: Maybe not deeply loyal, but it's human nature to dislike outsiders attacking your own. Plus, I doubt the Slytherins were any more thrilled with their DADA non-teacher than any of the other Houses. And Snape was going along with Umbridge himself, keeping her in Veritaserum and all. He may well have encouraged his students to join the IS. Joining the IS was certainly the cunning route. And they protected their House - which shows a loyalty to Slytherin at least. >>Nora: >They may well have thought it their right. In doing it, they sold out the rest of the school to a malevolent power, the incarnation of the banality of evil. I humbly suggest that from an internal perspective of the moral rules of the Potterverse, that is Not A Good Thing. From my perspective, it is also deeply crappy. If the other three houses didn't care for them before (and it's carefully but often noted that the Slytherins do not play nice--the Quidditch team is brutal, and they're the sort to smirk and gloat over their benefit at the misfortunes of others, instead of playing fair), what's going to happen now? Without some sort of mea culpa, the other Houses have absolutely no reason to like, let alone trust, the Slytherins.< Betsy: That's the crux isn't it? No matter the motives behind joining the IS, the other Houses (understandably) don't trust Slytherin. It's interesting that there were inter-House friendships that allowed Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw to join the DA, but not a single Slytherin was mentioned. Though I don't think the other Houses had the strength of feeling towards Slytherin that Gryffindor has. (I'm under the impresson that it was the G/S quidditch matches that were something to see.) But there's a link now, through the DA, with three Houses. Something needs to bring Slytherin in. I don't know - maybe it *will* take a Slytherin mea culpa - or more excitingly some major action. But I also think there needs to be a realization by Harry and Co. that Slytherin does not equal evil. >>Nora: > Voldemort is in part a lot of things that are twisted in wizarding society (the general way that they view other creatures, the ethic of force). The Dark Arts are connected to this idea of natural superiority, as they are fundamentally the arts of taking what you want regardless of consent, depriving another person of their subjectivity. And Slytherin House is the ideological locus of this behavior, although it's not the only place we find it.< Betsy: Slytherin is the ideological locus of all this behavior to *Harry*. It's the home of all of his enemies (Voldemort, Snape, and the annoying buzz that is Draco). But Dumbledore, on the other hand, has a Slytherin (Head of House no less) as one of his chief assistants and he listed *positive* traits of Slytherins to Harry. It'd be nice if we knew what House Quirrell was in (he always struck me as a Ravenclaw - but I don't think we've got cannon on that) but we do have Peter Pettigrew and Percy (possibly) to illustrate that opportunistic self-interest is not the sole property of Slytherin. Voldemort and his DEs do stand for everything dark in WW. But do they stand for Slytherin? Not to the WW anyway, or Slytherin would have been shut down a long time ago. (I think Crouch Sr., could have swung it.) >>Nora: >The positive traits do not ameliorate the sine qua non. That's why, on this very list, so many people felt gobsmacked by the SH song in OotP--they'd focused so strongly on the characteristics as defining Slytherin House and the search for a positive image thereof, and then find out that "no, it's blood, it is".< Betsy: The Sorting Hat giveth, and the Sorting Hat taketh away. :) I think that, for me, the fact that magical folk were being persecuted at the time of Hogwart's founding, the fact that Salazar was so open about wanting to teach only purebloods and none of his friends forswore him, the fact that the Sorting Hat says that the fight, when it came, took place between all four of the founders, and the fact that the remaining three founders didn't just do away with Slytherin House when Salazar left, means that there *must* be something good in Salazar's original vision for Slytherin, though it may have been twisted by Voldemort and the Malfoy and Black types that came before him. So I also feel that that positive image must be found and seen and used by Harry (the whole "unity" thing) in order to defeat Voldemort. I'm fairly sure that Harry is heading for a drastic sea- change of his view of Snape. For one because the bases for his anger is so illogical. And that's a start, but I think there needs to be a Slytherin student as well. If it is Draco, it will mean that Draco will have to have a sea-change of his own. (Not become saintly good mind you - but he will have to get over his blood bias.) And while I *hope* that it is Draco, I'm not prepared to put money on it. Though this essay makes me happy: http://www.livejournal.com/community/hp_essays/20412.html >-Nora ponders going to look for "Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame", a classic work of analysis, but more for where she misplaced her own (*&*%$%$* post< Betsy: I think I found the Lame!Draco message. Try message # 39083. I also discovered why there's a "Mort" put after Yahoo!. I tried to find your post but my head exploded. I'll dive back in when I've gathered the brain bits back together. Betsy From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 9 03:39:55 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 03:39:55 -0000 Subject: Good blood/bad blood (was Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121477 > Del replies: > One problem I see is that there doesn't seem to be *one* Slytherin > ideology. There seems to be a spectrum instead, from those who simply believe that purebloods are better but won't harm a Muggleborn, to those who recommend a genocide on all Muggles and Muggleborns. snip Potioncat: (I've read up and down this thread and this seemed to be the best place to jump in with my points.) And I think you can expand the above to all the WW. While many are fully accepting of any Magic Child, how they feel about Muggles is different. Even McGonagall in her comment about the Dursleys being "the worst sort of Muggles" indicated some distrust/dislike of Muggles. Or of course, Arthur's patronizing attitude towards them. > Del replies to Alla's point (which I snipped): > > Hum, Hagrid was talking about the Malfoys, not about the Slytherins in general. Potioncat: I may have snipped too much. This is where Blood can have different meanings. To say someone has bad Blood can mean that they have the same negitive traits as their parents/family. You used to hear it more often before the nature/nurture battles. I just watched a documentary on PBS about Churchill. He was convinced that he had a real warrior instinct, that it was "in his blood" because of who his ancestors were. It used to be said by older members of a family that "our family is known for __________(fill in the blank with a virtue) it's in our blood." Or even, we come from good stock which is sort of the samething. So, the Malfoys might be known for their bad blood because the entire family has been known for being rotten. This is a little different than being Half-blood or Pure-blood, that has more to do with race. (Although I used to hear someone was only half English because the other parent's background was something exotic, like German or French.) (I grew up the in Scott-Irish settled foothills of SC. Potioncat (who is still reading Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" to my youngest and finds the Spirit of Christmas Future to sound quite a lot like a Dementor.) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 04:06:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 04:06:06 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121478 > Betsy: But Dumbledore, on the other hand, has a Slytherin (Head of House no less) as one of his chief assistants and he listed *positive* traits of Slytherins to Harry. Alla: Well, it is true. Snape seems to be one of Dumbledore chief assistants, but can we be sure of his final loyalty? I want the answer to be YES, but I sometimes have my doubts. Another question. Could you please give me a quote where Dumbledore lists POSITIVE traits of Slytherins to Harry? Because if we are talking about this one: "Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination - a certain disregard for rules," he added, his mustache quivvering again. "Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think". -p.333, Cos, paperback. I frankly do NOT see any sign of Dumbledore praising those traits. Salazar prized them, yes, Dumbledore - nope. Nora: The positive traits do not ameliorate the sine qua non. That's why, on this very list, so many people felt gobsmacked by the SH song in OotP--they'd focused so strongly on the characteristics as defining Slytherin House and the search for a positive image thereof, and then find out that "no, it's blood, it is".< Betsy: The Sorting Hat giveth, and the Sorting Hat taketh away. :) I think that, for me, the fact that magical folk were being persecuted at the time of Hogwart's founding, the fact that Salazar was so open about wanting to teach only purebloods and none of his friends forswore him, the fact that the Sorting Hat says that the fight, when it came, took place between all four of the founders, and the fact that the remaining three founders didn't just do away with Slytherin House when Salazar left, means that there *must* be something good in Salazar's original vision for Slytherin, though it may have been twisted by Voldemort and the Malfoy and Black types that came before him. Alla: I may have felt that way before that Sorting hat Song - that Voldemort distorted the original vision of Slytherin House. Not anymore - I don't see "blood purity" as good vision. At best I am willing to assume that Salasar was sincere in his mistakes and was scared of muggleborns for some reason. Does it justify acceptance of "purebloods only"? Not to me, sorry. Persecution of magical folks... Sure, "witches burnings". In real world, many innocents died because they were suspected of being witches, right? But don't forget that in JKR world REAL witches were not afraid of those burnings and saved themselves, while who really suffered were muggle folks. So, seems that Salasar was not really rational in his fears of persecution, IF he had such, which I don't remember in canon. Again, if you are talking about other kind of persecution, could you please refer me to canon? Thanks. I am one of those who feels that House System will dissappear at the end thus achieving the Unity of Hogwarts. It is either that or Slytherin giving away the doctrine which seems to be the heart of their House ideology, but then they are not going to be real Slytherins anymore, don't they? Betsy: So I also feel that that positive image must be found and seen and used by Harry (the whole "unity" thing) in order to defeat Voldemort. I'm fairly sure that Harry is heading for a drastic sea- change of his view of Snape. For one because the bases for his anger is so illogical. And that's a start, but I think there needs to be a Slytherin student as well. Alla: Ooooo, I so should not go into Harry being illogical... So, just one sentence. I don't see five years of emotional abuse as illogical reason for being angry at somebody. But that is just me. But I agree with you that we WILL get a good Slytherin students or couple of them. My money is on Theodore Nott and/or Blaise Zabini. Just my opinion, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 04:30:38 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 04:30:38 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121479 dumbledore11214 wrote: > > So, now we know - January 9. Waves at Potioncat. Is it close enough > to what you wished for? > Alla Carol responds again, a bit OT: Has anyone besides me wondered why the site says January 9 on January 8? I've been celebrating Snape's birthday a day early! Until now the site dates have corresponded with my computer's calendar. Carol, confused as usual and apologizing profusely to the List Elves From ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com Sun Jan 9 04:32:46 2005 From: ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com (ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 23:32:46 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (wa... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121480 alla: So, seems that Salasar was not really rational in his fears of persecution, IF he had such, which I don't remember in canon. Perhaps he was worried about the muggle-borns. Sure, a witch could magic her way out of a burrning at the stake, but would Hermione be able to after one year of school? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hitokiri.dragonfly at gmail.com Sun Jan 9 02:49:39 2005 From: hitokiri.dragonfly at gmail.com (Magnus) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 21:49:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Good blood/bad blood (was Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <886a4f5405010818493c428fee@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121481 I can certainly agree with the idea that Riddle did not mean for Myrtle to die. The reasoning behind this is very simple as well. Take the journey with me, won't you? Tom Riddle admitted to Harry that he had already been using the pseudonym "Voldemort" while still in school. He is also admittedly capable of charming just the right people, the ones he needs to accomplish his goals. Would it not then stand to reason that Riddle was simply using the basalisk attacks to cover up something more heinous? That would explain the need for his alternate plan of framing Hagrid when he found out that he was being sent back to the orphanage. Naturally, he would never have needed to do so if Myrtle had not been in the wrong place at the wrong time. This also brings me to another question. Would it have been possible that Voldemort had not planned on killing anyone until after he graduated from Hogwarts? Yet again, is it possible that he was also disappointed that he could not say that his father and grandparents were his first victims? --Magnus From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 04:34:42 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 04:34:42 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121482 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > Oh, I don't doubt that the DEs are all over the pureblood stuff, > hence Bellatrix's shock and horror at Harry's big reveal. But I > wonder if it's seriously Voldemort's big thing. I do think he > sees anyone not him as tainted and inferior. And with his > virulent hatred of anything Muggle, it makes sense that he'd see > something even more tainted in those with Muggle blood. But I do > wonder if he has any extra respect for those who are pureblooded > themselves. Maybe we're coming at this from different angles? > Voldemort does have it in for anything tainted by Muggles, but is > he enamored of everything pureblood? Since it has been found for me, I point to me own post at 108762. Not to repeat it, but I suggest taking a look at Voldemort's rhetoric in the graveyard scene, especially how he talks about Dumbledore. There are also JKR's comments about the Muggleborn and DEs. No, I don't think Voldie necessarily likes and/or esteems purebloods in and of themselves, but he does consider them better than anything else--but he's still at the top. > Betsy: > And Snape was going along with Umbridge himself, keeping her in > Veritaserum and all. He may well have encouraged his students to > join the IS. Joining the IS was certainly the cunning route. And > they protected their House - which shows a loyalty to Slytherin at > least. I thought it was fairly transparent to everyone (not just to us and our priviledged perspective) that Snape was being fairly openly contemptuous of Umbridge. It wasn't only Harry who saw Snape being rude to her in Potions Class, after all. And (in part from my own experiences), we tend to underrate how perceptive children are about teacher attitudes towards administrators. :) > Betsy: > That's the crux isn't it? No matter the motives behind joining > the IS, the other Houses (understandably) don't trust Slytherin. > It's interesting that there were inter-House friendships that > allowed Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw to join the DA, but not a single > Slytherin was mentioned. Though I don't think the other Houses > had the strength of feeling towards Slytherin that Gryffindor has. > (I'm under the impresson that it was the G/S quidditch matches > that were something to see.) I think it tells us something that it is Slytherin House where we note some who will stand for Harry and some who will not, and that both other Houses cheer for Gryffindor and against Slytherin. Probable/possible that there is some unfair bias going on in there. Also supported that, well, maybe the Slytherins are generally unpleasant, do not play nicely with others, and the others enjoy seeing their comeuppance? > But there's a link now, through the DA, with three Houses. > Something needs to bring Slytherin in. I don't know - maybe it > *will* take a Slytherin mea culpa - or more excitingly some major > action. But I also think there needs to be a realization by > Harry and Co. that Slytherin does not equal evil. This is true, but first the Slytherins need to prove that they should be trusted. :) > Betsy: > Slytherin is the ideological locus of all this behavior to > *Harry*. I'd say it's more than just that--yes, it has Harry's enemies, but it has also produced a good number of DEs, and it is the place where thinking like a DE is generally acceptable. We didn't see any hints of outrage amongst the Slytherin team when Draco uses 'Mudblood', while the Gryffindor reaction is BOTH "don't say that about our house member" and "dude, that's just not right"--it's categorically unacceptable. I think noting who will say that word and who won't is a shorthand for a whole big set'o'attitudes. > Voldemort and his DEs do stand for everything dark in WW. But do > they stand for Slytherin? Not to the WW anyway, or Slytherin > would have been shut down a long time ago. (I think Crouch Sr., > could have swung it.) I'm not sure anyone could have swung it, but the other point made is that for an appreciable portion of the WW, what Slytherin stands for is *okay*. Take Mrs. Black, who didn't approve of killing people, but was all about the inferiority of Mudbloods. Or Umbridge's attitude towards creatures. Fudge's belief in the importance of blood. The attitude towards Muggleborns and the greater WW problems towards treating other creatures well (stated by Dumbledore such that I think it's being given to us as *reality* in the Potterverse) are knotted together. Salazar's vision may well have been primarily defense oriented, although it's notable that the presentation we have of Muggle persecution of witches so far has it all played for comedy. But that doesn't change that there is something almost destined to go wrong in his solution, well-intentioned or not. I think we are going to find out more about the historical bases of all of this next book (hence I bet that the HBP is a historical figure, although I will end speculation there). We still have precious little of the positive shown us about Slytherin. We have a portrait of a dead Headmaster, and a man who might be spying, might be not, but absolutely none of us know him to any appreciable extent- -so it could go anywhere. Not that much to hang your hat on, at the end of the day, and a lot to be skeptical of. -Nora prepares for traveling fun with a copy of _Infinite Jest_ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 04:36:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 04:36:30 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (wa... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121483 Alla: So, seems that Salasar was not really rational in his fears of persecution, IF he had such, which I don't remember in canon. Return of the Mutt: Perhaps he was worried about the muggle-borns. Sure, a witch could magic her way out of a burrning at the stake, but would Hermione be able to after one year of school? Alla: Sorry, I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying that he was worried about Muggleborns and that is why he did not want to teach them? If yes, then wouldn't it make more sense to TEACH them how to protect themselves? Alla. From ajlane82 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 02:55:01 2005 From: ajlane82 at yahoo.com (ajlane82) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 02:55:01 -0000 Subject: Who can be in Slytherin Was: Re: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121484 > A-Mac: > > People generalize that all Slytherins are pure bloods and all > Slytherins share the same mindset. I was merely showing that if they > aren't all pure bloods then they might not all have the same mindset. > > > Alla: > > OK, thank you. But you were showing that Slytherins may not share > same mindset and using Tom Riddle as an example? Casey: I just wonder sometimes though, what would have happened if Harry hadn't met Ron on the train? Would he have been against Slytherin? Would he have fought the hat to *not* go there? The hat said Harry would have done well there, and only Harry's arguent kept him out. So, if there was no Ron to influence him, Harry would have gone to Draco's house gladly. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 04:48:33 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 04:48:33 -0000 Subject: Who can be in Slytherin Was: Re: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121485 Casey: I just wonder sometimes though, what would have happened if Harry hadn't met Ron on the train? Would he have been against Slytherin? Would he have fought the hat to *not* go there? The hat said Harry would have done well there, and only Harry's arguent kept him out. So, if there was no Ron to influence him, Harry would have gone to Draco's house gladly. Alla: Well, not necessarily. It could be that "something" inside Harry which we cannot decide what it is even after many discussions, would have made him recognise Draco for who he is and still ask not to be in Slytherin. Too bad we'll never know. :o) JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 04:55:55 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 04:55:55 -0000 Subject: Good blood/bad blood (was Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121486 Del asked: > Hum, Hagrid was talking about the Malfoys, not about the Slytherins in general. Has he been hurt by the Malfoys? Carol, with apoplogies for brutally snipping the rest of the post: Wasn't it Lucius Malfoy, along with Fudge, who sent Hagrid to Azkaban in CoS as a precautionary measure (pretending he was responsible for releasing the monster "again" since he'd been tried for the same crime as a child)? And it was definitely Lucius Malfoy who testified against Buckbeak after Draco's injury and blackmailed the jury into sentencing Buckbeak to death. So I'd say yes, he's been hurt by the Malfoys, and consequently has a pretty strong grudge against them. But your earlier quote about Hagrid's views on the Malfoy "blood" is interesting. Doesn't he also talk about the importance of "blood" in relation to Grawp in OoP, before Harry and Hermione know what he's talking about? I think it's in the scene where he's putting the raw dragon steak on his injured eye after his return from his failed embassy to the giants. Evidently it's not just purebloods and Slytherins who are obsessed with the subject. Carol, who wonders if a good course in Muggle-style genetics would clear up the confusion From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 05:03:42 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 05:03:42 -0000 Subject: 666 and Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <010301c4f530$ea2030b0$142d01de@AJATIVA> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121487 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Darynthe" wrote: > > I was doing some investigation related to my theory of Harry's having the Mark of Cain as a paralel to the prophecy about his being marked by the Dark Lord when I found the UNTHINKABLE. > > I found a website related to the hidden codes in the Bible. (SNIP) > > Well while perusing this site, I found the searches done for the number 666 (not for Harry Potter or anything, just for that number). > The words related are: > > 666 > Hillary > Bill > Chuck > Harry > Will, Will > Occult, Ulterior, Hidden > Babel > Author, maker, productive, Potter > > How on earth is the Harry Potter hidden there?? > Please tell me I am dreaming! > This cannot be truth! ::crying::: ------------------------- Tonks here: There are hidden codes in the Bible, but not written for people in our time. They were written for people of 1900 years ago during the time of persecution. I doubt very much that Harry, Potter, Bill, Hillary, or Clinton would ever be there. The bible was written in languages that would not have used those names at all. There are all kinds of wacky people on the TV and internet claiming all sort of stuff. So relax, none of it is true. Most people feel more secure if they think they can predict the future. But remember JKR and Dumbledore don't put much stock in divination of ANY form, and I agree with them. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 05:24:47 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 05:24:47 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121489 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Alla wrote: > > > So, now we know - January 9. Now I'll start guessing a birthday for Dumbledore. (Mid-April like Alla and me?) > Spare candles? > > Carol, raising a glass of leftover New Year's eggnog to Sevvie Tonks: Cheers Severus!!! I noticed there were seven candles. Good sign. Seven books. Do they all get seven candles, or maybe this tells us he will live till book 7? I will bet DD's birthday is April 1. Tonks_op From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Jan 9 05:41:56 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 05:41:56 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121490 > > Alla wrote: > > > > So, now we know - January 9. > Carol: > Now I'll start guessing a birthday for Dumbledore. (Mid-April like Alla and me?) > > Tonks: > > I will bet DD's birthday is April 1. > Valky: I'll take that bet with you Tonks, knowing a bit about astrology, myself, I doubt that JKR will place DD's sun in Pisces, that is more likely to be a Sybill sun. Personally I would like to see an early May birthday for Dumbledore, almost entirely selfishly because my birthday is May 2nd. That would make him a Taurus, for anyone who cares to know, which is IMHO more apropriate than Pisces. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 05:49:35 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 05:49:35 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > Tonks: > > > I will bet DD's birthday is April 1. > > > > Valky: > I'll take that bet with you Tonks, knowing a bit about astrology, > myself, I doubt that JKR will place DD's sun in Pisces, that is more likely to be a Sybill sun. > Personally I would like to see an early May birthday for Dumbledore, almost entirely selfishly because my birthday is May 2nd. That would make him a Taurus, for anyone who cares to know, which is IMHO more apropriate than Pisces. Tonks: oh, oh.... Is April 1st April fools day in the UK? That is why I chose it, would be the sort of thing DD would like... but is April's fools only in the US? Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 05:52:22 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 05:52:22 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121492 >>Betsy: >But Dumbledore, on the other hand, has a Slytherin (Head of House no less) as one of his chief assistants and he listed *positive* traits of Slytherins to Harry. >>Alla: >Could you please give me a quote where Dumbledore lists POSITIVE traits of Slytherins to Harry? >Because if we are talking about this one: >"Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination - a certain disregard for rules," he added, his mustache quivvering again. "Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think". -p.333, Cos, paperback. >I frankly do NOT see any sign of Dumbledore praising those traits. Salazar prized them, yes, Dumbledore - nope.< Betsy: Wah-huh? You don't think telling someone they're resourceful and determined is positive? If I run those words through my WordPerfect thesauras and fill in the antonyms provided it would have Dumbledore calling Harry inept and submissive. Would that have been better? If Harry had not been resourceful and determined, spoke Parseltongue and had a "certain disregard for rules," Ginny's corpse would still be rotting in the Chamber, Hogwarts would be closed, and Voldemort would be that much stonger. Those traits (except for the Parseltongue) have brought Harry through just about every challenge he's faced. And Dumbledore has rewarded Harry and praised Harry and encouraged Harry the whole way through. Dumbledore *loves* that Harry is resourceful and determined. And he twinkles his eyes at the "certain disregard for rules." Hell, Dumbledore showed a disregard for rules when he told Fudge he wouldn't actually go along quietly in OotP. >>Alla: >Persecution of magical folks... Sure, "witches burnings". In real world, many innocents died because they were suspected of being witches, right? >But don't forget that in JKR world REAL witches were not afraid of those burnings and saved themselves, while who really suffered were muggle folks. >So, seems that Salasar was not really rational in his fears of persecution, IF he had such, which I don't remember in canon. >Again, if you are talking about other kind of persecution, could you please refer me to canon? > Thanks.< Betsy: When Prof. Binns talks about the founding of Hogwarts he says, "[The Founders] built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution." (CoS Scholastic paperback, pg. 150) Binns further says that Salazar, "disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, believing them to be untrustworthy," (ibid). If the Founders (all four of them) were worried enough about persecution that they built Hogwarts in a remote location, it seems to me they had some basis on which to rest their fears. Plus, an adult witch or wizard may have been able to thwart an angry Muggle mob bent on burning (or pressing, or stoning or drowning or countless other witch-killing ways) but I wonder how a child would have fared? One of the big tenets of the WW is secrecy. Their whole lives revolve around keeping their existence from the Muggles. I don't think it's a stretch to think there may have been a sufficently horrifying reason to detach themselves so competely from society. >>Alla: >I am one of those who feels that House System will dissappear at the end thus achieving the Unity of Hogwarts. >It is either that or Slytherin giving away the doctrine which seems to be the heart of their House ideology, but then they are not going to be real Slytherins anymore, don't they?< Betsy: I'm one of those who like the House tradition. I'd be sad to see it go, if it does. And I still think that if Tom Riddle, with his Muggle father, was able to get into Slytherin, and if Harry Potter, with his Muggleborn mother, was courted by Slytherin, then the pureblood ideology (at least as preached by the Blacks and the Malfoys) must not be as important to Slytherin as all that. >>Betsy: >I'm fairly sure that Harry is heading for a drastic sea-change of his view of Snape. For one because the basis for his anger is so illogical. And that's a start, but I think there needs to be a Slytherin student as well.< > Alla: >Ooooo, I so should not go into Harry being illogical... So, just one sentence. I don't see five years of emotional abuse as illogical reason for being angry at somebody. But that is just me.< Betsy: But Harry's not angry about the "five years of emotional abuse." He's furious at Snape because Sirius is dead. And Snape is no more culpable for Sirius' death than Harry, so his anger is not logical. It's a classic attempt to shift the blame. And I think it's setting Harry up to finally see Snape for who he is. [Obviously, I'm one who thinks Snape is a good guy. ;)] >>Alla: >But I agree with you that we WILL get a good Slytherin students or couple of them. >My money is on Theodore Nott and/or Blaise Zabini.< Betsy: Like I said, I'm not willing to put money on it, but I really, really, really hope it's Draco. :) Ah well. Time will tell. Betsy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 06:03:15 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 06:03:15 -0000 Subject: Cats/ Squibs and Mrs. Figg ( was Curse Scars/Cats/Occulmency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121493 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" wrote: > mhbobbin writes: > > Interesting observation about the cats' names. Maybe Crookshanks is not Mr. Crookshanks because he's half-kneazle, and he clearly isn't living with a Squib in Hermione. > > I think Mrs. Figg is something more than she appears and I don't > completely trust that she's a squib. Tonks here: I just visited JKR's website. She says that Mrs. Figgs has a business selling cross bred cats and Kneazles. She also says that Mrs. Figg is a Squib and can not see the dementors. But Squibs can use *magical objects*... whatever that means. Tonks_op From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 9 06:03:21 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:03:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050109060321.33666.qmail@web52006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121494 Tonks wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > Tonks: > > > I will bet DD's birthday is April 1. > > > > Valky: > I'll take that bet with you Tonks, knowing a bit about astrology, > myself, I doubt that JKR will place DD's sun in Pisces, that is more likely to be a Sybill sun. > Personally I would like to see an early May birthday for Dumbledore, almost entirely selfishly because my birthday is May 2nd. That would make him a Taurus, for anyone who cares to know, which is IMHO more apropriate than Pisces. Tonks: oh, oh.... Is April 1st April fools day in the UK? That is why I chose it, would be the sort of thing DD would like... but is April's fools only in the US? Tonks_op Luckdragon: April 1 is Fred and George Weasleys birthday. 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 Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Jan 9 06:26:39 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 06:26:39 -0000 Subject: Blinded Harry WAS (Re: Harry's glasses and vulnerability) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121495 > it could be that she made James wear > glasses so we would not guess that Harry's need of glasses is another injury left-over from the curse. > > Possibly, Lily and/or Harry reflected the curse back on Voldemort with their eyes alone vaporizing Voldemort's body, killing Lily, making Harry unable to see well and leaving the scar on his forehead. If this theory is correct, Harry will have to face Voldemort without his glasses in the end. This would be a very terrifying thing for a person who cannot see well since one does feel vulnerable without one's glasses. > > Minervakab Valky: I have been thinking a lot about this topic, it's very interesting. I went back through my books with it in mind and found something curious, each time Harry faces Voldemort there is some reference to blindness nearby. In the Forest when he first spies Vapourmort slithering along the ground - Harry stumbles backward, _blindy_ PS/SS Down the trapdoor in front of the mirror when Quirrel gets burned by the love in Harry's skin - Harry couldn't see In the Chamber of Secrets - Harry runs with his eyes closed to avoid being pertrified by the basilisk, Fawkes pokes out the basilisks yellow eyes. In GOF which I haven't got but I can vaguely remember - Harry's injured leg casues him blinding pain. In OOtP when Voldemort jumps inside him _ Harry is described as blinded and dying.... AND when he wakes, curiously, his glasses are *off* :-O Now I don't know what all this means, but it's all there, black and white, clear as ..... blindness? Now, who's got a theory? :D From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Sun Jan 9 06:44:18 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 17:44:18 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121496 On Sunday, January 9, 2005, at 04:24 pm, Tonks wrote: >> Alla wrote: > > Now I'll start guessing a birthday for Dumbledore. (Mid-April like > Alla and me?) > > Tonks: > > I will bet DD's birthday is April 1. Come on folks! Surely Dumbledore has to be Aquarian! (Jan-Feb) Jocelyn From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 9 07:47:59 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 07:47:59 -0000 Subject: 666 and Harry Potter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121497 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sevenhundredandthirteen" wrote: ~<(Laurasia)>~; > If you are > to convince me that there really are secret messages hidden in the > Bible about Harry Potter, then I'll need something less ambiguous with > an perfectly unique meaning- "Harry Potter, Hermione Granger, Ronald > Weasley." Not something like, "Toothbrush, poison, toaster, Louise, > Hanson, White, Beard, Bee." Look! It has "White Beard Bee", clearly a > message about Albus Dumbledore- and the word poison! This means that > he really has been taking Polyjuice Potion all this time and.... ;-) > I'm a skeptic. Geoff: This reminds me very much of the prophecies of Nostrodamus which, as an example, have been linked to about every major event in the 20th century and also leave me as a sceptic. In the same way, I have expressed disagreement in the past with Hans bringing the Harry Potter as a character into the Path of Liberation posts which which link Christian teaching to this world view and which I believe are incompatible with each other. But this is largely off-topic so I have refrained from saying more than I have said in the past. From lexical74 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 07:54:28 2005 From: lexical74 at yahoo.com (Brian Brinkman) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 07:54:28 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > So, now we know - January 9. Waves at Potioncat. Is it close enough > to what you wished for? > > Alla Can we consider this a nod to Severus fans, since it seems unlikely that JKR would wish Voldemort a Happy Birthday? Brian From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Jan 9 08:19:38 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:19:38 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Alla wrote: > > So, now we know - January 9. Waves at Potioncat. Is it close > enough > > to what you wished for? > > > > Potioncat: > Thanks, Alla! I've never noticed before that the date changes on the > calendar before midnight. Does it only do that when an important > date is on it? Hickengruendler: It changes when it's midnight in the UK. Or at least that's when the birthdays are always updated. From annemehr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 08:31:26 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:31:26 -0000 Subject: Blinded Harry WAS (Re: Harry's glasses and vulnerability) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121500 > Valky: > I have been thinking a lot about this topic, it's very interesting. > I went back through my books with it in mind and found something > curious, each time Harry faces Voldemort there is some reference to > blindness nearby. > In GOF which I haven't got but I can vaguely remember - Harry's > injured leg casues him blinding pain. > In OOtP when Voldemort jumps inside him _ Harry is described as > blinded and dying.... AND when he wakes, curiously, his glasses are > *off* :-O Annemehr: Interesting! I have my GoF... When Harry and Cedric were confronted by Wormtail and Voldemort upon their arrival at the graveyard, Harry's scar "exploded with pain." He covered his eyes and fell; the book specifically says "he could see nothing at all." Although, the green light of the AK did penetrate his eyelids. Other references to blindness in the graveyard: tied to the tombstone, Harry could only see what was right in front of him; Harry closed his eyes to avoid seeing Wormtail cut off his own hand; he also closed them as he portkeyed back to Hogwarts. You can decide if closed eyes counts or not. ;) Valky: > Now I don't know what all this means, but it's all there, black and > white, clear as ..... blindness? > > Now, who's got a theory? :D Annemehr: No theory, sorry. I'm not sure if this is a plot clue, or if it's thematic i.e. blindness equating to a sense of vulnerability for JKR which she uses when Harry's in danger. I tend to think the latter, but then would expect it to come up, maybe even more emphatically, in the climax of book seven (now that you've pointed it out). From khinterberg at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 09:13:59 2005 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 09:13:59 -0000 Subject: COS - Riddle's Orphanage; Legimency In-Reply-To: <886a4f54050108151410d9755a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121501 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magnus wrote: What I want to know, however, is from whom did Tom Riddle > find out about his past? We've discussed this topic a little bit before, but it popped into my mind that we know that muggleborns get visited by someone to explain things to them when they get their Hogwarts letter. Since Tom was living in a muggle orphanage and presumably knew nothing about his mother's magical abilities, I would think that he would also be visited by someone with his letter, someone who could explain things to him. Could this person be the one who told him of his heritage? Who would that person have to be, in order to know that information? khinterberg From khinterberg at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 09:28:50 2005 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 09:28:50 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121502 > > Betsy said: > > And Snape was going along with Umbridge himself, keeping her in > > Veritaserum and all. He may well have encouraged his students to > > join the IS. Joining the IS was certainly the cunning route. And > > they protected their House - which shows a loyalty to Slytherin at > > least. > > Then Nora said: I thought it was fairly transparent to everyone (not just to us and > our priviledged perspective) that Snape was being fairly openly > contemptuous of Umbridge. It wasn't only Harry who saw Snape being > rude to her in Potions Class, after all. And (in part from my own > experiences), we tend to underrate how perceptive children are about > teacher attitudes towards administrators. :) > And, backing up Nora here, didn't Snape keep Umbridge stocked in *fake* Veritaserum? Dumbledore on Snape in The Lost Prophecy, p 833 US: "It was he too who gave Professor Umbridge fake Veritaserum when she was attempting to force you to tell of Sirius's whereabouts..." khinterberg From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 9 10:51:48 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:51:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Predictions. Was: Your greatest fear . . . Message-ID: <20050109105148.67441.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121503 Valky: I think someone else here said that Sirius could become Harry's link to his parents, perhaps his mother this time. I'd like to ask, Hans, in your recent study of the characters did you find anything that might indicate Sirius' spirit might connect Harry to his mothers love and guidance in some way? Hans: No, I can't see that happening. I think Lily is truly dead. 1. Lily and James are alive in Harry, I believe. There is the constant reminder of how Harry's general appearance is just like James', but he has his mother's eyes. What I think this means is that James' and Lily's souls have been alchemically fused into Harry's. I still have some faint suspicion that Lily's body is in the Room of Love. I thought once that she might be in suspended animation, like Venus in the Room of Love in "The Alchemical Wedding", but Jo has said on her website that Lily is dead. 2. Sirius is in what I have often called "The Real World". This is the Divine Universe where humanity originally comes from. Harry will join Sirius there one day, although it may take a long time. This is not where people normally go when they die, so even if James and Lily's souls were in the astral plane Sirius would not go down there. To explain what I mean: the Greeks had what they called Hades and Mt Olympus. Normal people who died went to Hades. People who had attained immortality went to Mt Olympus (This is why "The Alchemical Wedding calls the tower of transfiguration the "Tower of Olympus"). In other words, Lily and James are in Hades while Sirius is on Mt Olympus. However, as I said in point 1, I think their souls are fused together in Harry. 3. Jo has given us many clues that Harry Potter is not occult. I think she would agree that a spiritualist type of communication with the dead is wrong. The Bible is certainly very clear about not contacting the dead. I therefore can't see her putting this sort of thing in on principle. Communicating with the Hogwarts ghosts is quite a different kettle of fish. Jo has made it clear that these entities are neither alive nor dead. Sorry for the bad news, Valky, but personally I believe Harry will not have contact with his parents again except perhaps for the second-hand type like the Mirror of Erised or Priori Incantatem. He may see Lily's body in The Room. (I hope so). I hope I've understood your question properly though. Please excuse me if I haven't. Warmest regards to all, ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sun Jan 9 11:33:27 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:33:27 -0000 Subject: Ring of trust (Was: Marietta and the DA). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121504 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Eggplant wrote: > If you want to start an underground resistance movement you can't > limit it to people you have personally known and trusted for many > years because then it would be too small to be effective. You need > to use something called the ring of trust. If I trust A and A trusts > B then I should trust B. So if Hermione made an error it's that she > trusted Cho. > > Carol responds: > Taking this idea in a slightly different direction, Harry trusts > Hermione, right? And Hermione trusts Dumbledore and Dumbledore trusts > Snape. So Harry, by your reasoning, "has" to trust both Dumbledore > and, by extension, Snape. And so do we, if we trust Harry (or > Hermione or Dumbledore). > > > Alla: > > Hey, Carol! I think Eggplant was talking about the people UNKNOWN to > the leaders of the resistance, whose roles are supposedly played by > Harry, Ron and Hermione. > > Snape is VERY well known to him, therefore Harry has no need to rely > on somebody else's judgment of him and can form his own (OK, maybe > he needs to know more facts, before he can form complete judgment of > Snape, just as we all would love to know that :o)) > > > Carol, > who's not sure about your "ring of trust" idea but does trust > >Snape (And Dumbledore) despite their fallibility > > Alla, > who trusts Dumbledore in everything except his trust of Snape and > who does trust Snape and does not trust Snape at the same time. :o) > Makes sense? :o) Renee: As I asked in a previous post: what kind of trust are we talking about? Isn't there a difference between trusting a person not to betray/fail you and trusting a person's judgement? Take Hagrid - I'd trust him, but I wouldn't always trust his judgement, to put it mildly. Personally, I'm inclined to trust Snape - because Dumbledore trusts him *and* because Harry doesn't and I'm not sure I trust Harry's judgement. As the POV character he was the one who registered Marietta's reluctance (we don't even know if Hermione noticed something was not right). If anyone should have intervened before she signed the parchment, it was Harry. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 9 12:40:47 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:40:47 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121505 > > Tonks: > > Cheers Severus!!! I noticed there were seven candles. Good sign. > Seven books. Do they all get seven candles, or maybe this tells us > he will live till book 7? Potioncat: Where do you see candles? The caldendar doesn't have candles when I go there. Carol asked about the date. I've noticed that the date on the calendar changes at midnight my time (I've seen it) but it appears that the date changes according to midnight England's time if there is a birthday. Yesterday I actually double checked the date. The JKR site's calendar said 9 Dec although it was still 8 Dec here. Potioncat: Hoping this post falls under the "what is canon?" category of posts to belong here. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 15:23:41 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:23:41 -0000 Subject: Ring of trust (Was: Marietta and the DA). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121506 "justcarol67" wrote: > Harry trusts Hermione, right? And Hermione > trusts Dumbledore and Dumbledore trusts Snape. > So Harry, by your reasoning, "has" to trust > both Dumbledore and, by extension, Snape. Three points: 1) The ring of trust is not a law of nature, it is just a rule of thumb you can use if you don't have anything better, like first hand experience of Snape. 2) The longer the chain the less certain I would be of their honesty. If the chain were very long I would only be comfortable if there were several independent chains all extolling their honesty. 3) Dumbledore is just not a very good judge of character. Yes Dumbledore trusts Snape but he admits he was wrong about the man at least once; and it wouldn't be the first time he placed too much trust in somebody. He must have trusted Quirrell, Lockheart, and the fake Moody too or he wouldn't have hired them. Eggplant From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 9 16:06:48 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 16:06:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Harry (6) Message-ID: <20050109160648.24037.qmail@web25102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121507 The second trial Harry and his friends face is the vicious killer plant, "Devil's Snare". Before they're aware of it they are ensnared by a plant with long, snake-like tendrils. We know from book 5 that a person can easily be strangled by this plant. The more they struggle against the creepers the tighter their hold. The children figure out that what's needed is to stay calm and think clearly. Hermione remembers that this plant hates light, so she lights a fire. The plant recedes and the children are free. I think what this can teach us is that the apprentice alchemist needs to give the process of liberation his whole, undivided attention so that he can stay calm and figure out what to do. The candidate for liberation is always in danger of being overwhelmed by his emotions. Strong emotions are not conducive to going the Path because then the candidate loses control. They can do harm to the new soul if the candidate allows himself to be carried away by them. The Path is extremely beautiful, and sometimes one can be overwhelmed by the sheer magnificence of it, but as soon as one loses control of one's emotions they tend to strangle the new soul. The heart of the candidate can be filled with great joy and love for others without being carried away by sentimentality, or by being moved to tears. The candidate must control himself and turn to the light of reason so as not to lose touch with reality, and he must focus on the aim of the Path. The third trial is to open a locked door. The key is present, but it's got wings and is flying high up near the ceiling among hundreds of other keys. It's important to see in each trial which of the three children solves the problem. If it's Hermione, it's the mind of the candidate which solves the problem. If it's Ron, it's the old, earthly personality, and if it's Harry it's the new, immortal soul. In the case of Cerberus, it was Harry, and therefore the new soul, who played the flute - the harmonious vibrations of the pure soul. In the case of Devil's snare it was Hermione, and therefore the mind, but she was helped by Ron. In the case of the flying keys it's Harry again. He is an extremely good flier and can see things others can't. His excellent flying obviously symbolises the height of his aspirations. The new soul can fly to great spiritual heights. It also has an extremely keen faculty of discrimination. And so we see that no door can be locked against the new soul. It can open all doors and overcome all barriers. Go, Harry! ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 9 16:18:50 2005 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:18:50 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121508 Hannah here: I'm so pleased JKR has put happy birthday to Snape on her website, I hope it bodes well for his character re: eventual alignment with good/evil. There's never been a 'Happy birthday Lucius' for example! I'll even forgive her for spoiling the timeline on my fanfic :-) It puts the timing of the Prank earlier than I'd imagined, possibly even before the Pensieve scene (or that evening, as has been suggested). That's if we can rely on the assertion that both Snape and Sirius were 16 at the time, or is that an approximation? Maybe it will turn out to be a bit like DD's 'two thirteen year old wizards' in PoA (Hermione is 14, nearer 15 at the time). I think JKR has said Snape will live to book 7. We find out important stuff about him then, for sure. I think it would make sense for him to survive that long, as one of the first and most fascinating characters. Whether he'll survive 7 itself I wouldn't like to say. I doubt candle number is related to survival time. I'd also go with the idea of DD's birthday being April 1st, which is indeed April fools' day in the UK. He's about the only main (good) character whose birthday we don't know now, isn't he? I wonder if it has any significance - perhaps he doesn't have one at all (if you want to go with the Phoenix idea). Hannah From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Jan 9 16:27:41 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 11:27:41 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. Message-ID: <1e5.32e68243.2f12b57d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121509 In a message dated 1/9/2005 12:43:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, Aisbelmon at hotmail.com writes: I'll take that bet with you Tonks, knowing a bit about astrology, myself, I doubt that JKR will place DD's sun in Pisces, that is more likely to be a Sybill sun. Personally I would like to see an early May birthday for Dumbledore, almost entirely selfishly because my birthday is May 2nd. That would make him a Taurus, for anyone who cares to know, which is IMHO more apropriate than Pisces. =========== Sherrie here: Except that a 1 April DOB puts Dumbledore as an Aries, not a Pisces... Of course, that day IS already claimed, by the Weasley Twins. I can see Dumbledore as a Taurus (which I am, as well!) - but I can also see him as a Cancerian. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 9 16:58:40 2005 From: hannahmarder at yahoo.co.uk (Hannah) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:58:40 -0000 Subject: Who can be in Slytherin Was: Re: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121510 > Casey wrote: > I just wonder sometimes though, what would have happened if Harry > hadn't met Ron on the train? Would he have been against Slytherin? > Would he have fought the hat to *not* go there? The hat said Harry > would have done well there, and only Harry's arguent kept him out. > So, if there was no Ron to influence him, Harry would have gone to > Draco's house gladly. > > > Alla replied: > > Well, not necessarily. It could be that "something" inside Harry > which we cannot decide what it is even after many discussions, would have made him recognise Draco for who he is and still ask not to be in Slytherin. Hannah: It's very interesting to speculate about what would have happened had Harry been sorted into Slytherin, though I still don't think he and Draco would have been good friends, or that he would have been any more inclined to join LV. Also, Harry's anti- Slytherin prejudice started long before he met Ron. It was Hagrid, a supposedly responsible adult, who first told Harry that Slytherin was not a good house to be sorted into, and that every dark wizard was from Slytherin (which isn't actually true). I think it was this that most influenced Harry, though Ron backed up his opinion. Harry also disliked Draco Malfoy from the moment he met him, without even knowing what Slytherin was or that Draco had any connection to it. But if it weren't for Hagrid and Ron, he certainly wouldn't have been anti-Slytherin, as he had no other sources of information to go on. He wouldn't have fought the hat, as he wouldn't have had any reason. But it's worth remembering that the hat doesn't say anything about Slytherin until Harry asks not to go there. It may have never intended to put him there anyway. Hannah From mrsbonsai at charter.net Sun Jan 9 17:51:09 2005 From: mrsbonsai at charter.net (jastrangfeld) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:51:09 -0000 Subject: Blinded Harry WAS (Re: Harry's glasses and vulnerability) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121511 So what all do we have regarding vision in the books? And please if someone can point out her hints from interviews which would tie it together? I know I posted the interview about his vulnerability. Spells: Oculus repairo impervious Constant reference to Lily's eyes, even though it was his dad who had glasses. They keep remarking that his eyes are green and the ak curse is green light correct? So we have possibilities that: * his eyes are damaged from the ak curse * relected spell kept him from being killed (either from light of Voldemort seeing himself reflected in the eye and accidently doing the curse on himself? or reflected off Lily (though we have no evidence she wore them) or reflected of Harry (and yes kids do wear glasses at such a young age). So what does blindness provide to Harry other than dramatic storyline? Is it a vulnerability that makes him stronger in his fight, makes him think of alternatives? I would think the Durselys would not have cared to take Harry to any doctor whatsoever. So getting glasses for him, well I'm not sure they'd have done that. So are they magic world glasses in the first place? Did he really have them when he came to the Dursley's? Do they grow with him and autocorrect themselves? They never mention his having to get new glasses to go with corrected strengths . . . Julie From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 18:06:20 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:06:20 -0000 Subject: Cats/ Squibs and Mrs. Figg ( was Curse Scars/Cats/Occulmency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121512 > Tonks here: > > I just visited JKR's website. She says that Mrs. Figgs has a > business selling cross bred cats and Kneazles. She also says that > Mrs. Figg is a Squib and can not see the dementors. But Squibs can > use *magical objects*... whatever that means. Finwitch: Magical objects: Including, I presume... 1. Flying broomstick (they *could* use a flying car, IF they'd get one, but...) 2. Magical mess remover (and Argus Filch DOES use this one) 3. Wizard's chess, the infamous teaset... (all the other odd things) 4. A two-way mirror (she *could* have one for reporting to Dumbledore, as she doesn't have owls...) or any other magical mirror for that matter. 5. Knife that can open any lock and undo any knot... 6. Wand: for shooting sparks & getting to Diagon Alley, possibly even some very minor magic spells 7. Cauldron, potion ingredients... (I think a squib *could* make a potion) 8. Oh... bags that are bigger from the inside and are added with feather-light charms (the one thing anyone who's shopping/travelling/moving/studying would love to have. Of course, moving companies strongly oppose to them, as they'd be out of business if everyone had these...) 9. Weasley Wizard Wheezes (although they do seem to affect even a Muggle, unless Dudley is a 'muggleborn squib' (a term Mugid has appeared in fanfic for this sort of person - and is a concept for us readers. Wizards of the Potterverse would consider these 'Mugid's as Muggles, and the Muggles, not knowing anything about magic, well... why'd they need a term? Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 18:53:54 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:53:54 -0000 Subject: Blinded Harry WAS (Re: Harry's glasses and vulnerability) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121513 > Valky: > I have been thinking a lot about this topic, it's very interesting. > I went back through my books with it in mind and found something > curious, each time Harry faces Voldemort there is some reference to > blindness nearby. ------------Snip > Now I don't know what all this means, but it's all there, black and > white, clear as ..... blindness? > Finwitch: Well - anyone heard the saying, love is blind, or justice is blind? And um - *SEEING* Dementors and who can see them, invisibility cloaks, invisible books, thestrals you can see only if you have *seen* death, polyjuice potion that makes you look (and sound) like someone else... and 'if looks could kill' - well - can, if you're a basilisk! And er, eyes: PS tells as that Dumbledore's eyes are blue and twinkle a lot. His eyes only lost their usual light when he left Harry there. (why?) Everyone keeps telling how Harry's green eyes are like Lily's. Dudley has small, blue and pig-like eyes. But nowhere are eyes described in such detail as Ollivander's when Harry enters the wand shop. Ollivander's eyes are very *major* part in his description. For others, the eyes are either not mentioned at all, or just in passing, just one thing about someone's looks. Also, when Harry was fighting the Imperius curse: Look at his *eyes*, you can see it there! I very much doubt he lied about that, but I don't think it's very practical-- you don't usually get close enough to see the eyes.. ;-) But - let's not forget ears. Mandrake cry kills if you can hear it and the mandrake is an adult. Dumbledore admires music (magic beyond all we teach here), and to calm down the 3-headed dog, you must play music (and not even be good at it!). And the phoenix song is magical. Interesting, though... Harry's *touch* was painful to Quirrellmort, (and his touch nearly killed Harry). Mandrake cry is fatal to all who hear it - (and the leaves make a restorative potion if you were only petrified), Basilisk direct look kills - indirect petrifies. Hmm-mm. We've seen people wearing glasses, but unless Ollivander is blind, we have yet to see how a blind person would manage in wizard world. Or a deaf one. Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Jan 9 19:09:03 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:09:03 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121514 > Hannah here: snip > > It puts the timing of the Prank earlier than I'd imagined, possibly even before the Pensieve scene (or that evening, as has been suggested). That's if we can rely on the assertion that both Snape and Sirius were 16 at the time, or is that an approximation? Maybe it will turn out to be a bit like DD's 'two thirteen year old > wizards' in PoA (Hermione is 14, nearer 15 at the time). Potioncat: Well it depends on Sirius' age and whether Snape meant it as specific or general (you're in 6th year, you're 16...) and it depends on whether JKR always knew the characters birthdates or began playing with those for the web site. We are of course, using everything we can as a clue. But I'm beginning to think the prank could have happened in those last few dsys of year 5. I don't think it was any sooner. I snipped Hannah's comments about DD's birthday... but I'd like to add it could be the same as Ron's... ;-) So Snape is a Capricorn? Who predicted that? Someone did! Isn't Capricorn the goat? We all win,for those of you who want Snape to get his due, Harry will cut a bezoar out of Snape's stomach to avoid being poisoned...allows the rest of us to have Snape sacrifice himself for Harry and explains why Snape is so grumpy. You would be too if you had a stone in your stomach. He's no philosopher though. Potioncat, a little giddy after all the birthday celebrating... From aletamay01 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 19:17:59 2005 From: aletamay01 at yahoo.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:17:59 -0000 Subject: Who can be in Slytherin Was: Re: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121515 Casey wrote: I just wonder sometimes though, what would have happened if Harry hadn't met Ron on the train? Would he have been against Slytherin? Would he have fought the hat to *not* go there? The hat said Harry would have done well there, and only Harry's arguent kept him out. So, if there was no Ron to influence him, Harry would have gone to Draco's house gladly. Alla replied: Well, not necessarily. It could be that "something" inside Harry which we cannot decide what it is even after many discussions, would have made him recognise Draco for who he is and still ask not to be in Slytherin. Hannah: It's very interesting to speculate about what would have happened had Harry been sorted into Slytherin, though I still don't think he and Draco would have been good friends, or that he would have been any more inclined to join LV. Also, Harry's anti- Slytherin prejudice started long before he met Ron. It was Hagrid, a supposedly responsible adult, who first told Harry that Slytherin was not a good house to be sorted into, and that every dark wizard was from Slytherin (which isn't actually true). I think it was this that most influenced Harry, though Ron backed up his opinion. Harry also disliked Draco Malfoy from the moment he met him, without even knowing what Slytherin was or that Draco had any connection to it. But if it weren't for Hagrid and Ron, he certainly wouldn't have been anti-Slytherin, as he had no other sources of information to go on. He wouldn't have fought the hat, as he wouldn't have had any reason. But it's worth remembering that the hat doesn't say anything about Slytherin until Harry asks not to go there. It may have never intended to put him there anyway. Now the Barmaid: I think Hannah's final point, that the Sorting Hat "doesn't say anything about Slytherin until Harry asks not to go there" is key and oft forgotten. In this thread, and others, people often refer to Harry as fighting against the Sorting Hat in order to end up in Gryffindor and that simply is not how it happened. I think it is also important to remember that the hat itself does not have an anti-Slytherin bias. Remember, this was in fact Godric Gryffindor's hat to start with. We often have set up Gryffindor and Slytherin as some sort of clear representation of a good and evil duality. I think JKR is chipping away at this false dichotomy a bit more with each book. And I think the Sorting Hat is one of the tools she uses to do this. >From the Sorting Hat entry at the Lexicon: "There is more to the Sorting Hat than one might think. In an interview (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/harrypotter1.html)JKR said: 'The character you might be most surprised to see evolve is none other than the Sorting Hat. 'There is more to the Sorting Hat than what you have read about in the first three books,' Rowling says. 'Readers will find out what the Sorting Hat becomes as the get into future books." It is the Sorting Hat that calls for unity among the houses and questions the wisdom of dividing and categorizing the students at all. I think that JKR's complex, nuanced ideas of both good and evil and good and bad will become more complex and more nuanced and I look forward to seeing what part the Sorting Hat has to play in all this! --Barmaid, who spent an embarrassing amount of time at a party last night holding forth about Harry Potter... From stonehenge.orders at verizon.net Sun Jan 9 19:22:49 2005 From: stonehenge.orders at verizon.net (kjirstem) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:22:49 -0000 Subject: Blinded Harry WAS (Re: Harry's glasses and vulnerability) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121516 > Julie wrote: > So what does blindness provide to Harry other than dramatic storyline? > Is it a vulnerability that makes him stronger in his fight, makes him > think of alternatives? > kjirstem: Much as I think that Harry's physical sight being poor will come into play in some future important scene, the possibility also exists that Harry's glasses are a metaphor for his weakness in understanding ("seeing")events and people. IMO there are abundant examples of Harry not understanding what is actually happening in each of the books. For example, there is his misguided focus on Snape in PS/SS, his taking awhile to figure out Tom Riddle had something to do with Ginny being in the Chamber of Secrets in COS, and his insistence on a rescue mission to the MOM in OOtP. OTOH, during a crisis Harry's most effective actions are instinctual. Not a lot of thought went into plunging the basilisk fang into the diary or booting Voldie out of his head by longing to be with Sirius again. I'm sure also that knowledge and understanding didn't play much of a role in Harry's first defeat of Voldemort at age 15 months. My view is that Harry's glasses represent his vulnerability in more than just the physical sense. kjirstem - who thinks it is interesting that glasses act upon light From tim at marvinhold.com Sun Jan 9 19:31:57 2005 From: tim at marvinhold.com (Tim) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:31:57 -0000 Subject: James' Two-Way Mirror after GH & the I-Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121517 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" What I also want to know is, do only two mirrors exist? Let's say The > Marauders invented it, like they invented the map, wouldn't it be > logical to make a mirror for Lupin and Peter as well? Yes, but remember Sirius and James were best friends. They were the most tightly bonded of the 4. Peter was the least of the 4 in several ways. I doubt that Peter had a mirror. > Do they still > have them? You could possibly argue that it seems unlikely that Peter > still has the mirror, seeing that he lived as a rat for several years. Somebody saved and returned LV's wand to him. Peter seems the best candidate for that. So if Peter saved LV's wand he could of saved his mirror as well. In which case I hope that Sirius would not have given Harry one of the mirrors. Tim From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 19:52:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:52:36 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121518 Betsy previously: But Dumbledore, on the other hand, has a Slytherin (Head of House no less) as one of his chief assistants and he listed *positive* traits of Slytherins to Harry. Alla: Could you please give me a quote where Dumbledore lists POSITIVE traits of Slytherins to Harry? Because if we are talking about this one: "Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination - a certain disregard for rules," he added, his mustache quivvering again. "Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think". -p.333, > Cos, paperback. > >I frankly do NOT see any sign of Dumbledore praising those traits. > Salazar prized them, yes, Dumbledore - nope.< > Betsy: Wah-huh? You don't think telling someone they're resourceful and determined is positive? If I run those words through my WordPerfect thesauras and fill in the antonyms provided it would have Dumbledore calling Harry inept and submissive. Would that have been better? If Harry had not been resourceful and determined, spoke Parseltongue and had a "certain disregard for rules," Ginny's corpse would still be rotting in the Chamber, Hogwarts would be closed, and Voldemort would be that much stonger. Those traits (except for the Parseltongue) have brought Harry through just about every challenge he's faced. And Dumbledore has rewarded Harry and praised Harry and encouraged Harry the whole way through. Dumbledore *loves* that Harry is resourceful and determined. And he twinkles his eyes at the "certain disregard for rules." Hell, Dumbledore showed a disregard for rules when he told Fudge he wouldn't actually go along quietly in OotP. Alla: Actually, that was NOT my question. It does NOT matter what I think about those traits of character. :o) You argued that Dumbledore named positive traits of Slytherin to Harry and I argued that we don't see Dumbledore judging those traits of character one way or another. As a matter of fact, resourcefullness by itself is a neutral trait to me, but it can be applied to doing bad thing or good things. Funnily enough, I don't see Harry as being very ... resorceful in the chamber. Courageous.... yes. Resourceful... not really. But that is just my interpretation fo course. All that I am saying that Dumbledore does not necessarily praise Slytherin traits of character to Harry in this quote. I would say he praises Harry for the fact that contrary to having all those traits of character he ended up being in Gryffindor. Something else is interesting to me in this quote. "Certain disregard for rules"... Isn't it supposed to be Gryffindor trait? Maybe I am confused. Alla previously: > Persecution of magical folks... Sure, "witches burnings". In real world, many innocents died because they were suspected of being witches, right? But don't forget that in JKR world REAL witches were not afraid of those burnings and saved themselves, while who really suffered were muggle folks. So, seems that Salasar was not really rational in his fears of persecution, IF he had such, which I don't remember in canon. Again, if you are talking about other kind of persecution, could you please refer me to canon? Betsy: When Prof. Binns talks about the founding of Hogwarts he says, "[The Founders] built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution." (CoS Scholastic paperback, pg. 150) Binns further says that Salazar, "disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, believing them to be untrustworthy," (ibid). If the Founders (all four of them) were worried enough about persecution that they built Hogwarts in a remote location, it seems to me they had some basis on which to rest their fears. Plus, an adult witch or wizard may have been able to thwart an angry Muggle mob bent on burning (or pressing, or stoning or drowning or countless other witch-killing ways) but I wonder how a child would have fared? One of the big tenets of the WW is secrecy. Their whole lives revolve around keeping their existence from the Muggles. I don't think it's a stretch to think there may have been a sufficently horrifying reason to detach themselves so competely from society. Alla: To me there is a HUGE difference between desire for secrecy from Muggles indeed maintained by all four Founders AND Salasar's official exlcusion from his house muggle borns witches and wisards. It looked to me that if Salasar had his way, none of the houses would have accepted muggle borns. So,it seems to me that other three were pretty much united in not allowing Salasar to do that. And yes they were friends in the beginning, maybe till they did not the huge difference in their views on teaching? And I think that wisard child would have nanaged to make a fire harmless, because I think that was subconscious magic at work, but that is just speculation or course. Betsy: But Harry's not angry about the "five years of emotional abuse." He's furious at Snape because Sirius is dead. And Snape is no more culpable for Sirius' death than Harry, so his anger is not logical. Alla: Well, we obviously differ on this one. :o) I view Harry's anger at Snape as being angry for EVERYTHING, including Sirius' death. Betsy: Like I said, I'm not willing to put money on it, but I really, really, really hope it's Draco. :) Ah well. Time will tell. Alla: I am willing to bet 1000 galleons that it is NOT Draco. :o) Any takers? Just my opinion, Alla From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 19:59:52 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:59:52 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121519 I, Del, wrote earlier: "One very easy measure would have been to tell the DA, *after* they had all signed," Eggplant answered: "Yes, and if she had told them AFTER they signed there would be howls from the revisionists saying this clearly proved that Hermione was more unfair and treacherous than Snape or Marietta could dream of." Del replies: (I don't particularly like being called a revisionist, but that's OT) I fail to see what would have been unfair and treacherous in Hermione telling the DA that she *had* put a hex on them. I personally think that it's the very fact of having put the hex on them and NOT telling them that was unfair and treacherous. Eggplant wrote: "John Walker and Aldrich Ames were intelligence agents who betrayed their organizations HUNDREDS of times for over 20 years. Hermione ensured that nothing like that could happen to them. Yes one betrayal is still far too many but it's better than nothing." Del replies: Good point. However, just because it was a good idea to look for a way to ensure that nobody could betray repeatedly, doesn't mean that it wasn't a serious overlook not to look for a way to *prevent* that betrayal in the first place. Pippin wrote: "Eggplant, I think you have something there. Hermione must have been focusing on the danger that someone had *already* told DU about the meeting. No doubt she hoped any mole would be revealed in a flourish of purple pustules as soon as they signed the parchment." Del replies: Interesting idea! I have just one nit to pick : could the hex be retroactive? I personally don't think so. However, if someone had already contacted Umbridge and promised to fill her in on the meeting at the HH right that evening, then Hermione would have known the very next day about it. That might indeed be what she had in mind. Pippin wrote: "Very dramatic -- but when it didn't happen, she may have felt a little ashamed of herself for suspecting them and that's why she didn't tell anyone what she'd done." Del replies: It makes sense. And it would explain why she didn't take any further step to ensure the safety of the DA : she trusted that if they had never had the intention to betray them to start with, then they never would. That would be terribly naive and idealistic, but it would be very much in character for Hermione. Pippin wrote: "You've also given me some insight into JKR's plotting. This device ensures we know that Marietta wasn't reporting to Umbridge all along." Del replies: Neither to Umbridge nor to anyone else, not even her mother. She never discussed the DA with anybody, or the hex would have taken hold. We saw that it took really not much for it to come into effect. This really makes me wonder *why* she rattled on them. I can see several explanations. 1. She was truly convinced that the DA were wrong, which brings us back to the moral problem of being sincerely wrong. 2. She intended to ask a favour from Umbridge in return. 3. Umbridge had an inkling about the DA and about Marrietta being part of it, and she put the pressure on her, presumable through or about her mother. 4. There were other members of the DA who had qualms about it and they talked about it among themselves and wanted out of it but without looking bad, and Marrietta was the only one who decided to do something about it, which would be a nastily familiar situation. 5. Marrietta resented Harry and/or Hermione for whatever reason and wanted to get some petty revenge. 6. Marrietta got scared of something. Maybe Marrietta's mother was constantly feeding her pro-MoM propaganda about how the opponents to the regime were systematically found and harshly pusnished, and Marrietta figured that the DA would be found eventually and that she'd rather be the one uncovering them than one of those being uncovered and punished. And so on. There can be *many* reasons why Marrietta rattled on the DA, and some of those even have nothing or very little to do with the DA themselves. I'm not saying that most of those reasons were good reasons though, because they weren't. But I wish we knew, because I really think it would be important for the Trio to realise that there can be many reasons for good people to do bad things and that they have to learn to count with those reasons. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 20:01:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:01:12 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121520 > Alla previously: >> > And I think that wisard child would have nanaged to make a fire > harmless, because I think that was subconscious magic at work, but > that is just speculation or course. Alla now: Sorry to replying to myself, but I need to iron my fingers now. Not subconscious magic - Flame Freezing charm, of course, but again, that would make A LOT of sense to teach children to do that. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 20:03:38 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:03:38 -0500 Subject: Neville: "All Muggle"? Message-ID: <000901c4f686$52a32290$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 121521 I have, like many of you I'm sure, been rereading the series and I've found something interesting in SS/PS that I overlooked before. I can't make out if it's mistake, or if something thought-provoking is afoot. SS/PS, US: "Well, my gran brought me up and she's a witch," said Neville, "but the family thought I was all- Muggle for ages. All Muggle? Is this the same in the UK editions? Doesn't DD say that Neville is pureblood in OoP when explaining the prophecy to Harry? Donning my spyglass and usual suspicious nature, why would Neville (a supposed pureblood) describe his grandmother and Great Uncle Algie as thinking he was "all Muggle?" charme From dk59us at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 20:25:15 2005 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:25:15 -0000 Subject: Neville: "All Muggle"? In-Reply-To: <000901c4f686$52a32290$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121522 charme wrote: > SS/PS, US: "Well, my gran brought me up and she's a witch," said > Neville, "but the family thought I was all- Muggle for ages." > > All Muggle? Is this the same in the UK editions? Doesn't DD say that > Neville is pureblood in OoP when explaining the prophecy to Harry? > Donning my spyglass and usual suspicious nature, why would Neville > (a supposed pureblood) describe his grandmother and Great Uncle > Algie as thinking he was "all Muggle?" > > charme Eustace_Scrubb: Well, the Canadian edition (which I think is pretty much the same as the UK edition) has the line just as you quoted it. When I think of this in context--it's casual conversation over the Opening Feast--I think it's just an 11-year old being imprecise in his word choice. Sure, Neville meant 'squib,' but I wouldn't be surprised if his pureblood Gran (and maybe Great Uncle Algie as well) used the M-word when fretting about Neville's lack of magical manifestations prior to age 8...perhaps he overheard some statement like "The child might as well be all-Muggle, Algie!" They knew better, genealogically speaking. Neville may have been too young to pick up on what they really meant, but he picked up on the phrase "all-Muggle." That's my take on it, anyway. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 20:28:43 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:28:43 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121523 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > Where do you see candles? The caldendar doesn't have candles when I go there. > > Tonks: You have to click on the caldendar and another screen opens. Like a portkey. Also UK is 5 hours ahead of us, for the time thing. Tonks_op From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 20:40:57 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:40:57 -0000 Subject: Good blood/bad blood (was Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121524 Potioncat wrote: "It used to be said by older members of a family that "our family is known for __________(fill in the blank with a virtue) it's in our blood." Or even, we come from good stock which is sort of the samething. This is a little different than being Half-blood or Pure-blood, that has more to do with race." Del replies: Actually, I find it very similar. The pureblood ideology doesn't claim that the Muggles are another race, it claims that the wizards are better because they have magic "in their blood". As for the distinction between Muggleborns, half-bloods and purebloods, it's like saying : 1. Sure, the boy seems good enough, but I wouldn't trust him. I mean, look at his parents! Never seen more untrustworthy people. 2. I don't know how this one is going to turn. His mother is a very decent woman, but his father is a jerk, so it will all depend on who he's going to take after. 3. Well, the boy made a mistake, but I'm sure he's got a good temperament. I mean, look at his parents, they are the nicest people I've ever met, so the boy can't be that bad, can he? In every case, people act as though qualities and faults are something genetically inherited. Since the wizards also consider their own greatest quality, magical talent, to be something genetically inherited, it makes sense that they would discriminate between people according to their magical ancestry. So the Malfoys are rotten because they have bad moral blood, and the Muggles are inferior because they have non-magical blood. Completely ridiculous and unfounded in both cases IMO, but it makes much sense in the eyes of those who hold those views. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 20:59:54 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:59:54 -0000 Subject: Neville: "All Muggle"? In-Reply-To: <000901c4f686$52a32290$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121525 Charme wrote: "SS/PS, US: "Well, my gran brought me up and she's a witch," said Neville, "but the family thought I was all- Muggle for ages." Eustace Scrubb answered: "I wouldn't be surprised if his pureblood Gran (and maybe Great Uncle Algie as well) used the M-word when fretting about Neville's lack of magical manifestations prior to age 8...perhaps he overheard some statement like "The child might as well be all-Muggle, Algie!"" Del replies: I like Eustace's explanation, because it makes sense from within the text. Another explanation could simply be that JKR didn't want to introduce the concept of Squibs in PS/SS, for two reasons that go together: 1. Squibs have no role whatsoever in PS/SS. Cos is the book that concerns itself with the issue of blood so it makes sense that we learn about Squibs in that book. PS/SS was the book where JKR had to teach us about Muggles and wizards and about the relationship between their two worlds, and that was complicated enough to do without introducing an unnecessary detail. 2. JKR knew that PS/SS was only the first episode of a 7-year-long saga, but if it hadn't been such a huge success, it's likely that no other book would ever have been published, or maybe even written (a single mother with a full-time job...). So there was no point in introducing a notion that might never be used. But I definitely like Eustace's explanation better, even though it pains me to think of how hurt Neville must have been to overhear his Gran saying something like that. Del From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 21:00:50 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:00:50 -0000 Subject: Blinded Harry WAS (Re: Harry's glasses and vulnerability) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kjirstem" wrote: > > > > > Julie wrote: > > > So what does blindness provide to Harry other than dramatic storyline? > > Is it a vulnerability that makes him stronger in his fight, makes him think of alternatives? > > Tonk here: I think that it is one of those things where your greatest weakness becomes your greatest strength. He will need to trust someone else, to ask for help. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 21:04:01 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:04:01 -0000 Subject: DD's birthday (Was: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121527 Alla wrote: > > > > Now I'll start guessing a birthday for Dumbledore. (Mid-April like Alla and me?) Carol: Actually, I wrote that. > > Tonks wrote: > > > > I will bet DD's birthday is April 1. Jocelyn responded: > > Come on folks! Surely Dumbledore has to be Aquarian! (Jan-Feb) Carol again: I suggested mid-April for DD because of the association with springtime and Easter. Also astrologically, he'd be a fire sign (Aries), the first sign of the Zodiac IIRC. To answer Tonks's questions in previous posts, all the cakes on JKR's site have seven candles. Snape's is identical to those for McGonagall, Flitwick, Hagrid, Percy and whomever I'm forgetting. And as someone else has pointed out, the Weasley Twins' birthday is April 1, chosen because of their mischievous (April Fools-type) tendencies. (Wonder if Molly was hoping for one little girl and got two little boys instead!) carol From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sun Jan 9 21:06:20 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 21:06:20 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy. ( and WW government) References: <1105158587.7917.19004.m7@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000301c4f68f$12d4aae0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 121528 Betsy enthused: >This is a link to a completely brilliant essay by Pharnabazus on the >government of the WW: >http://www.livejournal.com/community/hp_essays/7250.html Agree absolutely. It's a very lengthy discussion which touches on all sorts of areas, including Voldemort, Fudge, Lucius, Percy, and even Adalbert Waffling. Everyone who's interested in what's going on behind the scenery of the books should read it. I'm pretty convinced, and most of the areas where I disagree with Pharnabazus are areas where canon is either absent or ambiguous. I lean towards the "large" rather than the "small" WW population, though that doesn't really affect his argument, and also (as a logical follow-on) that the admixture of Muggle-borns is very small to negligible (meaning that as so often happens, the victims of prejudice are a far smaller number than their persecutors make them out to be). More seriously, I don't agree over the question of wizarding lifetimes, and this I think is quite important to the argument. I used to think, having learned Dumbledore's age, that the wizarding lifespan was twice that of Muggles (Mx2). But in OoP, we learned that Griselda Marchbanks is much older again (perhaps 50 years older than Dumbledore) but is still hale and active. This led me to look again at the description of Armando Dippet and realise that he was probably about the same age. This could in turn explain other things. If wizarding lifespans are Mx3 rather than Mx2, then the length of a generation would be around 90 years rather than the Muggle 30 - it would mean that some of the parental ages that we've come across are untypical but then it's quite possible that wizard parents could be anywhere from puberty up to around 120. Let's go with 90 for a moment and note that it could well explain the paucity of grandparents in the story - the only one we've come across is Neville's (how old is she, by the way, given that Marchbanks is a family friend?) Griselda would have been born around 1790 to realistically have been able to examine Dumbledore in the late 1850s. So her father would have been born around 1700, in the years immediately after the Statute of Secrecy was introduced, and her grandfather would have been born around 1610. Let's say that grandad lived until 1820 - it would mean that Griselda would have known him for her first 30 years. So we have someone alive today who could easily have had personal acquaintance with someone who participated in the discussions leading up to the formation of the Ministry and the Statute of Secrecy. That's quite a startling change in perspective - a time that for us would be of no more than academic interest was almost a living experience for wizards alive today. It could well mean that the kind of arguments alive then are still alive today. My second major disagreement with Pharnabzus is over the Ministry itself. In his conception of WW politics as being based solely on patronage, he sees it as an institution which is itself riven by patronage. I'm not so sure. If this was so, then why did Fudge become Minister, rather than one of the more powerful internal patrons? I couldn't see all of them so willingly relinquishing power at a time when the Voldemort threat was thought to be at an end and consolidation was the main agenda. Instead, I would see the Ministry as something which at least potentially stands as a counterbalance to aristocratic and institutional patronage. When the Ministry was set up, it would necessarily have had to have been staffed by members of the aristocracy and their associates. But now it's not. Entry is on academic qualifications rather than background: the Ministry recruits on a meritocratic basis. All its recruits have a common academic background, which would in turn suggest the development of a "ministry culture" of shared values and ethos. That's not going to be to the taste of the patronal networks, who will (and do) seek to interfere - as both Malfoy and Dumbledore do. But internally I'd see most employees of the Ministry as basically having the same outlook on the world, despite the high level of politicking which certainly goes on and the favour which individual mandarins can give to their underlings. Nora wrote: >If we're playing the game that the British system is a model for the >fictional WW, then scandals like Fudge's HAVE been known to take >down both a central figure and a lot of other people who end up >unwillingly along for the ride. (I'm also thinking about things >like the Prufumo scandal, which ended up taking down the government >in elections.) Assistants are often sacked along with everyone else >to avoid the taint of possible associations. The unfortunately >unknown factor here is the presence or lack of political parties and >exactly what happens when the WW changes governments. Though this tends to work the other way, as happened to David Blunkett recently - because of the actions of his underling, the Minister resigned. It's called the "Crichel Down principle" under which ministers are supposed to take full responsibility for the actions of their civil servants. The WW equivalent would be that if Umbridge's transgressions emerged, that Fudge would have to resign as a result. We don't yet know whether this is going to be the story or whether he's just "decided to spend more time with his family". The UK system has a politically independent bureaucracy, who don't rise or fall depending on government. But of course the WW doesn't have any seperation between the two. >We know via website and comments that Fudge is out. I'm cheerfully >looking for at least some of the government to go with him. Possibly so. We know that Fudge was a junior minister at the time of Voldemort's fall. If he has appointed others, they may well go with him. But JKR alone knows all Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 21:08:14 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:08:14 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121529 brian wrote: > Can we consider this a nod to Severus fans, since it seems unlikely > that JKR would wish Voldemort a Happy Birthday? > Carol responds: That's how I interpret it. I certainly don't expect to see a birthday wish for Lucius Malfoy or Bella trix Lestrange, either. So the fact that she's wished both Snape and Percy a happy birthday appears to be a good sign for their potential redemption (though IMHO Snape is already partially redeemed simply by virtue of being on the right side). Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 21:16:08 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:16:08 -0000 Subject: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121530 Potioncat wrote: > Carol asked about the date. I've noticed that the date on the > calendar changes at midnight my time (I've seen it) but it appears > that the date changes according to midnight England's time if there > is a birthday. Yesterday I actually double checked the date. The > JKR site's calendar said 9 Dec although it was still 8 Dec here. > > Potioncat: Hoping this post falls under the "what is canon?" > category of posts to belong here. Carol responds: But the date was wrong yesterday and correct today, so Sevvie was wished a happy birthday twice. Probably not significant, but fun. Carol, with apologies to the List Elves for not combining this with another short post in the same thread and raising her wand hand in a promise to do better From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 21:37:33 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:37:33 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121531 "delwynmarch" wrote: > I don't particularly like being called > a revisionist It's a perfectly reputable word; and I wasn't being personal anyway. I strongly disagree with you but I respect you, and it's no fun debating with somebody that agrees with me. I'm having fun. I talked about the revisionists, people who think Snape and Marietta are good and Harry and Hermione are bad, but I never said you were a member of their odd sect. However if you have a guilty conscious .. > I fail to see what would have been unfair > and treacherous in Hermione telling the DA > that she *had* put a hex on them. I don't see anything wrong with it either, not one thing, but there is not a doubt in my mind that the revisionists would scream that Hermione should have told them before they committed themselves by signing so that proves she is evil. Ridiculous yes, but if she had done that in the book that's exactly what many on this very list would be saying right now. In addition, if she had done that Hermione would had difficulty knowing who really believed in the DA and who was just going through the motions so as not to get pimples. It makes a difference; in the one case an individual caught in a sticky situation will use his initiative to minimize damage to the DA, in the other case the individual will look for loopholes to bring the organization down. > A serious overlook not to look for a way > to *prevent* that betrayal in the first place. During the entire cold war neither the CIA nor the KGB ever found something that would make betrayal imposable, do you really want to condemn a 15 year old girl for not finding what they could not? Eggplant From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 21:40:22 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:40:22 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121532 Alla wrote: ""Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination - a certain disregard for rules," he added, his mustache quivvering again. "Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think". -p.333, Cos, paperback. I frankly do NOT see any sign of Dumbledore praising those traits. Salazar prized them, yes, Dumbledore - nope." Del replies: He did call them *qualities*, didn't he? This passage is very clear to me, especially when considered together with Harry's Sorting. Each Founder favoured certain specific qualities: courage, loyalty, cleverness, resourcefulness, for example. Harry has got many of the qualities that Slytherin liked, and also many of those that Gryffindor liked. The Sorting Hat said he was hard to place, and IMO that's because he has so many qualities that belong to different "Founder-sets". In the end, the Hat's choice was apparently between Gryffindor and Slytherin, at about 50-50. The Hat couldn't reach a decision on its own, which is why Harry's plea determined its choice : not Slytherin? All right, then it'll be Gryffindor. Note: a certain disregard for rules is *not* a Gryffindor quality, as someone suggested. If it were, neither Percy nor Hermione would have been Gryffindors, and Neville would be considered a traitor to his own House for trying to prevent the Trio from breaking the rules. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 21:43:22 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:43:22 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121533 Del: I don't particularly like being called a revisionist Eggplant: It's a perfectly reputable word; and I wasn't being personal anyway. I strongly disagree with you but I respect you, and it's no fun debating with somebody that agrees with me. I'm having fun. I talked about the revisionists, people who think Snape and Marietta are good and Harry and Hermione are bad, but I never said you were a member of their odd sect. However if you have a guilty conscious .. Alla: Oy, Eggplant. I confess - guilty as charged. I think that Snape MAY BE good at the end. Does it make me the member of that "sect"? Will my potential codefendants please stand up? :o) LOLOL! Alla From mrsbonsai at charter.net Sun Jan 9 21:50:09 2005 From: mrsbonsai at charter.net (jastrangfeld) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:50:09 -0000 Subject: What kind of vegitation is around the Dursley's? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121534 Does anyone know, was there ever mention of what plants were around the Dursley's house? I know Holly is supposed to protect from wizards . . . and I know it's in Harry's wand. I was thinking about how wand's choose the wizard, and how it was curious that it chose Harry, with Holly and Phoenix feather (knowing it also had chosen Voldemort) and did a little research on the properties of the two. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` http://www.shee-eire.com/Herbs,Trees&Fungi/Trees/Holly/Factsheet.htm An excellent protective herb, Holly guards against lightning, poison and evil spirits. Planted around the home it protects it and its inhabitants from mischievous sorcerers. When thrown at wild animals, holly makes them lie down quietly and leave you alone, even if you don't hit them with the plant. Holly water (infused or distilled) is sprinkled on newborn babies to protect them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`` and then I was wondering if that might have been one of the protections around the Dursley's? Julie From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Sun Jan 9 21:49:46 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:49:46 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Percy. ( and WW government) In-Reply-To: <000301c4f68f$12d4aae0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: <611D3EF0-6288-11D9-A4AE-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 121535 On Monday, January 10, 2005, at 08:06 am, Ffred wrote: > My second major disagreement with Pharnabzus is over the Ministry > itself. In > his conception of WW politics as being based solely on patronage, he > sees it > as an institution which is itself riven by patronage. I'm not so sure. > If > this was so, then why did Fudge become Minister, rather than one of > the more > powerful internal patrons? Ooh! This one's easy! I was the president of the local chapter of an international group once, and there were a number of factors influencing my election, including: 1/ I had no factional alliegance. The other major candidates were so aligned with factions that the opposing factions wouldn't vote for them 2/ I was pleasant and seemed malleable In other words they wouldn't vote for an opposing faction, but I seemed tolerable! Of course by the time I stepped down I had plenty of political ties and enemies, but that's what got me in! I've seen this time and time again in politics - in a deadlock you end up with a non-aligned pleasant 'lightweight'. The lightweight's progress thereafter can be veeery interesting! Jocelyn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 21:52:50 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:52:50 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121536 Alla wrote: ""Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination - a certain disregard for rules," he added, his mustache quivvering again. "Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think". -p.333,Cos, paperback. I frankly do NOT see any sign of Dumbledore praising those traits. Salazar prized them, yes, Dumbledore - nope." Del replies: He did call them *qualities*, didn't he? This passage is very clear to me, especially when considered together with Harry's Sorting. Each Founder favoured certain specific qualities: courage, loyalty, cleverness, resourcefulness, for example. Harry has got many of the qualities that Slytherin liked, and also many of those that Gryffindor liked. The Sorting Hat said he was hard to place, and IMO that's because he has so many qualities that belong to different "Founder-sets". In the end, the Hat's choice was apparently between Gryffindor and Slytherin, at about 50-50. The Hat couldn't reach a decision on its own, which is why Harry's plea determined its choice : not Slytherin? All right, then it'll be Gryffindor. Alla: Isn't "quality" a neutral word? I will try to qualify again. ALL I was saying that it is unclear in this passage that Dumbledore was praising Slytherins traits in Harry. They may be positive or negative, depending on the situation. And I am not quite sure that Harry has 50/50 inner Gryff and inner Slyth. As Hanna pointed out Hat did NOT even mention Slytherin at all, till Harry started begging not to be put in there. Who knows, maybe Hat was just having fun with him, asessing how well he would do in the other Houses, and of course everybody ahs some qualities of different houses in himself/herself, otherwise it would be even more simplistic personalities division than I think it is now. I am just not sure Harry has it 50/50. Personally I think that he will turn out to be mainly Gryffindor, but it is JMO, of course. Del: Note: a certain disregard for rules is *not* a Gryffindor quality, as someone suggested. If it were, neither Percy nor Hermione would have been Gryffindors, and Neville would be considered a traitor to his own House for trying to prevent the Trio from breaking the rules. Alla: I was not exactly suggesting it, just thinking about it out loud. :o) Well, true we have Percy in gryffindor, but Hermione learned fast to bend the rules for her needs, did not she? For the record, I am not judging her, as I said many times I believe that breaking the rules for GOOD purpose can be very good thing, but I still think that "disregard for rules" can be Gryffindor trait. Just my opinion, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 9 21:53:52 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:53:52 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121537 > Alla: > > > Persecution of magical folks... Sure, "witches burnings". In real > world, many innocents died because they were suspected of being witches, right? > > But don't forget that in JKR world REAL witches were not afraid of those burnings and saved themselves, while who really suffered were muggle folks. > > So, seems that Salasar was not really rational in his fears of > persecution, IF he had such, which I don't remember in canon. Pippin: Binns has already been quoted on this thread, so I'll just add that he talks about persecution generally, while the famous quote from Bagshot's History of Magic refers only to burning, and the question Harry is researching is about the fourteenth century,while Hogwarts was founded much earlier. There are lots of ways to persecute people without resorting to burning them alive. Since the days of the Emperor Justinian, heretics (witchcraft could be subsumed under heresy) were barred from inheritance, practicing law or *teaching*, and testifying against Catholics. But heretics were prosecuted only occasionally until the eleventh century when large-scale actions began*--about the time Hogwarts was founded. Pippin *Moore, RI, The Formation of a Persecuting Society, Blackwell, Malden MA, 1990 From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 21:54:55 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 21:54:55 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121538 Eggplant wrote: "I talked about the revisionists, people who think Snape and Marietta are good and Harry and Hermione are bad, but I never said you were a member of their odd sect." Del replies: That's not the way I understood you used that word. I thought you meant it to mean anyone who had negative criticism about Hermione's hex, which would include me too. Make sure to clearly define the words you use. And even in the way you defined it, I still disagree, but that's not the point. Eggplant wrote: "In addition, if she had done that Hermione would had difficulty knowing who really believed in the DA and who was just going through the motions so as not to get pimples." Del replies: Because you think she does now? She knows about *one* person. What about the others? Do you make the same mistake as she did to think that whoever doesn't loudly express their opposition actually agrees? I wouldn't think things are that clear, oh no! Eggplant wrote: "During the entire cold war neither the CIA nor the KGB ever found something that would make betrayal imposable, do you really want to condemn a 15 year old girl for not finding what they could not?" Del replies: OK, could you make up your mind? Is the situation in OoP similar to an open war such as WWII, where everyone is supposed to know they are at war and to react accordingly? Or is it similar to a cold war where the war is limited to secret agents, and the general public blissfully believe they are at peace? It can't be both, unless you accept to consider, like I do, that there were actually *two* very different wars going on. Personally, I believe that the Harry/MoM was quite an open war, but that it didn't concern such people as Marrietta, while the LV/Order war was a cold one that people such as Marrietta didn't know almost anything about. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 22:07:58 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:07:58 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121539 Alla wrote: "Isn't "quality" a neutral word? " Del replies: It can be, or it can be used in a positive way. Unfortunately, there's no way to know how DD meant it for sure :-) Alla wrote: "And I am not quite sure that Harry has 50/50 inner Gryff and inner Slyth. As Hanna pointed out Hat did NOT even mention Slytherin at all, till Harry started begging not to be put in there. Who knows, maybe Hat was just having fun with him, asessing how well he would do in the other Houses, and of course everybody ahs some qualities of different houses in himself/herself, otherwise it would be even more simplistic personalities division than I think it is now. I am just not sure Harry has it 50/50. Personally I think that he will turn out to be mainly Gryffindor, but it is JMO, of course." Del replies: First, we do know that some people are indisputably one House, because there are people the Hat Sorts almost instantly. For Harry, on the other hand, the Hat itself pointed out, both during the Sorting and in CoS, that Harry was hard to place. If he had been mostly Gryffindor, I doubt the Hat would have had any hesitation, especially since Harry *wanted* to go to Gryffindor, and since at least one of his parents was a Gryffindor. Moreover, in CoS, the Hat not only repeats that Harry was hard to Sort, but it also repeats that Harry would have done well in Slytherin. Conidering that Harry used it to try and relieve his own doubts and fears about whether he was supposed to be a Slytherin or not, I'd say it would be a *very* cruel joke on the Hat's part to pretend again that Harry has a strong Slytherin side if he doesn't. Considering that the Hat was Godric Gryffindor's, such cruelty would make me reconsider the supposed goodness of Gryffindor. Del From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 22:35:59 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:35:59 -0000 Subject: Lilly. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121540 Valky wrote: > Personally, I believe the revelation about Lily, in Book 7 will be > related to the meaning of her green eyes. I think we will discover > that they are a sort of divine genetic inheritance. Carpl responds: Although I think we'll find out something about the green eyes, which seem to run in Lily's family *perhaps* indicating that she had some distant wizard ancestors (if we can take the Mirror of Erised as showing actual family members and disregard the narrator's Harry-based classification of them all as "Potters"), I don't think it's the eyes that will prove important. I think it will be Lily's skill with Charms, as suggested by Ollivander's description of her first wand in SS/PS. (Remember that James's wand was described as "excellent for Transfiguration" and we found out in PoA that he's an Animagus. Lily's is described as a "nice wand for Charm work.") I think that Lily placed the Fidelius Charm on PP and, much more important, placed some sort of protective charm on Baby Harry that was activated by her sacrifice. I think it was her protective charm rather than her sacrifice alone (surely she's not the first or the last mother to die for her child; Barty Jr.'s mother did the same for him with much different results) that saved him, but it wouldn't have worked if she hadn't died first, which explains her desperate pleas to kill her rather than Harry. IMO, the (activated) charm blocked the AK, producing the lightning- shaped scar, which vaguely resembles the eihwaz rune (defense or protection). (Why bring that particular rune up in realation to Hermione's Ancient Runes exam if it isn't going to be important? I predict that in HBP, hermione will connect the shape of the scar to the shape of the rune, leading eventually to the deduction that Lily placed a protective charm on Harry. Especially if he mentions the term "ancient magic" and she starts researching the topic.) BTW, I know that JKR has said that the shape of the scar isn't the most important thing about it. That doesn't mean that the shape isn't important at all. Carol, who has raised this idea several times before but finds it much easier to repeat it than to search for earlier posts using Yahoo!mort From HxM_fan at hotmail.com Sun Jan 9 22:39:20 2005 From: HxM_fan at hotmail.com (plumkey308) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 22:39:20 -0000 Subject: Good blood/bad blood (was Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121541 Del Says: > In every case, people act as though qualities and faults are something > genetically inherited. Since the wizards also consider their own > greatest quality, magical talent, to be something genetically > inherited, it makes sense that they would discriminate between people > according to their magical ancestry. > > So the Malfoys are rotten because they have bad moral blood, and the > Muggles are inferior because they have non-magical blood. Completely > ridiculous and unfounded in both cases IMO, but it makes much sense in > the eyes of those who hold those views. > > Del Valy replies: Exactly. But I have a theory about that blood thing. First, being the liberal pro-peace'n'love person that I am, I consider magic comes as a gift. I see wizards and muggles as human being at first. Like seers, lots seers have their child as seers, and I think the magic is more "hereditary" than the Seer one. There's muggle seers, and wizards seers. The proof is muggle-born wizards. If muggles were an another 'race', there wouldnt have muggle-born wizards, since this is a gift. I think the magical thing comes like a powerful energy, so powerful that pure-blood wizards are practically all having. And since there's squib/muggles (or squid? English is not my first language, and I'm used to the french HP books. So please excuse me if I do name errors. :P ) in wizards families... This mean this gift or energy isnt into them. Ah well. It's my opinion, but JKR surely know... Valy. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 23:01:49 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 18:01:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta and the DA. References: Message-ID: <006801c4f69f$33baf560$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 121542 > Del replies: > OK, could you make up your mind? Is the situation in OoP similar to an > open war such as WWII, where everyone is supposed to know they are at > war and to react accordingly? Or is it similar to a cold war where the > war is limited to secret agents, and the general public blissfully > believe they are at peace? It can't be both, unless you accept to > consider, like I do, that there were actually *two* very different > wars going on. Personally, I believe that the Harry/MoM was quite an > open war, but that it didn't concern such people as Marrietta, while > the LV/Order war was a cold one that people such as Marrietta didn't > know almost anything about. > charme: Ou, pick me, pick me my hand is up! I like making up my mind ;) I think Hermoine acted according to circumstances and understanding she has at the time, and what is symbolic about her actions is there is level of caution and mistrust already brewing even among this small part of the WW we're able to see in the books. We're talking a 15 year old girl here and one which still, no matter how brilliant, has a lot to learn. That being said, Hermoine could have planned better and avoided the hexing issue, but then again if JKR hadn't written it that way, we wouldn't be noodling over it, now would we? :) And no, it's not war declared openly, but I'd like to know what you believe the events which precede *open* war should be called. I almost get the sense you're arguing that war must be "bucketed" into one meaning or another, and I disagree - whether secret or open, conflict is conflict even if it isn't called "war" openly. Ignorance of the conflict isn't the point to me: I interpret what I've read thus far to the importance of trust, loyalty, bravery, and friendship and much is made of such values in the other books, particularly PoA. Marietta may have been ignorant of the Order, LV coming back etc, but she had a choice to attend (again, no one held a gun to her head) and participate, and a choice to snitch on the group to Umbridge and violate the trust her *friend* and others placed in her. Sometimes you pay the price for your choices, as she did and as Harry did when choosing to go to the DoM and not trusting Hermoine and Ron when they tried to convince him what he's seeing in his head about LV torturing Sirius might not be true. It's all about learning from our mistakes, isn't it? As a final note, it's my bet we don't see Marietta again in the next 2 books: I think she was an "expendable crewman" who JKR sacrificed to show the complexities of these values and choices made by her characters. I might not be popular for what I'm saying, but ah well, that's life and I'll just have to find the strength to muster on. :) charme From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 23:05:05 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:05:05 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121543 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > "ravenclaw001" wrote: > > > Just as I am with Marietta, I am withholding > > judgement on Percy's actions until I see > > clear proof that he wasn't acting as a long-term, > > deep-cover mole for Dumbledore at the Ministry. > Eggplant said: > > I wonder, are you withholding judgment of Umbridge's actions too? I > doubt it, but you could make an equally strong (weak may be a better > word) case that she was also a deep-cover mole for Dumbledore. I > have never heard anyone actually argue this and I think I know why, > her last name is not Weasley. > bboyminn: You can't possibly be comparing what Marietta, Percy, or Hermione did in OotP to what Umbridge did. Marietta will recover from her 'spots', and likely she will see that she was misguided. True, technically her action may have been right in the general sense, but she was misguided when the hidden details finally become known. She has a right to be angry, and the 'gang' have a right to be angry at her, but in the end it all worked out; no harm, no foul. In the long run, I'm confident that forgive and forget will rule the day. Percy hasn't caused any harm. Lots of hard feelings, but no real harm. He followed his beliefs, not necessarily a bad thing, but his beliefs were clouded and distorted by an asortment of strong emotions. Furthermore, not having caused real harm, Percy can still be redeemed. In seeing the error of his ways and expressing that insight, he opens the door to forgiveness. Percy did a bad thing, but that doesn't make him a bad person. It makes him an very annoying but good person who made a mistake, a mistake I'm sure he now regrets. Let those among you who have never done a bad thing cast the first electron. Hermione's (although you didn't specifically mention her, her actions have been mentioned in similar discussions) actions were most likely not intended to do harm. I don't think Hermione intended for the Centaurs to kill Umbridge. Her quickly conceived plan was meant to buy them time, to save Harry from the Pain Curse, and to hopefully allow them time to escape from Umbridge, but I hardly think she intended more than that. Also, notice that the /alleged/ murderous Centaurs kept Umbridge overnight, and did her no permanent physical harm (that we know of). True, we can debate the degree of harm, but they absolutely did NOT kill Umbridge; that's a fact, though they had ample opportunity. Umbridge on the otherhand acted with total disregard for any harm, and physical and psychologial pain she may cause, whether that harm be small as in subverting the education process, or large as in illegally and without mercy or true provocation attempting to utterly destroy Harry (equal to cold-blooded murder in my book) because he was saying things that were /inconvenient/ to the Ministry. Umbridge was an intentionally vicious, heartless, spitefull, mean, cruel, ruthless, sadistic person who was a real danger to anyone who got in her way. That is certain, far and away, above and beyond the actions of Marietta, Percy, or Hermione. Eggplant concludes: > ..., sometimes a very bad family can produce a very good person > such as Sirius, and sometimes the opposite is true such as Percy. Is > it possible Percy is a mole for Dumbledore? Sure. It's also possible > pigs may fly, ... > > Eggplant bboyminn: I've already said that I don't think Percy is a bad person. I think he simply made a mistake. Also, I'm not a big fan of the 'Percy is Dumbledore's Mole' theory. It does help redeem Percy and explain his action, but it's a little too easy from a writer's standpoint. I think it more likely that Percy completely cut himself off from what he saw as his misguided family to prove to them that he could get and keep his job on his owm merits. To prove he was worthy of his promotion, and that it hadn't been given to him so that Fudge could spy on Dumbledore. While Arthur's reaction is understandable, those Weasleys are all stubborn as a pack of mules, I still say he could have handled it better. I will also say again that Percy's actions were clouded by a big dose of Weasley mule-headedness as well as a complex complement of negative emotions. None of us thinks too clearly when we are angry, hurt, and dissappointed. Percy isn't a bad person, he's an annoying but good person who did a bad thing, and now regrets having done so. That leaves room for redemtion and forgiveness. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 23:08:24 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:08:24 -0000 Subject: Christian motifs but not Christian allegory? (Was: JKR a Calvinist? Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121544 Carol earlier: > > For the record, I didn't mean an objection to the Christmas celebrations per se. I just thought it was odd that if she were a Calvinist, as some people have suggested, that she would recognize the Church seasons--Advent (Dec. 1-Dec. 24), Christmas (Dec. 25-Jan. > 26), Epiphany (Jan. 6-?)--that are celebrated in the Anglican, Episcopal, and (I think) Catholic Churches. I was watching specifically to see when she would take the decorations down, and she did it when a traditional Anglican or Episcopalian would, on Epiphany, the day after the Twelfth Day of Christmas (January 5). > > Geoff: > One point, I think in your list of dates above Christmas should be > 25th December-5th January. Carol again: Oops! Yes, of course. Jan. 26 is a typo. You'll see that elsewhere in the post I've identified the Twelfth Day of Christmas as January 5 and Epiphany (season) as starting on January 6. (I don't know when it ends.) Like JKR, I took my decorations down on Epiphany (January 6). > Geoff: > In general terms, most people in the UK follow the "Twelve Days of > Christmas" tradition in terms of decorations whether they are in the > Anglican or Roman churches, free churches or non-believers. We took > our decorations down as usual on the 6th. > Again, most churches mark Advent nowadays with readings and the > lighting of an additional candle each week to mark the four Sundays > and a final fifth one on Christmas Day itself. This is a tradition > which has become much more widespread as is the holding of > Christingle services. When I was first a Christian in the early > 1960s, most non-conformist churches stuck just to the immediate > Christmas season. Carol again: That's good to know. In the U.S., a lot of poeple think that the Twelve Days of Christmas come *before* Christmas! Commercialism, I guess. But in the Episcopal Church, at least, the tradition is the same as in the Anglican and RC churches. I just wasn't sure about the Church of Scotland, which JKR belongs to. What about godfathers and baptism? Is that the same as in the Anglican church? If I can draw HP-related conclusions here, it seems that JKR is a traditional (but not Fundamentalist) Christian and that her concept of the WW has at least limited connections with Christianity. Note that both Sirius and the suits of armor sing mangled Christmas carols, not "Jingle Bells" or other Christmas-associated music but *carols* with a religious significance. (Is it "O Come All Ye Faithful that the suits of armor sing? I can't remember. But Sirius's "God Rest Ye Merrye, Hippogriffs" is a mangling of "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen"--and note that it leaves in God even if it misunderstands the concept of "rest ye merry.") I'm guessing that, even though we don't hear about them, there are religious ceremonies in the WW (e.g., baptism, funerals, and possibly Holy Matrimony rather than secular weddings), that the concepts of soul and afterlife have some religious significance (if not to the WW then to JKR), and that destiny (as ambiguously laid out in the Prophecies) is not predestination or an inescapable Fate but, as Vivamus(?) suggested, the choice to follow the path laid out for you (rather like Frodo in LOTR). It's possible to falter or fail or deny your destiny, but if you do, no one else can fulfill your destiny for you. (Not everyone has a clearcut destiny like Harry's, of course. Or do they?) I also think, though JKR doesn't use the term, that she believes in the concept of Sin and that it relates somehow to the Unforgiveable Curses. I hope she doesn't believe that some people are born evil. It's important for people like Snape to have a chance for redemption. Carol, not at all willing to read the book as a religious allegory but wondering how JKR's version of Christianity can be used to help us interpret the books From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 23:34:42 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:34:42 -0000 Subject: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121545 Potioncat wrote: > Here are two sections that made me wonder. It's nothing the Snape > opposition hasn't been saying all along, but for some reason, it hit > home when I read it this time. I'm not fully converted, but my faith > in Snape is shaken! > > In the first case, Snape has been telling DD about Lupin all along > and is eager to be proven right. But he shows no regret for the > pain this will cause DD. > > In the second case, he really seems to want Black punished and hopes > DD won't interfere. I could argue here that Snape is only > pretending, as a way of finding out Fudge's motives. But in the > first case, there's little doubt of Snape's opinion. > > Another view I've changed in this episode, is Snape's motives for > going into the Shrieking Shack. I thought he was saving the trio. It > is pretty clear from the timeline and from what he says: he saw > Lupin in the tunnel and went after him. Snape did not know the kids > or Black were there. Now, I'm not really sure why he followed an un-medicated werewolf into the tunnel... > > Still, on the positive side, Snape looks positively gentle when > Harry sees him putting the injured on stretchers. Tell me why, why > didn't Lupin or Black put Snape on a stretcher? Carol responds: I sent this message to Potioncat offlist and at her suggestion am belatedly posting it here (slightly edited so it sounds like a post rather than an offlist personal message): I think that Snape followed Lupin to the Shrieking Shack hoping to catch him red-handed helping a man he really believed to be a murderer into the castle--a mixed ambition because he wanted to really *be* a hero and save Hogwarts and Harry, whether Harry was present or not, by capturing his would-be murderer and his werewolf accomplice, but he also wanted to be proven right and have his heroism acknowledged (primarily by Dumbledore, but being denied his chance at an Order of Merlin really did hurt, IMO). I don't think he had any evil intentions (beyond the taint that accompanies revenge and the desire for it, which we see in Sirius Black, too). Once he saw Harry's cape, he probably focused as much on the idea of saving the kids (Ron and Hermione were bound to be with Harry) as on catching the criminals. Bear in mind that he didn't hear the whole story in the Shrieking Shack (his own fault--he showed himself too soon) and that he was given no reason to believe the story that Peter Pettigrew was alive and was an animagus. He never saw PP, only Scabbers still in Ron's hands. It's clear to me, at least, that he didn't believe the animagus story even after DD presumably filled him in on the details until Padfoot transformed into Black in front of him. As for whether DD is right to trust him, I'm pretty sure he has some very good reasons and that he watches Snape more closely than he watched, say, Gilderoy Lockhart or Crouch!Moody. I think Snape has given DD good reasons to trust him (saving or trying to save Harry on more than one occasion, risking his life as a spy, and now doing whatever he's doing for the Order, as well as acting as his right-hand man in Hogwarts). I also think that Snape values that trust. It's just about the only recognition he's received from his services. But he also, like Hermione, wants to be right and wants to be acknowledged as right, especially in his distrust of Sirius Black and Remus Lupin, the only remaining members (as he thought) of MWPP. He's (IMO) a grown-up teenage boy trying to prove to his surrogate father, DD, that he's right about the "brothers" that his "father" favored over him. ("See, Dad? I was right all along. You shouldn't have trusted them or made Potter Head Boy. I'm the one who's really loyal. I'm the one who's suffered for you." And he has, but so have they.) Poor Snape. But he does make a better showing in GoF, and despite the discontinued Occlumency lessons (which wouldn't have stopped Harry at that point, anyway--he'd almost gotten through the door in his dream and was determined to get there) in OoP as well. Carol, glad that Potioncat isn't wholly giving up on Snape (who's still the birthday boy, at least in Tucson) From pegruppel at yahoo.com Sun Jan 9 23:36:48 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:36:48 -0000 Subject: What was LV up to *before* that night in GH? (Long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121546 I haven't been hanging out on the board much, so if I'm repeating other people's theories, or resurrecting something that's been discussed at length and discarded, my apologies. I've had some peace and quiet, and time to free associate on some ideas (I gave up commuting for the New Year). I give great credit to the authors of the essays I cite below for their hard work, and for sending me off into the world of folklore and myth. I've had a great time. To begin with, I wondered (with many others) what JKR meant when she said: "(The first question that I have never been asked?it has probably been asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?is, "Why didn't Voldemort die?" Not, "Why did Harry live?" but, "Why didn't Voldemort die?" The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn't he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he did to make sure that he did not die . . ." http://www.quick- quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm She has also said: "There is one thing that if anyone guessed I would be really annoyed as it is kind of the heart of it all. I would be really annoyed as it is kind of the heart of it all. And it kind of explains everything and no-one's quite got there but a couple of people have skirted it." http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0619-bbcnews-paxman.htm While reading through some of the fansites, I came across the authors whom I think may be the "couple of people" that Jo was talking about. The first is an essay from Maline Freden on MuggleNet: http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/thenorthtower/nt23.shtml (This is the first of a two-part essay). The second is Maline's source, J. Odell: http://www.redhen-publications.com/Changeling.html This author describes LV's current state as an artificial construct, a turn of phrase that I love, by the way. These authors offer the idea that Harry and LV may share a soul or LV's soul is accidentally lodged in next to Harry's. I liked the idea, but it didn't seem quite "right" to me, somehow. And I remembered something that Lupin said in PoA: "You can live quite well without your soul, you know . . ." (PoA, American hardback edition, p. 247) Lupin goes on to explain that, without a soul, you just exist, you're not really alive. Well, what if LV was trying to overcome this little difficulty? He wanted to be able keep his faculties without having his inconveniently mortal soul hanging around. LV's survival in GH was no accident--LV was trying to become invulnerable to death, and managed to do it partway. His body was destroyed (something that doesn't seem to happen to every victim of AK--Cedric, for instance). J. Odell's article mentioned a single tale of a giant whose soul is kept in an apparently unreachable location. And I remembered that it was, in fact, part of a larger body of myth about separable souls, but couldn't quite remember where I'd seen it. This all led me back to something I hadn't looked at for a long time: The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer. The whole thing is online, now, and I'll use that version for reference. (WARNING: If you read it for yourself, it is long, often tedious, and definitely *not* politically correct. It was written in 1922.) Chapters 66 and 67 (beginning at: http://www.sacred- texts.com/pag/frazer/gb06600.htm) deal with the idea of "The Separable Soul." There's a bit from Chapter 66 that particularly that caught my attention: ". . . the story of the external soul is told (. . .) in various forms . . . A very common form of it is this: A warlock, giant, or other fairyland being is invulnerable and immortal because he keeps his soul hidden far away in some secret place; but a fair princess, whom he holds enthralled in his enchanted castle, wiles his secret from him and reveals it to the hero, who seeks out the warlock's soul, heart, life, or death (as it is variously called), and by destroying it, simultaneously kills the warlock." Freden and Odell believe that LV's soul is caught in Harry as a side effect of the AK. But. JKR clearly stated that LV survived because of something that he'd done *before* he ever tried to cast the AK against Harry at GH. LV knows very well where his soul is, thank you, and doesn't seem to miss it in the least. If that soul is lodged in a token, as I suspect, Harry's quest then becomes one to find the location of Voldemort's soul-token and free the trapped soul. Harry doesn't lose his powers, doesn't have to die, doesn't have to kill Voldemort (LV has, in the sense of the Potterverse, committed suicide). If the trapped soul is freed, it may, as J. Odell suggested, flee through the veil (Dobby wants to be free, sir). I can't blame it. I suspect that Godric Gryffindor's sword may come into play somewhere in the freeing of the soul. The quote from The Golden Bough also suggests the presence of a female character who learns the location of the soul and reveals it to the hero. (Hermione or Luna? My bet is on Luna.) Why, then, is Harry linked to LV? I just don't know. I've convinced myself that it isn't a connection at the level of the soul. Since we're dealing with separable memories (Tom Riddle in the diary), and other oddities of the Potterverse, it's possible that the connection is a magical one--the link is as deep as the magical contract that binds the house elves to their families and required Harry to go through the Triwizard Tournament, even though he didn't enter of his own free will. This isn't really a fleshed-out theory--it's more like an expression of an idea of a theory. Peg--Who has eaten so much red herring in these books that she holds no hope of coming within a whisker of the heart of the mystery, but has to get her oar in, anyway. From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Mon Jan 10 00:18:46 2005 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:18:46 -0000 Subject: What was LV up to *before* that night in GH? (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121547 Peg wrote: (massivily snipped): >Freden and Odell believe that LV's soul is caught in Harry as a side >effect of the AK. But. JKR clearly stated that LV survived because >of something that he'd done *before* he ever tried to cast the AK >against Harry at GH. LV knows very well where his soul is, thank >you, and doesn't seem to miss it in the least. >If that soul is lodged in a token, as I suspect, Harry's quest then >becomes one to find the location of Voldemort's soul-token and free >the trapped soul. Harry doesn't lose his powers, doesn't have to >die, doesn't have to kill Voldemort (LV has, in the sense of the >Potterverse, committed suicide). If the trapped soul is freed, it >may, as J. Odell suggested, flee through the veil (Dobby wants to be >free, sir). I can't blame it. I suspect that Godric Gryffindor's >sword may come into play somewhere in the freeing of the soul. Leah: I've been nagged for a while by Cathy's lament for Heathcliff, "How can I live without my heart?- how can I die without my soul?", which seemed to me to have some HP related resonance, so I was thrilled by this post. If VM's soul is lodged in a token somewhere, then I rather hope that token is stored in a vault in Gringotts, bringing a nicely circular ending to the septology ( and I can't believe there isn't more to say about Gringotts). A rather gruesome token occurs to me. Crouch Snr was transfigured into a bone, and Riddle Snr's bone was used in VM's potion. Could VM have stored his soul in his mother's bone? Leah From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 00:32:37 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:32:37 -0000 Subject: Must Harry Die? - sort of.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121548 Steve (bboyminn) wrote: > > > "'The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches... > > etc... > > > > This is the plain and simple part. No arguements hopefully. > > > > "'...and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can > > live while the other survives...etc...'" > > > > This is the part that seesm to cause trouble. Carol responds: So far, I agree. Steve (bboyminn) wrote: > "...for neither can live while the other survives..." > > Is not so simple. The first and most obvious problem is that they are both surviving and both living, but the Prophecy says that can't happen. > > It seems to imply that if one of doesn't die by some independant > means, then both of them are doomed to death; each, meaning both, of > them are doomed to death as long as his counterpart continues to > survive. Extended further that opens the possibility for both of them to die. Carol responds: Or maybe we need to look at what "survive" and "live" mean. If they have the same meaning, the Prophecy is nonsense, as they are both alive. Or are they? Maybe, instead, they are both *surviving* and neither can truly *live* while the other continues to breathe and walk the earth. IMO, it's pretty clear that Voldemort is not *living*. He has never died, as he informs he DEs in the graveyard scene, but the body he inhabits is not a normal human body but the resurrected form of the body destroyed at GH, which was already altered--or at least the face was--by so many transformations that he was unrecognizable as Tom Riddle. Hagrid says in SS/PS, "Don't know if he had enough human left in him to die." And he seems to be right. Voldemort is no longer human, either in form or in the capacity to feel. And he's not only undergone the transformations and the restoration, but, via Quirrell, he's drunk unicorn blood, meaning that he has only a cursed half-life. So. Surviving, not living. But, if I read the Prophecy correctly, all that would change if Harry were to die, or at least, if Voldemort killed him himself and survived the conflict. Not that I think that LV would be restored to human form (unless he so chose) or to human feeling, but he would be in effect deathless and therefore, at least in his view, truly alive. (I don't want to get into the mixed blessings of earthly immortality here, only my reading of the Prophecy.) What about Harry? it could be argued that he, too, is only surviving, not truly living. He's had to endure life with the Dursleys, and even at Hogwarts, there's always the threat of Voldemort (or the Dementors, or the supposedly murderous Sirius Black) that prevents him from living the life of a normal wizard boy like Ron. Once he defeats Voldemort, he can put all that behind him and finally *live.* Carol, not arguing that this is the "right" way to read the Prophecy but only presenting it as a possibility From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 01:02:13 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:02:13 -0000 Subject: What kind of vegitation is around the Dursley's? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121549 Julie wrote: > Does anyone know, was there ever mention of what plants were around > the Dursley's house? I know Holly is supposed to protect from wizards snip I was wondering if that might have been one of the > protections around the Dursley's? Meri here: I think there are quotes in many of the books about the Dursleys having runner beans, flower beds and shrubbery around their yard. I know they have a greenhouse or a hothouse (because Dudley once threw his pet tortoise through the roof of it) but wouldn't a holly tree be kind of a weird thing to find in a British suburb? And, come to that, would the ultra-Muggle Dursleys allow a magical tree to be planted in their yard even in the interest of protection? I always got the impression that the protections surrounding the Dursley's home were unknown (except perhaps to Petunia), so I don't think so. Meri From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 10 01:05:33 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:05:33 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121550 > Alla: > > Could you please give me a quote where Dumbledore lists POSITIVE > traits of Slytherins to Harry? > Because if we are talking about this one: > "Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar > Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare > gift, Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination - a certain > disregard for rules," he added, his mustache quivvering again. "Yet > the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. > Think". -p.333, > > Cos, paperback. > > >I frankly do NOT see any sign of Dumbledore praising those > traits. > > Salazar prized them, yes, Dumbledore - nope.< Potioncat here: As above, DD calls them Qualities. He didn't just say traits or vices, he himself called them qualities. As for the disregard for rules, I think that applies to both houses. So I think DD is intending them to be positive. From ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com Mon Jan 10 01:04:34 2005 From: ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com (ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 20:04:34 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Percy Brasco?. Message-ID: <144.3cce551a.2f132ea2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121551 In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:06:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: Umbridge on the otherhand acted with total disregard for any harm, and physical and psychologial pain she may cause, whether that harm be small as in subverting the education process, or large as in illegally and without mercy or true provocation attempting to utterly destroy Harry (equal to cold-blooded murder in my book) because he was saying things that were /inconvenient/ to the Ministry. Mary sez: Harry was being watched while at the Dursley's. It would be completely irresponsible of Dumblerdore for the higher ups in the OOtP not to have known what was going on at their house. So, Dumbledore, for the greater good, left Harry in a situation where he suffered because the fact that it set Harry up to be the saviour of the wizarding world made it right. It was for the greater good, and what happened to Harry in the meantime was irrevelant. Umbridge was trying to uphold what she thought of as good. The only difference between Umbridge's actions and Dumbledore's actions are a) we *know* that Dumbledore is right, and b) Dumbledore didn't commit any harm with his own hands. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 10 01:20:57 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:20:57 -0000 Subject: Trusting Snape was Re: my greatest fear.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121552 Carol: He's (IMO) a grown-up teenage boy trying to prove to his surrogate father, DD, that he's right about the "brothers" that his "father" favored over him. ("See, Dad? I was right all along. You shouldn't have trusted them or made Potter Head Boy. I'm the one who's really loyal. I'm the one who's suffered for you." And he has, but so have they.) Potioncat: I snipped what I thought was a fantastic post so that I could respond to the part above. I think Snape behaves in something of a filial way towards DD on several occasions. (Not that I think DD is his father, nor is that what Carol is saying.) It reminds me of the Prodigal Son Parable, but Snape plays both the son who returns (prior to GH) and now as the Son who rejects the younger brother (Snape doesn't want Black in the party) At any rate, I'm feeling much better about Snape's trustworthiness...now watch JKR pull the rug out from under me in Book 7! Potioncat From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 10 01:35:40 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 01:35:40 -0000 Subject: Christian motifs but not Christian allegory? (Was: JKR a Calvinist? Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121553 > Carol, not at all willing to read the book as a religious allegory but > wondering how JKR's version of Christianity can be used to help us > interpret the books Potioncat: I looked. Honest I did. I swear, they've moved it. Somewhere there is a quote from JKR that acknowledges she believes in God (I can find that) that her church has been an important part of her life, (I can find that too) but she goes on to say that if she told us exactly what she believes, it would give the rest of the HP story away. (I can't find that part.) Potioncat who remembers Carol once lamenting that her signing off lines generated more replies than the main point of her post.(But in this case, I think it's pretty close.) ;-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 02:03:38 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 02:03:38 -0000 Subject: Ring of trust (Was: Marietta and the DA). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121554 "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Harry trusts Hermione, right? And Hermione trusts Dumbledore and Dumbledore trusts Snape. So Harry, by your reasoning, "has" to trust > > both Dumbledore and, by extension, Snape. > Eggplant responded: > Three points: > > 1) The ring of trust is not a law of nature, it is just a rule of > thumb you can use if you don't have anything better, like first hand > experience of Snape. > > 2) The longer the chain the less certain I would be of their > honesty. If the chain were very long I would only be comfortable if > there were several independent chains all extolling their honesty. > > 3) Dumbledore is just not a very good judge of character. Yes > Dumbledore trusts Snape but he admits he was wrong about the man at > least once; and it wouldn't be the first time he placed too much > trust in somebody. He must have trusted Quirrell, Lockheart, and the > fake Moody too or he wouldn't have hired them. Carol responds: Thanks for the explanation, though I for one still trust DD's judgment of Snape, in part because he knows him very well--seven years as a student at Hogwarts, about a year as a spy, and fourteen years as a teacher. DD has information about Snape to which neither Harry nor we as readers are privy. And one small correction, if I may. DD didn't hire Fake!Moody. He hired the real Moody, who was Imperio'd and forced to live in his own trunk by the imposter. It's possible that DD began to suspect early on, say with the transfiguration of Draco into a ferret, that something was not quite right, but being the type who believes in innocent until proven guilty, he didn't act until all the evidence was in. Quirrell was hired before he was possessed by Voldemort, who entered his head only after Quirrell failed to obtain the Sorceror's Stone. Quirrell is not wearing the turban when Harry first sees him. It appears that he was teaching at Hogwarts for an unspecified amount of time, then took a sort of sabbatical to get some practical experience (there must have been a substitute for this year), after which he returned to Hogwarts, now indoctrinated as Voldemort's servant and pupil. But again, the innocent unti proven guilty principle applies, and in this case, Snape was suspicious and investigating Quirrell's "loyalties." As for Lockhart, he was certainly a fraud and perhaps DD should have been suspicious of his abilities, but he couldn't have known that Lockhart would attempt a memory charm on two of his students. That incident was entirely unplanned. Carol, wondering who subbed for Quirrell and what happened to him From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 04:15:45 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 04:15:45 -0000 Subject: Christian motifs but not Christian allegory? (Was: JKR a Calvinist? Potterve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121556 I signed off earlier: Carol, not at all willing to read the book as a religious > allegory but wondering how JKR's version of Christianity can be > used to help us interpret the books > > > > Tonks here: > Yes there was a post that was quoting an interview with JKR and she > said something like 'if I told what I believe than the intelligent > reader whether 8 or 80 would know what the books are about.' > > Granger in his book "The Hidden Keys to Harry Potter" says that JKR > is an Inkling like Lewis and Tolkien, and I agree. Lewis said "let > sleeping dragons lie", when talking about the writings being made > for the subconscious mind, and slipping past the ego. And so does > JKR in "never tickle a sleeping dragon". > > It was clear to me from the first book, that there was something > going on in the writing from a Christian perspective. The books are > not allegory. There is a concept in hypnosis that all you have to do > to put a person into a trance (like the one we are all in) is to > cause an internal search. What I mean by that is this: When JKR > writes about a giant delivering a little baby boy on a flying > motorcycle to the Muggle world while the magi (magi=wizard= > Dumbledore and McGonagall) watch on, she is not telling the > Christmas story as we know it, but close enough to cause an internal > search in our mind. Maybe we don't *get it* on a conscious level, > but the part of us that needs to hear does. > > Now my view of what is being taught in the books is somewhat > different from Hans, but both of us see this subconscious connection > and are hoping that the whole world is changed by the message that > is quietly sneaking past the *dragon*. I think that JKR is one of > the greatest gifts we have been given. (One could even say that she > is fulfilling her destiny.) She brings the Christ child alive for > us, but some do not see that yet. And it is OK if they never do, as > long as that deep part of them that needs to hear it does. Carol again: I remember seeing the quote you're talking about and I'm sure we could find it easily enough through a search at the Lexicon. But your approach, though not as allegorical as Hans's, is still a bit less flexible, if you understand my meaning, than what I had in mind. I'm just trying to find out JKR's worldview as a Christian--her views on morality (other than her liberal political perspective, which anyone who reads her interviews can't help but be familiar with), and on the soul and the afterlife, etc. I think, though, that she's using other mythologies (Greek and Celtic/Druidic, maybe others) to shroud her meaning. There's no overt religious teaching in the Potterverse, though there's a secularized Christianity that probably resembles that in Muggle Britain (Father Christmas = Saint Nicholas, mangled Christmas carols, St. Mungo's Hospital, chocolate Easter eggs). I don't interpret Harry as an overt Christ figure (though if he sacrifices himself to save the WW I'll have to rethink that position), but I think the soul, the afterlife, the nature of fate or destiny, the nature of evil (or sin?) all tie in with this worldview I'm trying to discover, going against my own natural instincts by looking outside the text. (Looks over her shoulder for Nora.) We might also consider virtues vs. vices in this context. Is ambition a vice in the Christian view? It isn't one of the Seven Deadly Sins. And what about the "qualities" Del mentioned, resourcefulness and determination? Not traditional Christian cardinal virtues but surely regarded by most Christians, and indeed most people, as desirable traits? Someone asked about the properties of holly, the wood Harry's wand is made of. Surely the Christian symbolism regarding holly (a resurrection symbol, its berries symbolizing the blood of Christ) is as relevant as the Druid death/rebirth symbolism from which it's derived. The association of the holly wood with rebirth or resurrection matches the symbolism of the Phoenix feather core. (Someone had a post on the symbolism of the Phoenix in Catholic tradition; I believe Geoff noted that the tradition has not been carried into Protestantism, which in essence rejects the older pagan elements and during the Reformation, condemned Catholicism for incorporating them. JKR, however, seems to have brought them back in.) Interestingly, yew, the wood from which Voldemort's wand is made, is also associated with death and rebirth and was often planted around English churchyards. but Voldie, we know, isn't interested in anything like the Christian afterlife. He wants earthly immortality. Do the yew and the holly reflect conflicting views of eternal life, one earthly and one spiritual? What I'm trying to get at in this overlong post is that the Christian elements are *there* in the text (along with the mythological elements) and may be closer than, say, Druidism, to what JKR actually believes. I'm not going for an allegorical reading but for what Tolkien calls "applicability," which he says resides in the reader but which I think resides in the relation between the reader and the text. And it doesn't hurt to have just a smidgen of the author's intentions, or at least an awareness of her philosophy, to help us use these elements to produce a valid (but by no means dogmatic) reading of the books. Carol, noting with regard to a different thread that it's impossible to have a "revisionist" reading of a work in progress since the standard reading can't possibly exist yet From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 10 04:39:02 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 04:39:02 -0000 Subject: chapter summary / greatest fear / morality / Hermione / Percy / TMR Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121557 Meri summarized Chapter 35 in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121041 : << in the process two prophecies are broken (one referring to something that will happen at the Solstice and one referring to the last of something). >> I liked the suggestion that 'at the Solstice' (I don't remember if the text specified Summer Solstice) referred to when Book 6 will be released and 'none will come after' meant there won't ever be a Book 7, let alone more spin-off books. << one pair is still battling: Sirius and his cousin Bellatrix. He taunts her and she hits him square in the chest with a curse. [later] What kind of spell do you think she used to take out Sirius? It wasn't Avada Kedavra, so maybe it was something that the Death Eaters only know? >> I thought it was still a matter of hot debate who had fired the curse that killed Sirius. I would prefer it to have been Bellatrix, but there are partisans of Lupin killed him because of being ESE or or because he recognized that Sirius had become a danger to Harry or because Dumbledore had secretly commanded him to do so. It has been proposed that being shot by his best friend was the cause of Sirius's look of astonishment. I hope not: what a horrible last thought on earth! I hope that even if Sirius was killed by a friend, Sirius didn't know it. In addition, what is the evidence that curse that knocked Sirius through the Veil wasn't Avada Kevadra? Its color wasn't stated. I believe we have learned that spells (such as Expelliarmus and Stupefy) usually don't throw the target person about physically, but do when fired with too much energy. Why not the same for AK? << Did you think, before reading the book, that is, that Sirius would be the one to die? >> No, never. I worried very much in the wait for OoP about who would be killed; I worried about Ron and Hermione and Remus and McGonagall and Molly and a whole bunch of people (and finally was persuaded it would be Hagrid, by the soppy ending of the CoS movie) but I never thought *Sirius* would die before a ripe old age! That's very skillful and realistic of JKR to keep it secret from us like that; a friend of mine unexpectedly dropped dead at age 38 about 15 years ago, and everyone's first response was: "Impossible! Roz is the most full of life of anyone I know!" Andorn asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121124 : << What is your "Harry Potter" greatest fear? >> Thanks to your question, we see that many things are both some people's biggest fear and some people's biggest hope. Some examples: Harry dying heroically, Harry losing his magic, Harry living happily ever after, Snape heroically dying to save Harry, Snape (re)turning to the Dark Side, OBHWF... SSSusan wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121159 : << But surely Harry could find an EXCITING non-magic-requiring job, eh?? Um, like, racing cars? Or, well, okay, I'm drawing a blank. But surely one of the more creative types among us can bail me out with a suitable occupation/hobby for our non-magic-but-loves-action Harry?? :-) >> I dunno about in the UK, but in USA, he could spend summers as a wildland firefighter and winters on a backcountry search and rescue team. Or it might pay better to see if the talents that made him good at Quidditch are also helpful to being a professional skateboard competitor. Altho' I personally don't imagine Harry as being *that* fond of action. Salit wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121168 : << or a year or two, at best, he'll be admired and talked about, then everyone will move on but he will get stuck with - what? He has no education to fit him in the non-magical world. >> Education is very much overrated (in terms of employment). I just suggested, off the top of my head, three careers that he could learn fairly quickly as a new adult Muggle, if he has the physical abilities. I doubt JKR thinks that education is the sine qua non of careers -- her education got her a job as a schoolteacher, but her other-than-education made her the third richest woman in Britain. (Is she up to second since the Queen Mum died?) Hans wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/121222 : << how you would FEEL about >> << I think Harry will end up having Hagrid's job. I know this gets very close to what some of you fear, namely that Harry will lose his magic powers. >> I'm not attached to liberation from the material world like you are, so I would rather see Harry serving future seekers in the more socially prestigious role of Headmaster. (Also, Harry would have to have a great increase of physical strength to do some parts of Hagrid's job.) However, if he did lose his magic, he would probably be happier in Hagrid's job than living in the Muggle world. << Snape will sacrifice himself for Harry like the black king in "The Alchemical Wedding". >> I would like for Harry to get himself into a doomed situation by recklessly rushing off with good intentions but no planning, and Snape comes to rescue him at the cost of Snape's own life and Snape tells Harry some wittily snarky things about it, stuff like the most important thing to Snape is vanquishing Voldemort and only Harry can do it, so it is in his interest to help Harry despite how much he hates him, and he considers death quite preferable to continuing to have to associate with Harry. Thus Snape will simultaneously be released from his miserable life, prove himself a hero in a way that will be famous, and triumph over Harry by making sure that Harry feels guilty about it for the rest of his life -- is that called Trifecta? Some poster once speculated that LV made it clear to his Death Eaters that the Dark Mark meant they would die if ever he died (that that is what he meant when he condemned them at the Graveyard for not searching for him, when they KNEW he was still alive -- if he weren't still alive, they would be dead). If so, Snape might have to tell Harry so to make Harry accept being rescued at the cost of Snape's life - to prove to Harry that Snape will die anyway (and to prove to the reader that Snape was making a large and courageous sacrifice by striving for Voldemort's destruction). << Lupin will sacrifice himself for Harry like the grey king in "The Alchemical Wedding". >> I've always wanted Remus to have some happiness in his life before he died, but now that Sirius is dead, that may not be possible -- death might come as a relief. I very much hope that Pippin is wrong about ESE!Lupin. << Voldemort and Wormtail will die together. I'm sure their death won't be violent. Something like vaporising. >> Why would Peter vaporise? Isn't he just a human wizard doing evil, not made inhuman by immortality spells? << I have a gut feeling (no evidence whatsoever) that Harry will help Nearly Headless Nick over the threshold. Possibly other ghosts as well, including Moaning Myrtle(?) >> One of my many big hopes is that Moaning Myrtle will pass to her 'next great adventure'. Moaning Myrtle in particular, because she sure doesn't seem very happy staying here. I like to refer to it by old phrase 'laying the ghost' because sexual innuendo is so involved in Myrtle's condition. Luckdragon wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121251 : << I don't know if he will get them over the threshold, that would really ruin the Hogwarts ghostly patronage >> I don't think it would ruin Hogwarts' supply of ghosts, as new ghosts come along all the time. There must have been someone else who was the Gryffindor House ghost before Sir Nick died in 1492 (or 1592) and replaced him/her. Tonks_op wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121234 : << Maybe DD IS the narrator and only survivor. If so he is leaving a set of books for Muggles to read that will show them how to avoid what happened in the WW. >> I've long had a certain sick fondness for the prediction that the entire wizarding world and everyone in it but Hermione will be destroyed, and Hermione will return to the Muggle world and write about it disguised as a series of fiction books. Vivamus signed off his excellent post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121052 with: << Vivamus, who agrees with Hub McCann that honor, virtue, and courage mean everything; that money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil, and that true love never dies. >> Whether good always triumphs over evil has a lot to do with the definition of 'triumph' (or of 'good' or of 'always'). Did he mean in the Afterlife (Heaven and Hell)? Has true love died (or been re-defined as not 'true') when the lover and the beloved and their descendents for ten generations and their language and their culture and all their artifacts have died and turned to dust and been forgotten by the living long ago? How about when the old couple who were married for seventy years and stood by each othr through thick and thin no longer remember each other (or their children and grandchildren) because of Alzheimer's disease? SSSusan asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121061 : << And what do we think JKR is presenting us in canon? Is she judging her characters on one or more than one of these angles? *Is* she primarily about motives? About end results? Or...? >> Well, if she judged primarily by end results, Harry is currently Evil because he directly caused the death of Sirius. Nora wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/121431 : << have you noticed how the opportunistic and self-interested seem to be at the very, very bottom of the moral slagheap in JKR's world? >> Voldemort is that bottom, and you have argued that Voldemort is sincere. Kethryn wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121432 : << Actually, if you want to talk about where Hermione starts to tread in very dangerous waters, the coins that she made for the DA, in my mind, are the closest I have seen her come yet. And, yet, I can't quite figure out why that bothers me the most out of all that she has done. >> Drugging Crabbe and Goyle with Sleeping Potion was treading in ethically dangerous waters. Whether leading her friends to make Polyjuice Potion with stolen ingredients was worse depends on why the recipe was restricted -- because of other things in the same book, or because it had dangerous risks of if done wrong (like turning oneself inside out, with internal organs on the outside), or because it involved Dark Magic ... Geoff wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121048 : << Percy has got every right to hold his own opinions, but,,,, that does /not/ give him the right to rubbish his father's opinions, to cause great distress to Molly, to attempt to turn Ron against Harry, to be a sycophant when Crouch tries to humiliate both Dumbledore and Harry at the Ministry hearing........ >> I can agree only with your last bullet item. If Percy had sincerely believed in some opinion (e.g. that claiming that LV has returned is a lie for the benefit of a conspiracy to overthrow the elected government and replace it with an unelected worse one) and his father expressed the opposite opinion (e.g. that the elected government should be voted out of office immediately for not admitting that LV has returned), the *most* Percy could do for the sake of politeness is to remain silent. He could not pretend to hold such erroneous beliefs. If they're really serious about the safety of the wizarding world being at stake, they *must* each attempt to persuade the other to join the persuader's opinion. If this disagreement leads to them disliking each other (I try not to discuss politics, because such discussion often leads to me finding out that people whom I had previously liked actually are remarkably evil ie disagree with me), they should not pretend to like each other just to spare Molly's feelings. I'm pretty sure that Molly sided with Arthur and had her own argument with Percy. I believe that Percy was motivated primarily by careerism, but I suppose he must have believed that LV had not returned or was not dangerous, because what good is a good job at the Ministry if LV conquers and kills all Ministry employees (except his moles)? Del wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGr ownups/message/121068 : << Whenever I think of this, I get stuck into a logic trap. If LV never loved, that means he was always evil, which in turn means he was born evil. But JKR said that nobody is born evil. So I'm confused. Can you help me out? >> I suspect that JKR saying that if he had ever loved, he couldn't have done what he did, is not some romantic tosh about if he had ever loved, he couldn't have been a mass murderer. After all, aren't there plenty of genocidaires and professional torturers who love their parents, spouses, and children, and are humane and helpful to even non-relatives who are on the same side? I think she meant that he couldn't have done one of the spells that made him the immortal snake-man no longer human. That one of the requirements of one of the spells is 'a man who has never loved'. In my opinion, TMR was born damaged (rather than evil); I think he was born a sociopath. I don't know if there is some kind of upbringing that would steer a sociopath to being Good, but it seems that the upbringing he had was ideal for strengthening all his Evil inclinations. (Everyone has *some* Evil inclinations.) But JKR may be thinking that he was born a blank slate, but placed immediately in a place where no one loved him even tho' he was just a little baby, where caring for him was just a job some people did for wages. So he didn't learn to love, and he didn't have such a strong internal drive of Love that he discovered it for himself. (*Some* children in his circumstances would have formed friendships with other children, in which the friends helped each other out, as if they had been raised as siblings before being put in the evil orphanage.) But he had other chances. Considering that he was so good at making people like him, there were probably people (adults or children) who offered him love/friendship in the orphanage. We know there were such people at Hogwarts, because Diary!Tom mentioned having 'closest friends'. But he just used those people. One possibility is that he was a sociopath, innately unable to feel or comprehend love (but, with a better upbringing, he could have been ambitious to be Minister of Magic or to be rich or to be a famous Quidditch star rather than to have a name that would be *feared* by all wizards everywhere). That's what I think, but it makes TMR/LV a kind of muddled example of Evil. Another possibility is that he had made a intellectual decision, based on real but limited experience, that love is all a fake and all people are just using each other, that even his friends were just using him. Then we get into all that stuff about the vanity (pride) of trusting one's own intellect, fear of taking a risk, refusing to have faith.... Meri wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/121405 : << I always assumed that the reason [Tom Riddle] was sent to a Muggle orphanage was (snip) because I am assuming that his mother had no family. >> I often wonder if the reason his mother had no family was that they had disowned her. For marrying a Muggle, if he really had married her. Or for getting pregnant by a man who refused to marry her, if all that story about Tom Sr cast off his wife just because he found out that she was a witch was just a cover-up. I find the latter plausible. In which case, TMR blaming his father for anti-magic prejudice might well be erroneous -- perhaps he never did find out that his plaything was not an ordinary Muggle. So if TMR had been told the truth, he could have become a crusader against premarital sex instead of against Muggles. Of course, if I can disbelieve one part of the story Diary!Tom told, I can disbelieve another. I like to think that his mother returned to her parents, admitting they'd been right all along, and they kept their grandson when their daughter died, but baby TMR's uncontrolled magic was powerful and nasty enough that his infant temper tantrums killed his elderly grandparents after they'd had time to tell him of his mother, his father, and his ancestor (Salazar). I gather Angie's original question was why no one found him a wizarding foster home after he turned up at Hogwarts. Maybe no one thought of it -- at that time, did it ever happen in the RL culture that people would adopt an unrelated child whose age was already in double digits? Maybe someone did think of it --- maybe his Slytherin Head of House told Dippet: "We can't allow a wizarding boy to be raised by stupid Muggles" or he made such a good impression on the parents of one of his 'friends' ("I've always been able to charm the people I needed") that they asked Dippet to arrange for them to adopt him. But maybe the Ministry of Magic forbade it, saying that doing something so unusual would attract attention that might be a threat to wizarding secrecy. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 10 04:52:55 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 04:52:55 -0000 Subject: Harry / Inquisitorial Squad / HH-GG-RR-SS/ Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121558 Del asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121270 : << And of course there's still that unanswered question : what is that power that Harry possesses that makes him the Vanquisher? What is it that he has and that nobody else has? >> I think it really ought to be the scar connection with LV. That would make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Angie wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121434 : << I'm sure Harry did well just to get the Dursley's to pay for glasses -- I can't see them springing for Lasic! >> Brits have posted that the Dursleys didn't pay for Harry's glasses, that the round black plastic frames are what the National Health provides. Nora wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121431 : << That subplot, IMO, really torpedoed the idea (prevalent in fanfic and other outre realms) that the Slytherins were oh-so-deeply loyal to Snape. >> Not unless there is an example of the Inquisitorial Squad tattling on Snape to Umbridge -- I don't recall there being one. While I *suppose* that canon!Draco is loyal only to his parents, and canon Draco's clique are loyal only to Draco, canon has not *shown* us that they didn't think they were helping Snape, that Umbridge would give him a very high evaluation for having such useful students in his House. << JKR has told us (per interview, natch) that the DEs go back aways, as the "Knights of Walpurgis" >> But her interview DID NOT say that the Knights of Walpurgis were devoted to racism before Voldemort got a hold of them. Probably they were, but for all WE know they were scholarly researchers into immortality. Tonks_op wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121439 : << HH, SS, GG, RR. put together with the name Hogwarts. >> I have a theory that the Founders built their school on a place named Hogwald, between Hoglake and Hogmount, so Godric (their de facto leader) was planning to name it Hogwald School. But Salazar and Rowena complained that the name contained Godric and Helga's initials but not theirs. So Godric said: Okay, HoGwaRtS, that has all the initials, happy now? I don't think there's any great meaning to the alliteration (wizards like it, JKR likes it, like Severus Snape and Dedalus Diggle and Filius Flitwick and so on) because I assume that those were epithets rather than family names, and the people who gave the nicknames would have liked alliteration, too.. Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121478 : << But don't forget that in JKR world REAL witches were not afraid of those burnings and saved themselves, while who really suffered were muggle folks. >> I think that is one of those false statements put in children's textbooks to get them to have the 'right' attitudes. The tale of Wendelin the Weird and her Flame-Freezing Charm wouldn't have to be literally false to have been an extremely unusual situation, but it would give a false impression to emphasize that unusual rather than the (perhaps far more common) cases in which wizards and witches WERE burnt by Muggles, having been caught without their wands or the Muggles were able to take their wands away from them. That false impression, that Muggles can't harm wizarding folk, would be useful to keep children from questioning the general assumption that Muggles are weak and unable to do very much, thus inferior. Otherwise, smart-ass kids like me might raise their hands to ask: "If Muggles are so weak and helpless, how were they able to kill so many people who had magic?" From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 05:17:16 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:17:16 -0000 Subject: Must Harry Die? - sort of.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121559 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > "...either must die at the hand of the other..." > > True that's simple and straight forward enough, BUT... > > "...for neither can live while the other survives..." > > Is not so simple. The first and most obvious problem is that they are both surviving and both living, but the Prophecy says that can't happen. > > It seems to imply that if one of doesn't die by some independant > means, then both of them are doomed to death; each, meaning both, of them are doomed to death as long as his counterpart continues to > survive. Extended further that opens the possibility for both of them to die. Tonks here: Both LV and Harry survive, but are not fully alive. They are bound together. They are battling each other. Sort of like the state of mankind. Evil is always lurking around the corner. Death is lurking, somewhere, sometime. Harry can not live fully with death/ evil existing. Death/evil can not totally win (thereby live) while Harry continues to exist. Death/evil can not die without Harry dying with LV since they are joined in a way that no one else seems to be. Harry is ying/LV in yang, so to speak. So they both die or they both continue to survive, but not a full life. There is a cursed life for them both. But somehow in whatever was done to Harry by the "ancient magic" and Lily's sacrifice, Harry will, I think, somehow survive death. He will die, LV will die with him and Harry will come back, like I have said before. Even if this is not what happens, LV's end has something to do with what happened at GH that night or even before that night. Perhaps the ancient magic saved Harry and united LV to Harry in such a way that only Harry can kill LV because only Harry can take LV with him when he dies. (In my mind I think of the crucifixion of Christ and the moment when he takes on the sins (evil/death) of the world and then transforms it after his death, so that death can no longer win over mankind.) If the books are somehow symbolic of this, it was Lily that made the sacrifice, and Harry that is living out the rest of that event. This may be far fetched. We will see. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 05:53:11 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:53:11 -0000 Subject: Christian motifs but not Christian allegory? (Was: JKR a Calvinist? Potterve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121560 this post replaces one deleted. only one line was removed. And I didn't know what I was doing. Sorry folks. So think of this one as really the one before Carol's response. Sort of a timeturner event here. ;-p --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Carol, not at all willing to read the book as a religious allegory but wondering how JKR's version of Christianity can be used to help us interpret the books > > Potioncat: > I looked. Honest I did. I swear, they've moved it. Somewhere there is a quote from JKR that acknowledges she believes in God (I can find that) that her church has been an important part of her life, (I can find that too) but she goes on to say that if she told us exactly what she believes, it would give the rest of the HP story > away. (I can't find that part.) > Tonks here: Yes there was a post that was quoting an interview with JKR and she said something like 'if I told what I believe than the intelligent reader whether 8 or 80 would know what the books are about.' Granger in his book "The Hidden Keys to Harry Potter" says that JKR is an Inkling like Lewis and Tolkien, and I agree. Lewis said "let sleeping dragons lie", when talking about the writings being made for the subconscious mind, and slipping past the ego. And so does JKR in "never tickle a sleeping dragon". It was clear to me from the first book, that there was something going on in the writing from a Christian perspective. There is a concept in hypnosis that all you have to do to put a person into a trance (like the one we are all in) is to cause an internal search. What I mean by that is this: When JKR writes about a giant delivering a little baby boy on a flying motorcycle to the Muggle world while the magi (magi=wizard= Dumbledore and McGonagall) watch on, she is not telling the Christmas story as we know it, but close enough to cause an internal search in our mind. Maybe we don't *get it* on a conscious level, but the part of us that needs to hear does. Now my view of what is being taught in the books is somewhat different from Hans, but both of us see this subconscious connection and are hoping that the whole world is changed by the message that is quietly sneaking past the *dragon*. I think that JKR is one of the greatest gifts we have been given. (One could even say that she is fulfilling her destiny.) She brings the Christ child alive for us, but some do not see that yet. And it is OK if they never do, as long as that deep part of them that needs to hear it does. Tonks_op From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 05:56:23 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:56:23 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121561 "delwynmarch" wrote: > OK, could you make up your mind? Is the > situation in OoP similar to an open war > such as WWII, where everyone is supposed > to know they are at war and to react > accordingly? Or is it similar to a cold > war where the war is limited to secret > agents, and the general public blissfully > believe they are at peace? It can't be both Let's see, I mention that even the CIA couldn't find a cure for betrayal during the cold war and you conclude my saying that contradicts what I said earlier about a hot war going on during Order of the Phoenix. Hmm, let me think about that for a second. Oh yes I see it now, you spotted me in a contradiction, it's enormous, titanic, colossal, the contradiction would be clear as a bell even to a blind man, no doubt about it! Yes indeed, in fact it's so obvious so vast so huge so astronomical that I'll bet you won't even insult our intelligence by spelling out exactly why it's a contradiction, but rather you will, as the textbooks say, leave it as an exercise in logic for the reader. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 06:51:52 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 06:51:52 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121562 "Steve" wrote: > [speaking of Marietta] in the end it > all worked out; no harm, no foul. If it wasn't for Marietta Dumbledore would still be headmaster when Harry had his dream and he wouldn't have been tricked into going to the ministry and Sirius would still be alive. > Percy hasn't caused any harm. Lots of > hard feelings, but no realharm. If Percy has done less harm than Umbridge it's because he has less power than Umbridge. It's clear to me that if Percy had his way both Harry and Dumbledore would be in Azkaban. Give him enough power and he'll be as bad as any Death Eater, don't be blinded by the man's last name. > Percy did a bad thing, but that > doesn't make him a bad person. A bad person is someone who does more bad things than good things. Except for about 2 seconds during the second task in GoF where Percy showed some concern for Ron I can't think of anything good Percy ever did in his life, but I can think of lots and lots of bad things. > That leaves room for redemtion and forgiveness. If Percy jumps in front of Harry and takes a bullet for him then I'll admit I was wrong and forgive him, but short of that Harry would be a fool to EVER trust Percy again. > I don't think Hermione intended for the > Centaurs to kill Umbridge. It would not lower my very high opinion of Hermione one bit if she did expect the Centaurs to kill Umbridge, that foul woman deserved to die. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 07:54:34 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 07:54:34 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121563 Harry said Snape's Occlumency lessons weaken his mind to Voldemort's attacks rather than strengthened it, he insisted this was a fact time and again right up to and including the end of book 5. I think Snape was (perhaps unconsciously) sabotaging the lessons because he couldn't stand somebody he hated as much as Harry having something as powerful as Occlumency. I think that's why Snape always made sure Harry was as angry as possible before each lesson even though having a calm mind was essential in learning the subject. When Harry has a teacher that actually wants him to learn (Dumbledore probably) I'll bet he'll pick up Occlumency in one day, maybe less. Eggplant From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 10 08:26:48 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:26:48 -0000 Subject: Blinded Harry WAS (Re: Harry's glasses and vulnerability) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121564 > > Valky: > > I have been thinking a lot about this topic, it's very interesting. > > I went back through my books with it in mind and found something > > curious, each time Harry faces Voldemort there is some reference to blindness nearby. > ------------Snip > > Now I don't know what all this means, but it's all there, black and white, clear as ..... blindness? > > > > Finwitch: > > Well - anyone heard the saying, love is blind, or justice is blind? > Valky: I did have a thought along these lines but it went nowhere special. > Finwitch: > Also, when Harry was fighting the Imperius curse: Look at his *eyes*, you can see it there! I very much doubt he lied about that, but I don't think it's very practical-- you don't usually get close enough to see the eyes.. ;-) > Valky: I beg pardon, but I really don't understand this paragraph at all. Probably because I *still* haven't been returned my copy of GOF (grrr) Could you provide a quote for me so I can refresh my memory on this. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 10 08:50:37 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:50:37 -0000 Subject: Lilly. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121565 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Valky wrote: > > Personally, I believe the revelation about Lily, in Book 7 will be related to the meaning of her green eyes. I think we will discover that they are a sort of divine genetic inheritance. > > Carol responds: > Although I think we'll find out something about the green eyes, I don't think it's the eyes that will prove important. I think it will be Lily's skill with Charms, as suggested by Ollivander's description of her first wand in SS/PS. Valky: I tend to agree with this, there is most certainly a connection between the self taught Animagi and the wand "good for transfiguration" choosing him, IMO. I have always thought this, but largely I've been met with disagreement about that, I guess we're in that boat together, Carol. :D I also believe that it is a good basis for further pstulation that the Charm wand that chose Lily is a clue to something yet to be revealed about her ability. Now just let me add an interesting thought to that bag for us. Clearly, Animagi transformation is not *exactly* transfiguration, don't get me wrong I am definitely one of the crew that is certain it is a related branch of magic, keep reading. Now, since the _surprise!_ reveal of James as an Animagi is something *related* to the clue in his wandtype but *not* explicity _Spelled Out_ by that clue, isn't the logical step then to consider that the _Surprise!_ about Lily will be the same? ie It will be something *related* to Charms but not necessarily or specifically a Charm in the purest sense. Carol: > IMO, the (activated) charm blocked the AK, producing the lightning- > shaped scar, which vaguely resembles the eihwaz rune (defense or > protection). (Why bring that particular rune up in realation to > Hermione's Ancient Runes exam if it isn't going to be important? I > predict that in HBP, hermione will connect the shape of the scar to > the shape of the rune, leading eventually to the deduction that Lily placed a protective charm on Harry. Especially if he mentions the term "ancient magic" and she starts researching the topic.) > > BTW, I know that JKR has said that the shape of the scar isn't the > most important thing about it. That doesn't mean that the shape isn't important at all. > Valky: I agree, the shape of the scar and the eiwahz rune are probably significant, but maybe we /should/ make a list of all the *other* things about the scar that might be the more significant thing JKR speaks of. It may be just what you need to prove the point. ;P From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Jan 10 09:12:14 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:12:14 -0000 Subject: What kind of vegitation is around the Dursley's? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121566 > Julie wrote: > > > Does anyone know, was there ever mention of what plants were around > > the Dursley's house? I know Holly is supposed to protect from > wizards > snip > I was wondering if that might have been one of the > > protections around the Dursley's? > > Meri here: I think there are quotes in many of the books about the > Dursleys having runner beans, flower beds and shrubbery around their > yard. I know they have a greenhouse or a hothouse (because Dudley > once threw his pet tortoise through the roof of it) but wouldn't a > holly tree be kind of a weird thing to find in a British suburb? > And, come to that, would the ultra-Muggle Dursleys allow a magical > tree to be planted in their yard even in the interest of protection? > I always got the impression that the protections surrounding the > Dursley's home were unknown (except perhaps to Petunia), so I don't > think so. > Meri Holly is perfectly normal in the suburb of London in which I live, as it is in much (if not all) of the UK. In fact, if you've got a female, you're quite chuffed as it makes Christmas decorations so much easier. I sincerely doubt that the Dursleys would know that Holly had any magical properties, and doubt that they would investigate. (I didn't). Dungrollin (From the bit of Surrey that is in suburban London, really not far from Little Whinging at all.) From alexpie at aol.com Mon Jan 10 12:59:56 2005 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 07:59:56 EST Subject: Theological Harry--Not! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121567 In a message dated 1/10/05 7:25:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes: > Potioncat: > >I looked. Honest I did. I swear, they've moved it. Somewhere > there is a quote from JKR that acknowledges she believes in God (I > can find that) that her church has been an important part of her > life, (I can find that too) but she goes on to say that if she told > us exactly what she believes, it would give the rest of the HP story > >away. (I can't find that part.) > I believe that what she said was that if you understand Christian theology, you know where the story is going. That says nothing about her personal beliefs; hey, I'm an an atheist but I do know Christian theology, which is why I'm sure we'll be waving bye-bye to Harry in book seven--and I don't mean he'll be going on a day trip to satisfy a craving for Mere Delacour's bouillabaisse. I find "message" books as ponderous and self-important as self-help books; obviously the story to an extent will reflect her value system but message, particularly a religious one? Nope. Don't see it. I see a thumping good story. Barb [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 13:36:01 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:36:01 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121568 Eggplant: > Harry said Snape's Occlumency lessons weaken his mind to Voldemort's > attacks rather than strengthened it, he insisted this was a fact > time and again right up to and including the end of book 5. I think > Snape was (perhaps unconsciously) sabotaging the lessons because he > couldn't stand somebody he hated as much as Harry having something > as powerful as Occlumency. I think that's why Snape always made sure > Harry was as angry as possible before each lesson even though having > a calm mind was essential in learning the subject. When Harry has a > teacher that actually wants him to learn (Dumbledore probably) I'll > bet he'll pick up Occlumency in one day, maybe less. Finwitch: I agree. Not only during lessons, but afterwards as well. The time when Harry *did* remember to 'clear his mind of all emotion', and tried to do so, he instead found himself focusing on how much he lothed the pair of them (Umbridge and Snape). AND he was tired. Poor Harry. It's like - well, telling a child to learn by reading a book without teaching how to read first... I think that while Umbridge more openly preventing the children from learning (by authority, and very non-learning class) - well, Snape's doing practically the same (particularly in Neville's case) but using emotional manipulation instead. (and he probably doesn't realise it himself). Hm-mm. I wonder what the next DADA teacher will be like? Finwitch From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Mon Jan 10 14:11:21 2005 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:11:21 -0000 Subject: Greatest Fear/greatest Hope In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121569 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: >> I will be the first one to say that Slytherins need help, but untill they get rid of "purebloods are better than everybody else mindset", > they do NOT deserve ANY recognition in Hogwarts. > > Just my opinion, > > Alla Miz Storge replies: We are in agreement! My hope is that the Slytherins in school realize that 'pureblood philosophy' is outdated and that to survive they must repudiate it. Actually, I hope Hermione and the other Muggle-borns bring this about by saving the Slytherins in some manner, and Slytherin House will have to grudgingly acknowledge the equality of all Wizards/Witches. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 10 14:35:44 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:35:44 -0000 Subject: Just Desserts for Remus WAS ( Re: chapter summary / greatest fear / morality / In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121570 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: Hans wrote: > << Lupin will sacrifice himself for Harry like the grey king in "The Alchemical Wedding". >> > Catlady: > I've always wanted Remus to have some happiness in his life before he died, but now that Sirius is dead, that may not be possible -- death might come as a relief. I very much hope that Pippin is wrong about ESE!Lupin. > Valky: One of my favourite things about the Hans' postulation that Remus is the Grey King is that The Grey King has a young vibrant wife, symbolic of the joy that goes with the Grey King state in Alchemy. Personally I can't imagine anything more appropriate for Remus than to have someone young and joyful and full of life by his side, he deserves it. I don't believe ESE!Lupin one bit, but I totally respect the excellent work Pippin has put into the theory. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Jan 10 14:45:06 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:45:06 -0000 Subject: Lilly. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121571 > Carol: > > IMO, the (activated) charm blocked the AK, producing the lightning- > > shaped scar, which vaguely resembles the eihwaz rune (defense or > > protection). (Why bring that particular rune up in realation to > > Hermione's Ancient Runes exam if it isn't going to be important? I > > predict that in HBP, hermione will connect the shape of the scar to > > the shape of the rune, leading eventually to the deduction that > Lily placed a protective charm on Harry. Especially if he mentions > the term "ancient magic" and she starts researching the topic.) > > > > BTW, I know that JKR has said that the shape of the scar isn't the > > most important thing about it. That doesn't mean that the shape > isn't important at all. > > > > Valky: > I agree, the shape of the scar and the eiwahz rune are probably > significant, but maybe we /should/ make a list of all the *other* > things about the scar that might be the more significant thing JKR > speaks of. It may be just what you need to prove the point. ;P I agree that the shape of the scar is important. The simple act of Lily's sacrifice protecting Harry is not enough. It was Lily's knowledge of this 'ancient form of magic' and her power as a witch in producing the necessary accompanying charm that protected Harry. However, I still believe that the most important thing about the scar is that it forms a psychological link between Harry and Voldemort. As I've stated before, the only reason DD would expose Harry to Voldemort so regularly was if he knew that eventually Harry would have to face Voldemort alone (without DDs help). Could this be an eventual battle of minds? I think the answer to this lies in the prophecy (which we have definitely not heard the full version of!). Brothergib From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Mon Jan 10 14:46:26 2005 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:46:26 -0000 Subject: What kind of vegetation is around the Dursley's? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121572 Julie wrote: <> Phyllis responds: We know there's a hedge, because Harry saw Dobby looking out at him from a hedge in CoS. According to the Lexicon, "The word 'privet' is a kind of shrub, used to create hedges in suburban neighborhoods." See: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/ss/rg- ss1.html . To me, naming "Privet Drive" after a privet hedge could either symbolize the protection Harry has at #4 or the trapped feeling he has there. However, I think Dumbledore makes it clear in OotP that it's the blood bond that keeps Harry protected there, not any sort of plant life. Julie again: <> Phyllis again: There have been a lot of discussions in the past about the significance of the woods used in the various characters' wands (for example, Voldemort has a yew wand, and yew is connected with death - check out the many references to yew trees in the graveyard scene in GoF), but I'm not sure if Yahoomort's limited search function could dig those up for us. IMO, the holly in Harry's wand is a symbol of his being a Christ-figure (due to holly's connection with Christmas, the use of which for decorative purposes is not limited to females, IMO ;-). ~Phyllis From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 10 14:46:37 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:46:37 -0000 Subject: Christian motifs but not Christian allegory? (Was: JKR a Calvinist? Potterve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121573 > > Potioncat: > I looked. Honest I did. I swear, they've moved it. Somewhere there is a quote from JKR that acknowledges she believes in God (I can find that) that her church has been an important part of her life, (I can find that too) but she goes on to say that if she told us exactly what she believes, it would give the rest of the HP story away. (I can't find that part.) > Pippin: The quote you are looking for comes from the Vancouver Sun interview by Max Wyman of Oct 26,2000. ------- Harry, of course, is able to battle supernatural evil with supernatural forces of his own, and Rowling is quite clear that she doesn't personally believe in that kind of magic -- ``not at all.'' Is she a Christian? ``Yes, I am,'' she says. ``Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books.'' -------- It sounds as if the Christian angle will be blindingly obvious when all's said and done. From other comments she has made, I also think she is aiming for applicability not allegory. The article itself is online on a pay-per-view basis. http://www.infomart.ca/ Pippin From inkling108 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 15:03:56 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:03:56 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121574 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > Harry said Snape's Occlumency lessons weaken his mind to Voldemort's > attacks rather than strengthened it, he insisted this was a fact > time and again right up to and including the end of book 5. I think > Snape was (perhaps unconsciously) sabotaging the lessons because he > couldn't stand somebody he hated as much as Harry having something > as powerful as Occlumency. I think that's why Snape always made sure > Harry was as angry as possible before each lesson even though having > a calm mind was essential in learning the subject. When Harry has a > teacher that actually wants him to learn (Dumbledore probably) I'll > bet he'll pick up Occlumency in one day, maybe less. Inkling chimes in: The more I think about it the more I conclude that Snape was actually serving LV during these lessons. He opened up Harry's mind so much that LV was able to penetrate his mind during the first lesson (Harry hears "a voice coming out of him" simultaneously with his scar hurting). A few hours later, LV was able to penetrate Harry's mind for the first time while Harry was still awake, in such a powerful way that "He did not know where he was, whether he was standing or lying down, he did not even know his own name." I recently read a essay in Galadriel Waters' latest book, The Plot Thickens, by a German fan with the screen name Stic. The essay is called Voldemort's Pawns and it that contends that what made LV the happiest he had been in fourteen years that night of the first lesson was not the Death Eaters release, but that Snape reported he was working on opening Harry Potter's mind. This makes sense to me. After all, what has been LV's raging obsession for fourteen years? Not the Death Eaters. My speculation is that it might have gone something like this -- Voldemort decides to test the results of Snapes lesson, finds he has unprecendented and powerful access, and is overjoyed. Cause and effect, and not, as Harry supposed, just tuning in to something that was going on independent of him. Notice how cleverly JKR raises the possibility of Snape deliberately opening Harry's mind. She hides it in plain sight by mentioning it in such a way that it is immediately overlooked. First she has Ron argue the point and Hermione do the Oh-Ron-you're-always-wrong-about- Snape thing. Then Harry himself tells Dumbledore after the battle at the MoM, but he includes it in a rush of complaints about Snape, finishing with the fact that Snape stopped giving him lessons. "I am aware of it," replies Dumbledore to the complaint about the lessons ending, and then remarks that he should have known better than to suppose Snape could overcome his feelings about James. We're left uncertain as to whether the bit about Snape opening Harry's mind registered with DD in the emotions of the moment. Certainly he does not respond to it. Should DD give Harry occlumency lessons in HBP, he may actually give Harry a method for closing his mind, something Snape did not provide. If he learns that Snape never properly taught Harry how to close his mind, will he begin to be uneasy about his trusted spy? (Obviously this assumes that there is, in fact, a method for occlumency, but it makes sense that there would be -- contrast Lupin's patronus lessons with Snape's vaugue "close your mind" instructions) Finally there's JKR's constant reminders that we shouldn't think Snape is too nice, and the hints at a redemption in Book 7. Who needs redemption? Only one who has sinned. Inkling (who loves Snape, has very reluctantly come to these suspicions, and would love to be argued out of them) From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Mon Jan 10 15:06:09 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:06:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: chapter summary / greatest fear / morality / Hermione / Percy / TMR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501101006896.SM01068@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 121575 In Catlady's wonderful collection of comments: > Vivamus signed off his excellent post > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121052 with: > > << Vivamus, who agrees with Hub McCann that honor, virtue, > and courage mean everything; that money and power mean > nothing; that good always triumphs over evil, and that true > love never dies. >> > > Whether good always triumphs over evil has a lot to do with > the definition of 'triumph' (or of 'good' or of 'always'). > Did he mean in the Afterlife (Heaven and Hell)? > > Has true love died (or been re-defined as not 'true') when > the lover and the beloved and their descendents for ten > generations and their language and their culture and all > their artifacts have died and turned to dust and been > forgotten by the living long ago? How about when the old > couple who were married for seventy years and stood by each > othr through thick and thin no longer remember each other (or > their children and grandchildren) because of Alzheimer's disease? Vivamus: That was a quote from the recent, outstanding movie, "Secondhand Lions". The character also says about those things that it doesn't matter whether they are true or not; a man (much of the movie is about understanding manhood from a boy's perspective) believes them because they are worth believing. Without going too far OT on this, I think the implication was that those are beliefs that are worth holding onto, despite evidence to the contrary that we might see every day of our lives, because believing them is PART of what gives us the strength hold the line against evil and finally triumph in a hopeless cause. The cases you mention are good examples that seem to defeat the logic of those statements. If, however, you have lived with the terrible pain of having a loved one with Alzheimer's, you (hopefully) know that believing that love lasts forever is sometimes the *only* thing that will get you through the day. I disagree with the character that it doesn't matter whether those things are true or not, but I think that those core beliefs manifestly are the basis for a society desirable to live in. One might even argue that they are necessary beliefs for a satisfied life, but that would be WAY off-topic. Getting back to Potterverse, it would be interesting to look to the characters in the books so far, and see if clinging to foolish, desperate hope is more a cause of victory (as in Harry going into the CoS, where he *knows* there is a basilisk, to look for Ginny), or defeat (as when he goes to the DoM in OOtP.) (Actually, I guess the DoM has to be considered a victory, doesn't it? Even with Harry's foolishness and the loss of Sirius. LV was revealed at last, the prophecy is finally beyond LV's grasp, and that whole group of DEs were arrested.) More specifically, does JKR's writing imply that clinging to "foolish" hopes empowers the characters in a good way, or does success come more as a result of more "rational" thinking that suppresses impossible hopes? Anyone want to take a swing at that? Vivamus From ginamiller at jis.nashville.org Mon Jan 10 15:10:38 2005 From: ginamiller at jis.nashville.org (Miller, Gina (JIS)) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:10:38 -0600 Subject: RE Lilly's eyes Harry's glasses Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121576 Sorry if I am wrong, but I believe Angie gave me the idea of looking directly into Harry's eyes..... Do any of you remember the cartoon movie "The Last Unicorn"? The way you could tell she was a unicorn was the reflection you could see in her eyes. Hasn't JKR said it is not the shape of Harry's scar that is important? And there are reflections all in the POA movie that people have brought up as windows to future things which I realize is getting into movie talk, but I wonder what was so special about Lilly's eyes that Harry has. I think the biggest questions are why Tom Riddle's name sounds so familiar to Harry and why DD asked Harry and TR the same question, "is there something you wish to tell me" My mother is stuck on the idea that Tom Riddle and Harry are the same person. I do not agree, but she makes some good points. Gina A. Miller GinaMiller at jis.nashville.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stbjohn2 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 15:18:20 2005 From: stbjohn2 at yahoo.com (stbjohn2) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:18:20 -0000 Subject: Theological Harry--Not! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121577 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, alexpie at a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/10/05 7:25:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, > HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes: > > > Potioncat: > > >I looked. Honest I did. I swear, they've moved it. Somewhere > > there is a quote from JKR that acknowledges she believes in God (I > > can find that) that her church has been an important part of her > > life, (I can find that too) but she goes on to say that if she told > > us exactly what she believes, it would give the rest of the HP story > > >away. (I can't find that part.) > > > Sandy: This is usually the quote people have in mind when they bring that up. (this is taken from an article from a publicaion called "BC Christian News" While in B.C. for the Vancouver International Writers and Readers Festival last month, (oct 2000) Rowling hinted at a possible connection between her faith and the upcoming books. In an interview with Max Wyman of The Vancouver Sun, she said: "Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do; but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me -- because if I talk too freely about that, I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books." > > From pegruppel at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 15:35:01 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:35:01 -0000 Subject: What was LV up to *before* that night in GH? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "littleleahstill" wrote: > If VM's soul is lodged in a token somewhere, then I rather hope that > token is stored in a vault in Gringotts, bringing a nicely circular > ending to the septology ( and I can't believe there isn't more to say > about Gringotts). > > A rather gruesome token occurs to me. Crouch Snr was transfigured > into a bone, and Riddle Snr's bone was used in VM's potion. Could VM > have stored his soul in his mother's bone? > > Leah Peg: Interesting points! I hadn't really worked on the "where" and "what" very hard, yet. My first thoughts on the token's location were the Riddle house or the Chamber of Secrets. Gringotts is a *great* idea--only Quirrel seems to have been able to break in, and that was with LV's help. The idea of LV using his mother's bones as a token is very interesting--we know so little about her (on purpose, I believe. Jo is sneaky). My first ideas were a snake-shaped object or a live snake. Frazer discusses the "bush soul" concept, so it's possible that a live animal could be the repository (Come, Nagini! Good snake. Ahem.). It would certainly make it possible for Harry to gain some control over such a beastie when he needs to, although he seems to forget his Parseltongue abilities under stress. Lots of possibilities for both where and what. I'd love to see more ideas about this! Peg From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 16:12:24 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:12:24 -0000 Subject: Harry / Inquisitorial Squad / HH-GG-RR-SS/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121579 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: *combined answers* > Nora wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121431 : << have you noticed how the opportunistic and self-interested seem to be at the very, very bottom of the moral slagheap in JKR's world? >> > Voldemort is that bottom, and you have argued that Voldemort is > sincere. Ummm, yes? I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this comment. I was thinking of Voldemort as the epitome of self- interest, Peter as another model of self-preservation, and the Slytherin claque as being on their way there. They care for their own power and ability to dominate the other students more than for the school as a whole or treating other people decently. > Nora wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121431 : > > << That subplot, IMO, really torpedoed the idea (prevalent in fanfic > and other outre realms) that the Slytherins were oh-so-deeply loyal > to Snape. >> > > Not unless there is an example of the Inquisitorial Squad tattling > on Snape to Umbridge -- I don't recall there being one. While I > *suppose* that canon!Draco is loyal only to his parents, and canon > Draco's clique are loyal only to Draco, canon has not *shown* us > that they didn't think they were helping Snape, that Umbridge would > give him a very high evaluation for having such useful students in > his House. I was arguing more on the lines that I think it's generally fairly easy for students to pick up on how their teachers think of administrators, and that Snape is not exactly covert in his scorn and dismissal of Umbridge. This scorn may come through most clearly post- formation of the Inquisitorial Squad, but I do think it matters that that Slytherin claque is willing to be the toadies of Umbridge even when their Head of House is not a fan of her. > << JKR has told us (per interview, natch) that the DEs go back > aways, as the "Knights of Walpurgis" >> > > But her interview DID NOT say that the Knights of Walpurgis were > devoted to racism before Voldemort got a hold of them. Probably they > were, but for all WE know they were scholarly researchers into > immortality. She didn't, but the way it is phrased, and the comments she has made about the Death Eaters and their philosophies seems to incline more towards the "There has always been an anti-Muggleborn pro-purity of blood faction in the WW, in some way/shape/form". Given the German name, is this our hidden connection to the ever-enigmatic and utterly unknown figure of Grindelwald, another Dark wizard? Whatever they were, it was, ummm, likely not benign, especially with those connotations of militarism. I'd bet on them being more like that rather than the researchers/Gnostics/whatever that I have seen them argued for as. That is a possibility, given Voldemort's desire for immortality, and I can't rule out that what we have is a Voldemort-driven corruption of an organization. Against that is the presentation of how deep and long-running ideas of blood purity are in the WW. I still think it's one of The Big Issues, as the plot of an entire book revolves around it--we're just not quite sure how to read it yet. -Nora notes that's not even to mention that the title of the next book has some reference to it, to boot From ExSlytherin at aol.com Mon Jan 10 16:21:05 2005 From: ExSlytherin at aol.com (Amanda) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:21:05 -0000 Subject: How visable was Voldemort during the First War? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121580 Hello all, I haven't posted in ages and I've missed you all. I've been haveing an interesting disussion (and roleplay) on another site about Voldemort and the First War and I'd be very interested in you opinions on this. The question is this: Just how open and visible was Voldemort was during the first war? We know there was a war waging. Everyone in the WW had to know what was going on; this Dark Wizard, Lord Voldemort is moving into position to take over. So lines had been drawn, sides taken, allegiances made. Dumbledore has, or is in the process of, setting up the Order. Surley at some point Voldemort would have to step out into the open? Even the leader of a terrorist group has to speak out. Take Bin Laden as an example. Although, thinking about it now, one really knew who led the IRA, and they were very organized and effective. So has Voldemort declared himself openly yet? Or is he still issuing orders from some cave in Albania? And if he is why? Why not walk into the Ministy and declare himself? He not so stupid as to have the terror that has been waged in his name be traced back to him. No one could prove Arafat had anything to do with the terror campaigns in Israel. Do any of you think there is chance that Voldemort may have had some kind of legitimate position within the WW before and during the first war? I think it's one way he could have gathered the support and power he did, and was able to systematically begin to wipe out the Ministry sanctioned Order of the Phoenix. A huge feat he almost accomplished. Lying in bed last night I kept thinking about the analogy between Nazi Germany before the WWII (not much fun at 3am ;-)) and how Hitler was an elected member if government before he declared himself dictator. Although, I know HP is a different set of circumstances, and Voldemort was not a member of the Ministry. Could he could have been something, a member of the Wizengamot perhaps, or a power player like Lucius Malfoy is in Harry Potter??s time? I suppose my question is was Voldemort an underground terrorist working to subvert the Ministry of Magic? And if he so, was the Ministry openly or secretly opposing him? (If secretly, was that what the Order was set up for?) Or was Voldemort a legitimate member of the WW, albeit one with extreme opinions, working to subvert the Ministry? Thanks and cheers, Mandy From Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 14:17:45 2005 From: Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com (Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:17:45 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121581 wrote: > > Harry said Snape's Occlumency lessons weaken his mind to Voldemort's > attacks rather than strengthened it, he insisted this was a fact > time and again right up to and including the end of book 5. I think > Snape was (perhaps unconsciously) sabotaging the lessons because he > couldn't stand somebody he hated as much as Harry having something > as powerful as Occlumency. > I am not sure, it seems like it could be Snape was trying to mess up the lessons. But didn't Harry at the next to last lesson start to get it. Since he did break the control of the Legilimens, and actually broke into Snape's mind. To me I don't think its a skill you could pick up in a few lessons, and being that Snape seems like a hard teacher who has no patience for mistakes. It would seem Harry actually learned quickly...at least in my opinion. Maybe Snape was underestimating Harry and didn't really give him all the information he actually needed. Since at the begining he told Harry he basicly broke the rule of Ligilimens anway because of Harry's connection to LV. So even if he learned Occlumency the way Snape taught it...was that still going to actually help? Just a though. -KarentheUnicorn- From jonkc at att.net Mon Jan 10 15:45:22 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (johnkclark) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:45:22 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121582 "inkling108" wrote: > The more I think about it the more I > conclude that Snape was actually > serving LV during these lessons. I don't think Snape works for Voldemort, but I don't think he's on Harry's side either; after all the world is not divided between good people and Death Eaters. Some very bad people are not Death Eaters. By the way Inkling, your post was the most intelligent analysis of the books that I've read in a long time. Eggplant From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 16:37:00 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 08:37:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050110163700.27417.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121583 --- eggplant9998 wrote: > > Harry said Snape's Occlumency lessons weaken his > mind to Voldemort's attacks rather than strengthened it, he insisted this was a fact time and again right up to and including the end of book 5. I think Snape was (perhaps unconsciously) sabotaging the lessons because he couldn't stand somebody he hated as much as Harry having something as powerful as Occlumency. I think that's why Snape always made sure Harry was as angry as possible before each lesson even though having a calm mind was essential in learning the subject. When Harry has a teacher that actually wants him to learn (Dumbledore probably) I'll bet he'll pick up Occlumency in one day, maybe less. Juli now: I can't agree with you eggplant. I believe that Severus was making Harry angry before the beginning of each lesson because Voldemort would make him even much angrier if they encounter. Severus may hate James but he didn't kill him, no matter how much Harry hates him, he hates Voldemort even more. It was just a way of teaching him how to control his emotions, Harry just didn't want to learn, he wanted to see what was at the DoM. Dumbledore did tell Harry why he couldn't teach him occlumency and AFAWK noother teacher at Hogwarts knows how to so really Snape was the only choice. Juli From inkling108 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 17:10:44 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:10:44 -0000 Subject: (A correction) Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121584 Correction, with apologies, In my previous post I made a mistake about Dumbledore's response to Harry when he accuses Snape of opening his mind to LV. I said Dumbledore did not respond. (that will teach me to write based on memory!) In fact, upon rereading, it's clear that Dumbledore did respond to that particular accusation with the words "I trust Severus Snape." Needless to say this is not an explanation from DD, but it is at least a response. The general point that he immediately deflects attention from the issue by focusing on Snape's anger at James still applies, however. Sorry for the goof, Inkling From inkling108 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 18:28:01 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:28:01 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121585 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "johnkclark" (Egglant)wrote: > > I don't think Snape works for Voldemort, but I don't think he's on > Harry's side either; after all the world is not divided between good > people and Death Eaters. Some very bad people are not Death Eaters. > By the way Inkling, your post was the most intelligent analysis of > the books that I've read in a long time. Inkling now: (blush)Thanks...When you say he's not working for LV or Harry, do you mean he is playing both sides against the middle? If so, to what end? Snape is not in a position that allows him to be neutral. He is, however, in a position to manipulate one or both sides for his own reasons. He surely is aware of the tremendous consequences of his actions. Here's another worrisome incident during the occulmency lessons: During the second lesson, just before Harry does the Protego charm that reverses the legilimens spell onto Snape, he is able to see Snape for the first time while under the legilimens spell and notices that Snape is muttering under his breath while fixing his eyes on Harry's face. Now, whats up with that? I thought you did the incantation Legilimens, and then observed the contents of the target's mind, drawing whatever conclusions you could. Instead it seems that Snape is going further and actually muttering incantations while he is inside Harry's mind. What is he doing? And -- there was a long thread on this subject here a little while ago -- Just before the battle at the Ministry at the end of the book, it would seem that Snape was the only one is a position to inform both sides of the fact that the kids had in fact left for the ministry, and when they left (I'm sure, as a Death Eater he can see Thestrals -- he may well have seen them take off, and could calculate when they'd arrive). Somehow, the Death Eaters got there long before the Order members, with more than enough time to overcome the kids and get the prophecy, had they been more competent. The Death Eaters seemed to know just when the kids would arrive. This is information that Kreacher could not have provided. And I don't think LV's mindreading of Harry is that advanced or that precise. So how did they know? Inkling From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 10 18:39:54 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:39:54 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121586 Inkling wrote > snip > Finally there's JKR's constant reminders that we shouldn't think > Snape is too nice, and the hints at a redemption in Book 7. Who > needs redemption? Only one who has sinned. > > Inkling (who loves Snape, has very reluctantly come to these > suspicions, and would love to be argued out of them) Potioncat: Well, that's two of us. I found evidence in PoA and you're finding it in OoP. I'll direct you to this link to the most recent post convincing me of Snape's trustworthiness. There were seveal others as well if you go upthread. Of course, I think they all had to do with PoA. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121545 SIGH [Snape is good.(hopefully)] Potioncat From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Jan 10 19:42:43 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:42:43 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121587 Inkling wrote: > Here's another worrisome incident during the occulmency lessons: > > During the second lesson, just before Harry does the Protego charm > that reverses the legilimens spell onto Snape, he is able to see > Snape for the first time while under the legilimens spell and > notices that Snape is muttering under his breath while fixing his > eyes on Harry's face. Now, whats up with that? I thought you did > the incantation Legilimens, and then observed the contents of the > target's mind, drawing whatever conclusions you could. Instead it > seems that Snape is going further and actually muttering > incantations while he is inside Harry's mind. What is he doing? > Dungrollin: Yeah, well, we all think different things about Occlumency and Legilimency, don't we? There's no evidence to suggest that you only have to say "Legilimens" once, as this is the only time we ever see what Snape's doing while Harry's under. It's a good point though. You might have to keep repeating "Legilimens... Legilimens... Legilimens... Oh for God's sake Potter, *try*! ... Legilimens..." Inkling: > And -- there was a long thread on this subject here a little while > ago -- Just before the battle at the Ministry at the end of the > book, it would seem that Snape was the only one is a position to > inform both sides of the fact that the kids had in fact left for > the ministry, and when they left (I'm sure, as a Death Eater he > can see Thestrals -- he may well have seen them take off, and > could calculate when they'd arrive). Dungrollin: Yes, he can see Thestrals, JKR has confirmed that, but he'd have had to have been looking out of a window in the right direction at exactly the right time to see them take off. And doesn't he inhabit the dungeons? Are there any windows? Inkling: Somehow, the Death Eaters > got there long before the Order members, with more than enough > time to overcome the kids and get the prophecy, had they been more > competent. > > The Death Eaters seemed to know just when the kids would arrive. > This is information that Kreacher could not have provided. And I > don't think LV's mindreading of Harry is that advanced or that > precise. So how did they know? Dungrollin: They didn't know. Voldy baited the trap with the vision of Sirius, then they waited. (Evil henchmen always get the tedious jobs.) Of course they were there before the Order members, they were the ones who knew (or hoped) that Harry would come to the DoM. The Order members were scrambled at short notice by Snape. If Snape were *really* working for LV, why alert the Order at all? Voldy gets the prophecy, the DEs capture and/or kill Harry and the others, Snape gets to leave the job he hates teaching those awful kids and goes back to Voldy (who, with Harry's death, cannot be vanquished) to live happily ever after. Chapter thirty-five: Beyond the Veil "Black shapes were emerging out of thin air all around them, blocking their way left and right; eyes glinted through slits in hoods, a dozen lit wandtips were pointing directly at their hearts; Ginny gave a gasp of horror." An interesting question is what was happening there. There's no cracking noise remeniscent of apparation, but similarly you'd expect both Harry and the narrator to recognise invisibility cloaks, so it's unlikely that the DEs were hidden under them waiting. However, back in PS (The Mirror of Erised), DD says "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." I'd guess that they were hidden and waiting using the same method. Dungrollin From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 10 19:44:34 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:44:34 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Harry (7) Message-ID: <20050110194434.33925.qmail@web25102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121588 The fourth trial is a giant game of chess with pieces that whack each other quite vigorously when they win a move. The children have to take the places of some of the pieces and play a winning game to get to the other side and continue their quest. This game reminds us of the chess game played in "The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross" on the seventh day. Christian Rosycross tells us that the game he saw represented virtue against vice. We should see the chess game in Harry Potter in the same light. Notice, too, that it is Ron who directs the game. In other words, it's the old earthly personality that has the important role to play here. What Harry Potter is telling us here is that the earthly personality needs to have a very good sense of what's vice and what's virtue. He must have a very strong faculty of distinction between right and wrong. At the end of the game, Ron sacrifices himself to the queen so that Harry can checkmate the king. The earthly personality has to sacrifice himself so that the new soul can go on its glorious triumphal march back to its Fatherland. This is the meaning of the words, "He who is willing to give up his life for my sake shall find it." In the New Testament this is represented by the beheading of John and the entry of Jesus on to the centre of the stage. Fortunately Ron doesn't die at this stage but is merely knocked unconscious by the queen. Thank goodness. The fifth trial is a gigantic troll which is guarding the passage. However the three children have already passed this test in an earlier venture and so they don't have to do it again. The troll is already lying there unconscious. Once again it was actually Ron who defeated the troll. He cast a spell which lifted the giant's club and smashed it down on its skull. We can learn from this that the earthly personality has to learn to control the tendencies and passions of his lower nature. Ron to his surprise finds that he is capable of greater things than he knew. Hans ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 20:42:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:42:16 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121589 Inkling chimes in: The more I think about it the more I conclude that Snape was actually serving LV during these lessons. He opened up Harry's mind so much that LV was able to penetrate his mind during the first lesson (Harry hears "a voice coming out of him" simultaneously with his scar hurting). A few hours later, LV was able to penetrate Harry's mind for the first time while Harry was still awake, in such a powerful way that "He did not know where he was, whether he was standing or lying down, he did not even know his own name." snip Finally there's JKR's constant reminders that we shouldn't think Snape is too nice, and the hints at a redemption in Book 7. Who needs redemption? Only one who has sinned. Potioncat: Well, that's two of us. I found evidence in PoA and you're finding it in OoP. I'll direct you to this link to the most recent post convincing me of Snape's trustworthiness. There were seveal others as well if you go upthread. Of course, I think they all had to do with PoA. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121545 SIGH [Snape is good.(hopefully)] Potioncat Alla: I don't know, Potioncat. If I cannot really condemn Snape based on PoA, I find it MUCH harder NOT to do so based on OOP. I completely agree with Inkling that the fact that Harry felt worse after the lessons MAY mean very unplesant things and so far I can find nothing which would mitigate the said circumstance. Don't get me wrong, I HOPE that it means something different. It is possible that for example you are SUPPOSED to feel weaker after Occlumency, BUT why exactly Snape did not TELL Harry about that then? You know, giving him some kind of claming draught to relax or something like that, something to ease his pain. I actually hope that he was not serving LV at the moment and was just being Snape and took an extra opportunity to inflict pain on Harry, not only emotional, but also physical. Just my opinion, Alla From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 20:42:51 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:42:51 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121590 > Inkling chimed in: > > I recently read a essay in Galadriel Waters' latest book, The Plot > Thickens, by a German fan with the screen name Stic. The essay is > called Voldemort's Pawns and it that contends that what made LV the > happiest he had been in fourteen years that night of the first > lesson was not the Death Eaters release, but that Snape reported he > was working on opening Harry Potter's mind. This makes sense to > me. After all, what has been LV's raging obsession for fourteen > years? Not the Death Eaters. > Neri: An interesting speculation, but it sounds a bit foolish even for Voldy. If he wanted to test if the way was open, couldn't he do it more covertly, and control his emotions a bit? Especially if Snape was indeed his agent and he didn't want to cast any suspicion on him. > Inkling: > Notice how cleverly JKR raises the possibility of Snape deliberately > opening Harry's mind. She hides it in plain sight by mentioning it > in such a way that it is immediately overlooked. First she has Ron > argue the point and Hermione do the Oh-Ron-you're-always-wrong- about- > Snape thing. Then Harry himself tells Dumbledore after the battle > at the MoM, but he includes it in a rush of complaints about Snape, > finishing with the fact that Snape stopped giving him lessons. "I > am aware of it," replies Dumbledore to the complaint about the > lessons ending, and then remarks that he should have known better > than to suppose Snape could overcome his feelings about James. > We're left uncertain as to whether the bit about Snape opening > Harry's mind registered with DD in the emotions of the moment. > Certainly he does not respond to it. Neri: Immediately before the sentence you quoted, DD says: "I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have been more dangerous than to open your mind even further to Voldemort while in my presence - " This implies that, had DD himself taught Harry occlumency, he also would have "opened Harry's mind even further to Voldemort". It seems that this is an unavoidable part of occlumency for beginners. So I agree with Lupinlore (in a post several days ago): Snape's mistake here was that he did not warn Harry in advance (nor even after the fact) of this danger. Either he didn't know, or (more likely) he was too resentful to care. The obvious result was that Harry had lost what was left of his trust in Snape. This was a bad result for Snape whether he was acting on DD's side or on LV's side. So I tend to think that Snape was guided here by his emotions rather than by careful planning. This is of course rather ironic considering his lecture to Harry about subtlety and controlling emotions. > > Inkling (who loves Snape, has very reluctantly come to these > suspicions, and would love to be argued out of them) Neri: I'm not sure I was helpful ;-) From trekkie at stofanet.dk Mon Jan 10 20:16:11 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:16:11 +0100 Subject: Snape's wand? References: Message-ID: <000601c4f751$3a549590$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 121591 As it apparently relates to your birthday, which sort of wood your wand would be made of, and we now know Snape's birthday, what would his wand be made of then? I can't remember ever reading about it. ~Trekkie From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Jan 10 21:08:55 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:08:55 -0000 Subject: Why the shortest stay? (was: The opening chapter of book six) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121592 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "antoshachekhonte" wrote: > Any other possible nuptials? Bill/Fleur? Hickengruendler: This seems the most likely one, IMO. Mainly because they seemed to be in regular contact during OotP, even if off-page. Hagrid and Madame Maixime however didn't see each other (as far as we know, of course) between October and the end of June, and therefore a wedding in July or very early August seems IMO to sudden. Hickengruendler, who is really hoping for the wedding, since I desperatly want to see one. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 20:14:22 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:14:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM (was: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050110201422.55587.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121593 Inkling: >>Just before the battle at the Ministry at the end of the book, it would seem that Snape was the only one is a position to inform both sides of the fact that the kids had in fact left for the ministry, and when they left (I'm sure, as a Death Eater he can see Thestrals -- he may well have seen them take off, and could calculate when they'd arrive). Dungrollin: Yes, he can see Thestrals, JKR has confirmed that, but he'd have had to have been looking out of a window in the right direction at exactly the right time to see them take off. And doesn't he inhabit the dungeons? Are there any windows? Juli replies: I'm sure Snape is a busy man, he can't wait around all day looking out the windows, his office doesn't even have any, he could have waited for Harry to return but the easiest way to do so is to stay by the main entrance, and they were deep into the forest when they took the threstals so they weren't visible. I believe Snape is only loyal to DD and the Order. Dungrollin: >>Chapter thirty-five: Beyond the Veil "Black shapes were emerging out of thin air all around them, blocking their way left and right; eyes glinted through slits in hoods, a dozen lit wandtips were pointing directly at their hearts; Ginny gave a gasp of horror." >>An interesting question is what was happening there. There's no cracking noise remeniscent of apparation, but similarly you'd expect both Harry and the narrator to recognise invisibility cloaks, so it's unlikely that the DEs were hidden under them waiting. However, back in PS (The Mirror of Erised), DD says "I don't need a cloak to become invisible." I'd guess that were hidden and waiting using the same method. Juli: But do you really think that any DE has the powers DD or LV have? I don't think so, my bet is that Kreacher went over to the Malfoys after Harry tried to talk to Sirius so the DE had a little idea of when to go to the DoM, they had to be there long before the kids because they took care of everyone working there, including Eric the security guy. They could have been anywhere in the DoM, just close enough to see Harry get the prophesy and there interfere. Juli From jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk Mon Jan 10 21:47:02 2005 From: jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk (jotwo2003) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:47:02 -0000 Subject: Fools gold Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121594 As fans we spend a lot of time analysing anything that JKR says to try and guess what will happen. I've taken this one step further and analysed something that was cut out to try and work out if this gives any clues to what JKR has left in. On JKR's web site she mentions that in an early version of the killing of the Potters at Godric's Hollow, that Sirius was going to meet a character called Pyrites, a servant of Voldemort, there. Jo correctly says that pyrites means fool's gold. JKR says that she wrote many versions of this scene. Some of her original conceptions have been totally dropped. For instance, in one version the Potters were living on an island. Mr Granger saw what he thought was an explosion and rowed over. Originally a horrible Muggle betrayed the Potters to Voldemort, but he was cut when she made Pettigrew the traitor. All these things have been completely changed. However, sometimes JKR keeps the same idea but changes the way in which she develops it. For example, she cut out Mafalda the Weasley cousin and built up Rita Skeeter instead because this gave more flexibility. Bearing all the above comments in mind., although JKR cut Pyrites, I wonder whether she cut his role out completely or if she allocated it to another character. In the latter case, perhaps this is evidence for the theory that a Death Eater accompanied Voldemort to Godric's Hollow. I'm open to suggestions about which Death Eater people think this might be. I am also speculating whether another plot function for Pyrites was performing alchemy for Voldemort. In the very early page of Philosopher's Stone that you can find on the web site Harry, Ron and Hermione are discussing Nicholas Flamel and the Philosopher's Stone. Hermione says she has read about this in a book, Alchemy, Ancient Art and Science by Argo Pyrites. The Argo was the ship of Jason and the Argonauts on their voyage to find the Golden Fleece. Thus the first name is also connected to gold. Whether or not the Pyrites who worked for Voldemort was the same as the author of the book about alchemy, a name that means fool's gold seems the type of punning moniker that JKR would give an alchemist. Especially as the quest to turn base metals into gold is, in reality, fruitless (and even in legend only Flamel achieved it). Again, this leads me to speculate whether the role of Voldemort's alchemist has been given to another character. I wonder if this plot function has been given to Snape. It's often suggested that Snape gained his place in the Dark Lord's inner circle through being involved in some valuable esoteric research for Voldemort. I can certainly imagine Voldemort being interested in alchemy, and not just for the gold. The Elixir of Life would be useful for Voldemort's experiments in achieving immortality. In fact, although it's stating the obvious, we already have canon evidence that Voldemort covets the Stone from the very plot of the first book. At his re-birthing Voldemort says: "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 Chapter 33 The Death Eaters) However I can't see him being satisfied with this for long. I'm sure he is up to his old tricks once more. Thus it would make sense for alchemy to figure again for both plot and thematic reasons. As well as explaining Snape's position within the Death Eaters, alchemy seems to be the type of magic that not any witch or wizard can perform, but which Snape would be eminently suited to. Although alchemy has links to transfiguration, as former Transfiguration teacher Dumbledore was Flamel's partner, and it clearly involves change, much of the methodology is similar to potion-making. Alchemy involves heating and distilling substances again and again and requires time. Again, stating the obvious, the Elixir of Life a liquid that has magical effects; in other words, a potion. (Yes I have read that in alchemy the elixir and the stone can both a powder, but as JKR made the Philosopher's Stone a stone, I think she'd make the elixir a potion.) So that's yet another theory for us to mull over. Only time and JKR will tell if I'm on the right track, or simply chasing fool's gold. JoTwo From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 21:53:20 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:53:20 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121595 eggplant wrote: > If it wasn't for Marietta Dumbledore would still be headmaster when > Harry had his dream and he wouldn't have been tricked into going to > the ministry and Sirius would still be alive. Carol responds: This is an interesting point that I hadn't considered. However, Marietta had no idea that her actions would have any effect whatever on the fugitive outlaw Sirius Black. She certainly didn't *intend" for him to die. At worst, we can add her to the list of persons (Harry, Snape, Dumbledore, Sirius himself) who in some way contributed unintentionally to the series of unfortunate events that culminated in Sirius's death. And we can add Kreacher and the adult Malfoys to the list of those who wished or intended him harm, along with Voldemort and Bellatrix, who is the only person who can be directly implicated in his death based on the information we have now. (ESE!Lupin is a speculation based on the *absence* of certain details.) Regarding Marietta, she's yet another example of Dumbledore's statement that our actions have unforeseen consequences. But I have yet to see canon evidence that she *intended* for DD to lose his position, much less that she knew what that might mean for Hogwarts or Harry. And as I said, she could not have known what it would mean for Sirius, whom she did not know was on the "good side." Nor did she realize that DD was on the "good side." I very much doubt that she realized that Umbridge was evil--she would not have known about the punishment of Gryffindor students having to write lines in their own blood--or surely she would not have reported the illegal meeting to her. eggplant again: > If Percy has done less harm than Umbridge it's because he has less > power than Umbridge. It's clear to me that if Percy had his way both > Harry and Dumbledore would be in Azkaban. Give him enough power and > he'll be as bad as any Death Eater, don't be blinded by the man's > last name. Carol responds: Percy may be a "man" by WW standards, but he's still a very young man, only about twenty at the end of OoP (actually still nineteen if we accept JKR's site as canon for his birthdate). And it may be clear *to you* that if he had his way, both Harry and DD would be in Azkaban, but that doesn't make your view either canon or fact. Another poster (sorry I don't remember who) has pointed out that it's *Harry* who fears that he'll go to Azkaban as a result of the hearing. There is no objective evidence that he would actually have gone there. At the hearing itself, he was in danger only of losing his wand and being expelled from Hogwarts. Percy *may* have wished for that outcome, and his behavior to his father suggests it, but we don't know his thoughts or why he has apparently stopped believing Harry. Also, neither he nor Fudge knows that Umbridge sent the Dementors to Little Whinging. Where is the convincing evidence, from Percy's POV, that Harry is telling the truth? *We* know that he is because we see the events in Little Whinging from his perspective, but neither Fudge nor Percy was present. They have only his testimony, and Mrs. Figg's (who, if we accept JKR's website as canon, did not really see the Dementors and is therefore not a very convincing or even wholly truthful witness). DD is also present, but he isn't a witness to the events. He merely leads Fudge into blunders. I think you may have a stronger case that he'd be happy to see DD in Azkaban, but how about citing some canon to back it up? But bear in mind, too, that we have canon for Percy's good side, what appears to be a genuine affection, if not love, for his brother Ron, as evidenced by his wading into the water after the Second Task in GoF after fearing that Ron would drown. And it's hard to be the outsider, the one who's different and scorned and teased by the others, in an otherwise happy family, especially when that ridicule stems from following the rules and *trying* to do the right thing. Carol, who thinks that if we should cut Hermione some slack, we should cut Percy some, too From inkling108 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 21:57:48 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:57:48 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121596 > Potioncat wrote: > (snip) I'll direct you to this link to the most recent post > convincing me of Snape's trustworthiness. There were seveal others > as well if you go upthread. Of course, I think they all had to do > with PoA. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121545 > > Then Alla wrote: > > I don't know, Potioncat. If I cannot really condemn Snape based on > PoA, I find it MUCH harder NOT to do so based on OOP. I completely > agree with Inkling that the fact that Harry felt worse after the > lessons MAY mean very unplesant things and so far I can find nothing > which would mitigate the said circumstance. > > Don't get me wrong, I HOPE that it means something different. > Now Inkling writes: Thanks for the link, Potioncat. I do think that, taken as a whole, Snape's actions in PoA are defensible. For example, I was impressed that he didn't turn Black directly over to the Dementors when he had the chance (when Black was unconscious), even though he had threatened to do it earlier. But I agree with Alla that OotP is a different story. For one thing, there is the fact that Voldemort is back. This changes the reality on the ground and may well change Snape's response. If he is working for LV, it doesn't necessarily mean that he has a totally black heart (after all, how could he ultimately be redeemed if he did?) He may be serving Voldemort out of fear. No doubt as a death eater he saw what happened to those who were disloyal (Regulus Black?) and it wasn't pretty. He may be subject to threats and blackmail that we know nothing of. (I really, really don't want to believe he's doing it of his own volition!) I just can't get past the fact that his so-called lessons contained no specific instructions and had the opposite result from what was (supposedly) intended. JKR makes quite a point of this: "Before he had started studying occlumency, his scar had prickled occasionally...Nowadays, however, his scar hardly ever stopped prickling, and he often felt lurches of annoyance or cheerfulness that were unrelated to what was happening to him at the time, which were always accompanied by a particularly painful twinge from his scar. He had the horrible impression that he was slowly turning into a kind of aerial that was tuned to tiny fluctuations in Voldemort's mood, and he was sure he could date this increased sensitivity firmly from his first occlumency lesson with Snape." (just in case the "sure" doesn't convince, she adds "firmly" :-) Something as dramatic as this, IMHO, cannot be laid simply to Harry's lack of effort in occlumency. His mind is, in fact, under assault, and it has something to do with what's going on in Snape's lessons. Inkling From northsouth17 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 20:31:19 2005 From: northsouth17 at yahoo.com (northsouth17) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:31:19 -0000 Subject: Why the Dark Mark? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121597 Hello, all, my first post after a long while lurking! I was reading through GoF, when I came to the description of the Dark Mark, and something that had always bothered me a bit, struck me quite strongly - it's rather silly. It's a skull with a serpent sticking out of its mouth, which is a little bit adolescent in itself, and whatmore, it's made out of emerald _stars_! This put me in mind not so much of a symbol of horror and evil, as of a somewhat tasteless disco light. Have there been any thoughts on what possible meaning the dark mark could have? It seems like a fairly prominent Voldemort symbol - his followers get it tattooed on themselves! - and yet it seems rather tacky. I feel like it should have a story, a meaning of some kind, but can't find it, beyond a general representation of Voldemort - Death, snake, etc. From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 10 22:10:30 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:10:30 -0000 Subject: Theological Harry--Not!/Christian motifs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121598 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, alexpie at a... wrote: Barb: > I believe that what she said was that if you understand Christian theology, > you know where the story is going. That says nothing about her personal > beliefs; hey, I'm an an atheist but I do know Christian theology, which is why I'm > sure we'll be waving bye-bye to Harry in book seven--and I don't mean he'll be > going on a day trip to satisfy a craving for Mere Delacour's bouillabaisse. > I find "message" books as ponderous and self-important as self- help books; > obviously the story to an extent will reflect her value system but message, > particularly a religious one? Nope. Don't see it. I see a thumping good story. Geoff: There are three major series of books which are often discussed here on this forum, either directly or indirectly: Harry Potter, the Narnia books or Lord of the Rings. All these have been written by authors who profess to be Christians. The only allegorical books here are C.S.Lewis' series and he made no secret of the fact that they were intended as such. "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is an overt allegory of the Christian story; Aslan is the son of the great Emperor over sea and represents Christ. Both JK Rowling and Tolkien have created universes which are not overtly Christian but which, through the beliefs of their writers have echoes of Christianity in their fabric. These books are not "message" books but labours of love. They are not mass produced books written to a template; I could name authors who have turned out massive numbers of books to very similar patterns which do not reflect any sort of ethical system. I have remarked on occasions before that I do not see JKR postulating a story line in which Harry is a Christ figure because that would fly in the face of her belief. To a Christian, he cannot be such a figure because our belief accepts Christ as God in human form, sinless, perfect so as to be able to die for the sins of the world in his human form. I see Harry as an everyman figure echoing our own journeys through life. I love Harry as a character; he reminds me of the scrapes I got up to when I was his age but sinless, perfect? No way. These three authors have written books which are timeless and "thumping good stories" which will continue to enthral readers of all ages in the future; they pit goodness against evil not in a black versus white scenario where everything is a foregone conclusion but with shades of grey which cast shadows and doubts on the final success of good. This is drawn from their own perception of good and evil which I believe is rooted in their faith. From inkling108 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 22:19:21 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:19:21 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121599 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > Yeah, well, we all think different things about Occlumency and > Legilimency, don't we? There's no evidence to suggest that you only > have to say "Legilimens" once, as this is the only time we ever see > what Snape's doing while Harry's under. It's a good point though. > You might have to keep repeating "Legilimens... Legilimens... > Legilimens... Oh for God's sake Potter, *try*! ... Legilimens..." > Inkling replies: If so, it is the only spell in the WW that works that way. All the spells we have encountered require only a single incantation. In this lesson, the incantation "Legilimens!" has already worked: Snape has access to Harry's mind. So, what else does he want? Dungrollin: > Yes, he can see Thestrals, JKR has confirmed that, but he'd have had > to have been looking out of a window in the right direction at > exactly the right time to see them take off. And doesn't he inhabit > the dungeons? Are there any windows? He's been known to go outside, especially when he suspects something is up (see Shrieking Shack scene in PoA). > > Dungrollin: > They didn't know. Voldy baited the trap with the vision of Sirius, > then they waited. (Evil henchmen always get the tedious jobs.) This could be the way it happened, good point. But if Snape is working for the DEs it would only have made sense for him to give them precise information. (snip) .>If Snape were > *really* working for LV, why alert the Order at all? To maintain his status as a double agent and throw Dumbledore off the scent. He probably assumed all the DEs would be gone by the time the Order got there. And Harry, if he survived, would have told Dumbledore about the message he gave Snape in Umbridge's office. So Snape had to at least appear to have helped the Order. Inkling From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Mon Jan 10 22:24:47 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:24:47 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Theological Harry--Not! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1606232679.20050110142447@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121600 Monday, January 10, 2005, 4:59:56 AM, alexpie at aol.com wrote: aac> I believe that what she said was that if you understand Christian theology, aac> you know where the story is going. Yes, I think that's what she actually said, though I've always been unsure how we should interpret that -- Is she referring to the Resurrection or Armageddon as described in the Book of Revelations? (I toyed once with the idea that Harry's seven years at Hogwarts will represent the "Seven Years of Tribulation" preceding the "Final Battle".) I'm really hoping though that Jo proves to have more imagination than that (which she probably will). -- Dave From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 22:24:57 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:24:57 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: <144.3cce551a.2f132ea2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121601 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, ReturnOfTheMutt at a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:06:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bboyminn at y... writes: > > Umbridge on the otherhand acted with total disregard for any harm, > ... as in illegally, and without mercy or true provocation > attempting to utterly destroy Harry (equal to cold-blooded murder > in my book) because he was saying things that were /inconvenient/ > to the Ministry. > Mary sez: > Harry was being watched while at the Dursley's. It would be > completely irresponsible of Dumblerdore for the higher ups in the > OOtP not to have known what was going on at their house. bboyminn: I'm slightly confused by your reply. I'm breaking it here because I'm assuming, the above is a single independant thought. I'm not sure what you mean by '...going on at their house...'. Are you saying that Dumbledore should have had advanced warning about the Dementor attack? That Dumbledore should have been able to gather other stronger evidence after the fact to support Harry's position? Harry was protected in the Privet Drive neighborhood. He was suppose to have a wizard escort where ever he went. Unfortunately, Mundungus skipped out on his job and left the scene. That left Harry unprotected. If Mundungus had stayed, he could have fought the Dementors and prevented Harry from performing magic. That was Dumbledore's intent, to have someone on the scene at all times to prevent Harry from performing any magic under any circumstance. Again, I'm not sure what it is you are referring to that Dumbledore should have known. > Mary continues: > > So, Dumbledore, for the greater good, left Harry in a situation > where he suffered because the fact that it set Harry up to be the > saviour of the wizarding world made it right. It was for the > greater good, and what happened to Harry in the meantime was > irrevelant. > bboyminn: I'm taking this as a whole new thought, referring to Dumbledore leaving Harry as a baby to be raised by the Dursleys. First, while Dumbledore clearly knew that Harry's stay with the Dursleys would not be the most pleasant or rewarding, I don't think Dumbledore could know the full extent or nature of Harry's treatment by the Dursleys. Certainly he had the overview, but I question the extent to which he knew or was capable of knowing the details. Second, Harry was at the Dursleys, not because that was the sweetest place to live, but because that was the place where he would have the greatest protection from Voldemort and the Death Eaters. Only as a secondary aspect does he also grow up away from the adoration of the wizard world. Sometimes the things that are /best/ for us, are not the most pleasant for us. Through the 'Protection of Blood' Charm, staying at the Dursley's gave Harry the greatest margin of safety and protection, far greater than any other possible option. Safety took precedence over /pleasant/, and that seems a very reasonable choice. > Mary concludes: > > Umbridge was trying to uphold what she thought of as good. The only > difference between Umbridge's actions and Dumbledore's actions are > a) we *know* that Dumbledore is right, and b) Dumbledore didn't > commit any harm with his own hands. bboyminn: Like all bad/evil people Umbridge did NOT think the equivalent of murdering Harry was a /Good/ thing to do. She attempted to utterly destroy Harry simple because he was saying inconvenient things that didn't serve her or her boss. That's a very small provocation for the equivalent of murder, and there is no way to convince me that Umbridge thought it was morally or legally right or morally or legally justified. Like all bad/evil people, she simple didn't care that it was wrong, it served her selfish self-centered needs, and she put those selfish needs above any moral or legal standard. She knew it was wrong and bad, but she didn't care. That lack of caring is a true measure of Umbridge, and it is that lack of caring the puts her far far far DOWN the moral scale from Dumbledore. By no means was she acting out her own version of what she thought was good and right, she was doing what she knew was wrong and illegal because it server her, and because she thought she had the power and position to get away with it. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From inkling108 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 22:38:34 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:38:34 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121602 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > Neri wrote: > An interesting speculation, but it sounds a bit foolish even for > Voldy. If he wanted to test if the way was open, couldn't he do it > more covertly, and control his emotions a bit? Especially if Snape > was indeed his agent and he didn't want to cast any suspicion on him. Inkling replies: Yes, but..why was JKR so specific about the timeframe? Not just very happy, but the happiest he had been in fourteen years. The fourteen years thing clearly connects to Harry, IMHO. Neri: > Immediately before the sentence you quoted, DD says: > > "I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you > myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have been > more dangerous than to open your mind even further to Voldemort while > in my presence - " > > This implies that, had DD himself taught Harry occlumency, he also > would have "opened Harry's mind even further to Voldemort". It seems > that this is an unavoidable part of occlumency for beginners. Yes, but notice that he says "in my presence," that is, during the lesson itself. However the effect of Snape's lessons is to leave Harry's mind more open *all the time.* And it gets worse and worse as the lessons proceed. I'm not sure that Dumbledore himself has grasped what really happened, because he has not questioned Harry in detail about his experience during and after occlumency lessons. Why he would fail to do this after what Harry has told him I can't fathom -- he must really trust Snape, to the point of blindness. > I agree with Lupinlore (in a post several days ago): Snape's mistake > here was that he did not warn Harry in advance (nor even after the > fact) of this danger. Either he didn't know, or (more likely) he was > too resentful to care. The obvious result was that Harry had lost > what was left of his trust in Snape. This was a bad result for Snape > whether he was acting on DD's side or on LV's side. So I tend to > think that Snape was guided here by his emotions rather than by > careful planning. This is of course rather ironic considering his > lecture to Harry about subtlety and controlling emotions. I would (believe me)like to think this is true, but the "walking aerial" effect Snapes lessons produce still really bothers me. > I'm not sure I was helpful ;-) Thanks for trying! :-) From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Jan 10 22:52:58 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:52:58 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's wand? Message-ID: <1f1.32b022e2.2f14614a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121603 In a message dated 1/10/2005 4:05:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, trekkie at stofanet.dk writes: As it apparently relates to your birthday, which sort of wood your wand would be made of, and we now know Snape's birthday, what would his wand be made of then? I can't remember ever reading about it. =========== Sherrie here: According to several sources, including Robert Graves, 9 January falls in the Birch (Beorc) Moon. (One source I found listed Alder.) Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gorbash74 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 10 22:16:33 2005 From: gorbash74 at yahoo.co.uk (gorbash74) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:16:33 -0000 Subject: Snape's birthdate Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121604 Interestingly, according to pantheon.org,Snape's birthdate marks the festival of Janus, the two faced Roman god. Coincidence? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 22:55:48 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:55:48 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121605 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > Eric Oppen wrote: > > > Hermione probably should have sussed > > out her lack of enthusiasm and gently > > eased her out of the Hog's Head. > Well of course she should have done that, but is it reasonable to > expect her to actually do so under those circumstances? Several > students demonstrated a lack of enthusiasm and a few did so quite > vocally, but unlike some others Marietta never said anything nasty, > she just frowned a few times. What do you expect Hermione to do, > say "Marietta you frowned, I hear by banish you! Be Gone !" > Be honest now, when you first read about the meeting in the > Hog's Head did you immediately think Marietta was the most > dishonest of the bunch? I didn't. > > Eggplant bboyminn: First, these are kids; all of 15 years old. Kids this age are not know for the depth and breadth of their thinking. So, lack of detailed planning and forethought on Hermione's part is not that great a surprise. In hindsight, here is where I see Hermione's mistake. At the point where everyone present agreed to join, but before they signed the paper, Hermione should have given them the option to bow out. She should have made it plain to them that they must understand what they are getting into and agree to follow through on that understanding. At that point, she should have told them that this was the time do decide if they were all the way in and committed, or if they had reservation and uncertainty, then they were all the way out; no half-way or half-hearted joiners. If they weren't fully committed, then now was the time to walk away and never look back; no hard feelings. Hermione need to create a 'now or never', 'all or nothing' point in the discussion. Once she gave people an out, and had the remaining people fully committed, that was the time to have them sign the enchanted parchment. That would have forced Marietta to make a choice. If she stayed, in her own mind, and to the group, she would have been making a sound and firm, conscious and direct commitment to the group. If she had reservations, she could have walked away that that point with no consequences to herself or the group. Hermione gave the potential members the option to join, but she didn't specifically give them the option to walk away at that point. If that had been done, and if Marietta had been able to assert her own desires over the immdiate peer pressure, then everything would have been OK. Of course, JKR needed Marietta in the group, so that she could later betray the group. Things may not have gone as Hermione planned, but they were right on target with regard to JKR's plan. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 22:58:58 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:58:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar (Was: Lilly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121606 Valky wrote: > > I agree, the shape of the scar and the eiwahz rune are probably significant, but maybe we /should/ make a list of all the *other* things about the scar that might be the more significant thing JKR speaks of. It may be just what you need to prove the point. ;P > Brothergib responded: > I agree that the shape of the scar is important. The simple act of Lily's sacrifice protecting Harry is not enough. It was Lily's knowledge of this 'ancient form of magic' and her power as a witch in producing the necessary accompanying charm that protected Harry. However, I still believe that the most important thing about the scar is that it forms a psychological link between Harry and Voldemort. Carol responds: Yes, I'm sure you're right about the psychological link being the most important link, which would also explain why the shape is not the most important aspect of the scar without eliminating the possibility that it *is* important. What we don't know, of course, is exactly what *caused* the scar, but we *do* know that AKs don't normally leave any mark (Cedric and the Riddles are unscarred), which again allows the possibility that the scar resulted from a protective charm performed by Lily in combination with the deflected AK. But there seems to have been a wound as well, one that allowed some of Voldemort's powers to enter Harry's head. (I'm guessing that Lily didn't foresee any such consequence; she was trying to save Harry's life and, if she knew about the Prophecy, help save the WW as well. She probably didn't think about where the AK would land or what would happen when the curse was deflected.) So, to return to Valky's question, we have the *location* of the scar as one of its properties. It's on his forehead where its highly visible (though we're never told its size or color, which therefore can't be important). The location makes Harry instantly recognizable to anyone in the WW, as he would not be if Voldie had aimed for his heart rather than his head. The scar would be hidden under his robes, and instead of getting headaches, he would be having apparent heart attacks which he might not recognize as being related to his scar. As it is, the scar is very much a part of his identity and has been even before he understood its significance (see the description of his appearance in SS/PS). It, along with his green eyes, helps to distinguish him from James. The location is also important because it enables a connection Voldemort through their minds rather than their hearts. (Voldemort, to all intents and purposes, doesn't have a heart, but he certainly has a mind.) Because the scar is on his forehead rather than, say, his chest, he partially shares Voldemort's powers of Legilimency, seeing his dreams and feeling his emotions but also subject to visions implanted by Voldemort. And possibly, though this is iffy, the particular part of the brain behind the forehead, the frontal lobe, may be important. (Anatomy experts may be able to help us with this one.) As for the shape, the narrator, working from Harry's POV, would naturally use the familiar lightning bolt rather than the unfamiliar eihwaz rune to describe it. Remember the description of the Thestrals as winged, skeletal horses before he knew what they were, and the description of the black dog as an apparent Grim before we found out that he was an Animagus. To sum up: Size and color of the scar unknown and unimportant. Location important as indicated above. Shape (eihwaz rune?)possibly important. Conduit to Voldemort (headaches, dreams, visions) very important. Remaining questions: What, exactly caused the scar? Is it merely the mark left from the wound in his head (not a normal result of an AK), or is it a protective mark (eihwaz rune) left by Lily's "ancient magic"? Did the scar operate as a shield, causing the AK to be deflected onto Voldemort, or did it appear when the wound that allowed some of LV's powers to enter Baby Harry's mind healed, or both? (Note: It does not appear that any powers escaped Harry and entered Voldemort, who was left bodiless and able only to possess others until he regained a body of his own. Except, of course, that he didn't die and neither did Harry.) What am I forgetting? Or what did I get wrong? Carol From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Jan 10 23:10:27 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:10:27 -0000 Subject: Snape's birthdate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121607 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gorbash74" wrote: > > > Interestingly, according to pantheon.org,Snape's birthdate marks the > festival of Janus, the two faced Roman god. Coincidence? Hickengruendler: I don't think so. Remember that the chapter where we first learned about him saving Harry in book 1 was called "The Man With The Two Faces". Of course, on the surface this seems to describe Quirrell, but I always thought that the title also meant Snape, since we saw his other face for the first time in this chapter. If it's true that his birthdate marks the festival of Janus, than I feel confirmed. Hickengruendler From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Jan 10 23:24:07 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:24:07 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > But bear in mind, too, that we have canon for Percy's good side, what > appears to be a genuine affection, if not love, for his brother Ron, > as evidenced by his wading into the water after the Second Task in GoF > after fearing that Ron would drown. And it's hard to be the outsider, > the one who's different and scorned and teased by the others, in an > otherwise happy family, especially when that ridicule stems from > following the rules and *trying* to do the right thing. > Hickengruendler: I agree with you, and @ eggplant, I think that's an important point, why many readers (including me) still have hope for Percy's redemption. It's not just his name, but also the fact that there were moments in Canon, where he was shown in a positive light, which is more than you can say about any truly evil character in the books. Of course this does not necessarily mean, that he will turn out to be good after all, it's equally possible that JKR decided to show us Percy's good side, in order to demonstrate that even people who have their good sides can become truly evil. But nonetheless, so far Percy has demonstrated some good signs, which takes him lightyears ahead of Umbridge. And therefore it's logical that fans are rather able to see something good in him, than in Umbridge. This has nothing to do with his last name being Weasley. And @ the scene where he was glad that Dumbledore wshould be arrested: Seeing that Dumbledore just confessed in front of him, that he wanted to form a student army to overthrow the MoM, his reaction it's not really a surprise and certainly not evil. From his point of view, Dumbledore just confessed to be a dangerous criminal. Of course it was a lie, but Percy couldn't have known this. Hickengruendler From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 10 23:24:18 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:24:18 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121609 > Inkling replies: > > If so, it is the only spell in the WW that works that way. All the > spells we have encountered require only a single incantation. > > In this lesson, the incantation "Legilimens!" has already worked: > Snape has access to Harry's mind. So, what else does he want? Potioncat: The spell Snape was using to de-hex the broom in SS/PS was a repeated spell...and apparantly so was the hex Quirrell was using. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 23:25:40 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:25:40 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121610 Eggplant wrote: "Oh yes I see it now, you spotted me in a contradiction, it's enormous, titanic, colossal, the contradiction would be clear as a bell even to a blind man, no doubt about it! Yes indeed, in fact it's so obvious so vast so huge so astronomical that I'll bet you won't even insult our intelligence by spelling out exactly why it's a contradiction, but rather you will, as the textbooks say, leave it as an exercise in logic for the reader." Del replies: You're discussing me and my method here, not my opinion. My problem was : you say that even professionals didn't manage to find a way to prevent treason during the Cold War, so we shouldn't expect Hermione to have found one. But by your own admission, you consider the situation with the DA in OoP to be similar to a hot war such as WWII. So my question was : why compare Hermione's range of action with the range of actions of the secret services during the Cold War, when the 2 situations are not similar according to what you stated earlier? I would rather expect you to stick with your previous parallels and discuss Hermione's range of actions compared to that of the different types of partisans during WWII. Maybe you could make your point just as easily for all I know, but when you shift from one similitude to another, it looks, well, dishonest. Especially when you then refuse to answer my questions and prefer to use sarcasm and ridicule to try and make me feel bad for even daring to ask those questions in the first place. Del From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Jan 10 23:34:25 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:34:25 -0000 Subject: Snape's birthdate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121611 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gorbash74" wrote: > > > Interestingly, according to pantheon.org,Snape's birthdate marks the > festival of Janus, the two faced Roman god. Coincidence? Potioncat: If you mean Two-faced in the way we do, it applies more to another man with this birthdate (Richard Nixon) (Thanks Sigune) (Sorry List- Elves) But I'd suggest everyone go read about Janus. Here's one site http://www.pantheon.org/articles/j/janus.html Janus was associated with important beginnings, and with the growing up of young people Potioncat (who said her faith in Snape was shaken, not broken) From Snarryfan at aol.com Mon Jan 10 23:37:35 2005 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:37:35 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121612 I just think to something, about how Harry felt after the lessons, how it seemed that it easier to Voldie to enter in his mind, and that Snape should warn Harry about all that. It could be possible that Snape simply didn't know. Usually, a legilimency attack come from the *exterior*, with its action more (Snape saying the incantations) or less (voldie and DD) visible/conscious for the victims. When Snape learnt it, chances are that the methods were the same, meaning an *exterior* attack. With no possibility to verify if it works until a confrontation. Harry is a new case. For him, when Voldie is afar, the attack in *interior*, completely unheard. How the scar react is also new. If a book about Occlumency exist, it probably doesn't say "warning, can increase the pain in the link to the Dark Lord of your days". Because until Harry said it (to only Hermione/Ron/DD, don't remember if he said to Sirius), it was unheard. While the lessons, Snape felt his emotions, meaning basically the anger, but not the pain of the scar. Even if he does, he had no mean to know if it's normal or stronger than usual. If he saw Harry clutching his scar, he'll think that it's a normal pain (if he beleive it), caused by Harry's own fault to not try to block Voldie. After all, he doesn't care particulary to Harry, just that the boy stay alive. He know that Voldie try to enter in Harry's mind when he's sleeping. If he's a pro on the subject, it's on the *exterior* attacks. He know nothing about the *interior* attacks. And it's possible that he couldn't forsee that his lessons (that could work very well on him with *exterior*) would fail with a different kind of attacks. And in his usual 'fairness' about Harry, his first guess of the failure is that it's Harry's fault. Maybe if Harry exploded earlier and during the lessons asking why it happen ("SHUT UP! JUST SHUP UP! YOU MAKE IT WORSE! Etc..."), Snape would, well, be furious and yell too, but would know the info, and able to think about it when calmer, and without Gryffindor reminder in the vinicity. ...it made sense in my head earlier. Christelle, who confess she only want to clings to everything that can proves that Snape is with the Good Guy. And also want to ask to Jillojillo to delurk and play with us. From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Jan 10 23:42:04 2005 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:42:04 -0500 Subject: Lilly. Message-ID: <000e01c4f76d$fdba08a0$19fbacce@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 121613 > Carol: > > IMO, the (activated) charm blocked the AK, producing the lightning- > > shaped scar, which vaguely resembles the eihwaz rune (defense or > > protection). (Why bring that particular rune up in realation to > > Hermione's Ancient Runes exam if it isn't going to be important? I > > predict that in HBP, hermione will connect the shape of the scar to > > the shape of the rune, leading eventually to the deduction that > Lily placed a protective charm on Harry. Especially if he mentions > the term "ancient magic" and she starts researching the topic.) > > > > BTW, I know that JKR has said that the shape of the scar isn't the > > most important thing about it. That doesn't mean that the shape > isn't important at all. > > > > Valky: > I agree, the shape of the scar and the eiwahz rune are probably > significant, but maybe we /should/ make a list of all the *other* > things about the scar that might be the more significant thing JKR > speaks of. It may be just what you need to prove the point. ;P Brothergib said: "I agree that the shape of the scar is important. The simple act of Lily's sacrifice protecting Harry is not enough. It was Lily's knowledge of this 'ancient form of magic' and her power as a witch in producing the necessary accompanying charm that protected Harry. However, I still believe that the most important thing about the scar is that it forms a psychological link between Harry and Voldemort. As I've stated before, the only reason DD would expose Harry to Voldemort so regularly was if he knew that eventually Harry would have to face Voldemort alone (without DDs help). Could this be an eventual battle of minds? I think the answer to this lies in the prophecy (which we have definitely not heard the full version of!)." DuffyPoo now: I believe I read that JKR said the shape of the scar was unimportant. She said she chose something recognizable - the lightning bolt - as opposed to a squiggly circle thing that would be left up to each imagination. Could just have easily been a square or circle or star shape. Now, where the heck did I read that????? "The shape is not the most significant thing about Harry's scar." - from the World Book Day Chat March 4, 2004 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 10 23:50:05 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:50:05 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121614 Inkling: > I just can't get past the fact that his so-called lessons contained no specific instructions and had the opposite result from what was (supposedly) intended. < Pippin: There are specific instructions: "I have been told that you have already shown aptitude at resisting the Imperius Curse....You will find that similar powers are needed for this...."--OOP ch24 Now, the interesting is that Harry doesn't resist Imperius by clearing his mind, quite the opposite! "And Harry felt, for the third time in his life, the sensation that his mind had been wiped of all thought...ah, it was bliss, not to think, it was as though he was floating, dreaming...*just answer 'no'...say 'no'...just answer 'no'... I will not, said a stronger voice, in the back of his head, I won't answer..." -- GoF ch 34. We know that Harry's powers don't follow the usual rules...what if his resistance to Imperius doesn't either? Suppose that Fake!Moody, since he didn't teach anyone how to clear their minds, actually didn't do a good job of teaching his class how to resist Imperius. (That answers *that* question.) Harry learned to do it by some other method unknown to organized wizardry that didn't rely on clearing his mind but on listening to that little voice. That voice pops up again during the first occlumency lesson: "*No,* said a voice in Harry's head, as the memory of Cho drew nearer, you're not watching that, you're not watching it, it's private--"-OOP ch 24. So you see, Snape thinks Harry must already know how to clear his mind, since he can resist Imperius, and as far as Snape knows, it's done by mind-clearing. I think all Harry would have managed to accomplish, had he actually learned to clear his mind, was banish that voice -- Not A Good Thing, I am sure. OOP is the book of the 'fortunate fall' --IMO, it is going to turn out that learning Occlumency was a bad idea and Harry's failure was worse for Voldemort than his success would have been. Just like Quirrell, by disposing of the fifth obstacle, the troll in PS/SS, actually helped Harry and Hermione catch up with him more quickly. Since we don't know exactly what game Voldemort is playing, we can't tell whether waiting till the lessons started to put increased pressure on Harry's mind wasn't some plan of his. If he *wants* Harry to learn occlumency, then making it seem as if it is more necessary than ever would be a good plan, no? Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 23:53:04 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:53:04 -0000 Subject: Draco, no longer Harry's antagonist? -Money is the Key In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121615 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike Del Muro" wrote: > > > Hey all, I'm new to the group... > > Now to the point: > I think that now that Lucius Malfoy has been "outted" and that he > seems to be Harry's most dangerous antagonist now, that Draco might > have a change of heart. I doubt he'll be a "good guy," but I do think > he won't work for someone like Umbridge again... > > For more evidence, here's the title of a chapter in the new book: > Chapter 6 Draco's Detour > > Let me know what you think about this theory? bboyminn: Here is my theory on the possibility of a redeemable Draco. I think at some point Draco could realize that if Voldemort wins, it won't be good for business. Bad business means little or no money, and Draco can abide and endure a lot of things but little or no money, and therefore power, is not one of them. If Voldemort wins, it's clear to me that he is totally incapable of managing the day-to-day running of a country. I see the economy in shambles, commerce and international trade in ruins, the government completely disfunctional. As each aspect of the wizard world falls deeper and deeper into chaos, Voldemort must tighten his grip on every aspect of wizard life, which in turns leads to a world that is evermore disfunctional until it collapes on itself. This is the path of nearly all tyrants and dictators. 'Tyranny is the architect of it's own doom'. Once Draco realizes the Voldemort from a practical standpoint is a lost cause, he will join the side that we consider 'good'. Before you get too carried away, just because Draco is now 'good' doesn't for one second mean his is nice. He and Harry will always be advesaries. Draco, in his very Slytherin way, is still out for the greatest good for himself. It's just that now, working for Dumbledore insures him a greater and more prosperous future than working for Voldemort. As long as we are on the subject of Draco, I think in the next book, one of the subplots will be Harry and Draco fighting it out for control of the Black Family Estate. That should make some interesting reading. I don't think Harry cares about the house or the money, but the idea of Draco getting it would be intolerable. It would also be nice if the Malfoy family was now desperate for the money because of the collapes of Malfoy's many business venture cause by Lucius being once again implicated and arrested as a Death Eater. In addition, as a separate issue, I think Harry will inherit Sirius Black's personal estate without any problems. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Jan 11 00:05:23 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:05:23 -0000 Subject: Fools gold In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jotwo2003" wrote: > > As fans we spend a lot of time analysing anything that JKR says to > try and guess what will happen. I've taken this one step further and > analysed something that was cut out to try and work out if this gives > any clues to what JKR has left in. > > On JKR's web site she mentions that in an early version of the > killing of the Potters at Godric's Hollow, that Sirius was going to > meet a character called Pyrites, a servant of Voldemort, there. Jo > correctly says that pyrites means fool's gold. although JKR cut Pyrites, I > wonder whether she cut his role out completely or if she allocated it > to another character. In the latter case, perhaps this is evidence > for the theory that a Death Eater accompanied Voldemort to Godric's > Hollow. I'm open to suggestions about which Death Eater people think > this might be. Perhaps "Pyrites" was a traitorous Auror (another word related to gold)... - VMV From snow15145 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 00:28:51 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:28:51 -0000 Subject: Satellite!Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121617 Harry has all but one of Voldy's powers locked inside him so that when Voldy accesses the powers he believes himself to have, Harry has excruciating pain as a result. Below are some canon references I used to determine this accusation: DD said that Voldy had transferred some of his powers to Harry (there goes that same old DD style, it should read?-I can't be 100% sure but 99 and 3/4% certain): "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar." COS Dobby's Reward On the other hand Voldemort states that he lost `all but one' of his powers the night at Godric's Hollow: "Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others." GOF The Death Eaters pg. 653 This concludes, to me, that Harry was the benefactor of Voldemort's remaining powers the night at Godric's Hollow. How is Voldemort capable of speaking to Nagini when we have been told that he had transferred that particular power to Harry? At the beginning of GOF when Voldy was speaking to Nagini, and Harry was in his vulnerable sleep state at the time, Harry was able to view what was being said and done. Voldy appears to be able to access his previous powers that were transferred to Harry, which causes Harry to view the instances when Voldemort is using the powers that were left with Harry. Voldemort didn't acquire his powers back when he returned; he uses them via Satellite!Harry...this causes Harry immense pain each time he receives a signal through the scar on his forehead that Voldemort is using one of his former powers that now reside in Harry. >From the very first book, Harry's scar never hurt until he actually came in contact with Voldemort. It was not until Voldemort was semi- resurrected to a physical form through Nagini (which is also the first that we hear of Voldemort using wand magic again) that Harry started realizing 'severe' pain in his scar or was able to view Voldemort's activities in a dream state. This connection intensified as Voldemort acquired a new body that was created using Harry's blood. This could account for the gleam in DD's eye and also why he looked "old and weary" but a moment later. This was DD's warning that the connection between Harry and Voldemort could grow to such intensity that Dumbledore had to be aware not to look Harry directly in the eyes for fear of fusion between Voldemort and Harry. In the OOP, there are two instances mentioned that foreshadows the fact that Harry has become of two mindsets: "Harry felt as if his head had been split in two..." Dudley Demented pg. 4 and " for the second time in an hour he felt as though his head had been cleaved in two " Dudley Demented pg. 17 Harry is living with Voldemort's powers but Voldemort, unknowingly, is capable of accessing them so he doesn't realize that they are almost borrowed. With each time Voldemort uses (accesses) his powers, Harry is aware of it either by severe pain or actually witness to the event, and Voldemort's stages of Being has also increased the severity of the pain that Harry endures. With Voldemort becoming stronger, the trapped, transferred powers Voldemort accesses have now become inner conflict with Harry giving Harry an almost duel personality. Harry talks to two inner voices throughout OOP and one of these voices is depictive of Voldemort. It almost appears like the Voldemort factor is becoming a living thing within Harry, not just Voldemort's former powers that he inherited, but a part of Voldemort himself that was left behind with those powers. Harry does have at least one power that does not belong to Voldemort and Voldemort has one power that does not belong to Harry. Voldemort already played his trump card in the MOM to his own failure but Harry hasn't even understood (along with the rest of us) what power he has that has the properties of vanquishing the Dark Lord. There is a sick and twisted bond between Voldemort and Harry though; they are connected through Voldemort's transferred powers and also through Harry's blood. The only real hope is that in essence they are still divided even after Voldy's attempt at possession. As the prophecy goes Neither can live while the other survives But it's Harry's choice which inner voice he chooses to follow that may determine the survivor. Snow?In earnest hopes that whatever the ending it won't be like the last page has been ripped out of the book. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 00:37:02 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:37:02 -0000 Subject: SHIP : Just Desserts for Remus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121618 Valky wrote: "One of my favourite things about the Hans' postulation that Remus is the Grey King is that The Grey King has a young vibrant wife, symbolic of the joy that goes with the Grey King state in Alchemy. Personally I can't imagine anything more appropriate for Remus than to have someone young and joyful and full of life by his side, he deserves it. " Del replies: And do you have any idea about who this "young vibrant wife" could be? I would personally vote for Tonks. She and Remus do seem to get along pretty well. Who knows if they didn't ask the Knight Bus to take them someplace quiet and discreet, after they dropped the kids at Hogwarts ;-)? Or maybe Hermione, but the age difference, which is already consequent between Remus and Tonks, becomes bothersome to me between Hermione and Remus. Not to mention that I would find it much more interesting to stick Hermione with Ron and vice versa ;-D ! Del From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 00:42:50 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:42:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta and the DA. References: Message-ID: <004b01c4f776$7af47820$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 121619 > Eggplant wrote: > "Oh yes I see it now, you spotted me in a contradiction, it's > enormous, titanic, colossal, the contradiction would be clear as a > bell even to a blind man, no doubt about it! Yes indeed, in fact it's > so obvious so vast so huge so astronomical that I'll bet you won't > even insult our intelligence by spelling out exactly why it's a > contradiction, but rather you will, as the textbooks say, leave it as > an exercise in logic for the reader." > > Del replies: > You're discussing me and my method here, not my opinion. > > My problem was : you say that even professionals didn't manage to find > a way to prevent treason during the Cold War, so we shouldn't expect > Hermione to have found one. But by your own admission, you consider > the situation with the DA in OoP to be similar to a hot war such as > WWII. So my question was : why compare Hermione's range of action with > the range of actions of the secret services during the Cold War, when > the 2 situations are not similar according to what you stated earlier? > I would rather expect you to stick with your previous parallels and > discuss Hermione's range of actions compared to that of the different > types of partisans during WWII. Maybe you could make your point just > as easily for all I know, but when you shift from one similitude to > another, it looks, well, dishonest. Especially when you then refuse to > answer my questions and prefer to use sarcasm and ridicule to try and > make me feel bad for even daring to ask those questions in the first > place. Charme: As Snape would say, you two are arguing like an old married couple. :) (Don't turn me into a ferret, Elves, it's canon! :)) Eggplant, if I've misunderstood/misconstrued you in any way with what I'm about to post, just beat me soundly with one of Filch's whips - I can take it. Just leave the thumbscrews alone, ok? :) Del, I didn't perceive the 2 points to be related; naturally you're entitled to your view. My interpretation is the first point regarding Hermoine's ability to judge the "trustworthiness" of others compared to professionals (the example being secret services in the Cold War - which BTW had far more of the intelligence quotient than WWII and is a better example) is separate from the second comparison of open or secret declaration of war in WWII vs the events in OoP. It's not, IMO conflicting, contradictory, or dishonest - it's substantiating two distinct points if I am perceiving Eggplant's post correctly. From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 00:43:46 2005 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:43:46 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121620 Inkling wrote: > > I just can't get past the fact that his so-called lessons contained > no specific instructions and had the opposite result from what was > (supposedly) intended. JKR makes quite a point of this: "Before he > had started studying occlumency, his scar had prickled > occasionally...Nowadays, however, his scar hardly ever stopped > prickling, and he often felt lurches of annoyance or cheerfulness > that were unrelated to what was happening to him at the time, which > were always accompanied by a particularly painful twinge from his > scar. He had the horrible impression that he was slowly turning > into a kind of aerial that was tuned to tiny fluctuations in > Voldemort's mood, and he was sure he could date this increased > sensitivity firmly from his first occlumency lesson with Snape." > (just in case the "sure" doesn't convince, she adds "firmly" :-) > Something as dramatic as this, IMHO, cannot be laid simply to > Harry's lack of effort in occlumency. His mind is, in fact, under > assault, and it has something to do with what's going on in Snape's > lessons. > Tammy: Don't forget that these lessons are happening because Dumbledore believes that Voldemort now knows about the link between himself and Harry. It stands to reason that Harry's scar would hurt more after Voldemort knows about the link, because Voldemort would no doubt be testing the link, seeing what he could do with it, how he could use it to his advantage. We can't know that Harry's scar hurting more has anything to do with Occlumency or with Voldemort trying things out. -Tammy, who firmly believes in Snape's moral goodness - hidden somewhere deep within his icy heart. From ryokas at hotmail.com Tue Jan 11 01:01:15 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (kizor0) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:01:15 -0000 Subject: Complete and utter derail (Was: Satellite!Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121621 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > Snow?In earnest hopes that whatever the ending it won't be like the > last page has been ripped out of the book. I'm afraid I've had another of my sleep-loss-induced Bright Ideas. Harry Potter takes place on a seemingly perfectly mundane Earth, doesn't it? And as Muggles we wouldn't be aware of the existence of the WW, would we? So what we need is a couple of fourth-wall-breaking hints in book six, and some more in book seven, hinting that JKR is in fact chronicling actual events and has managed to get away with it by [INSERT PLAUSIBLE REASON HERE]. Then the final chapter of the seventh book makes it clear that there's going to be a huge, life-changing revelation on the actual way of the world on the last page... ...and the end of the book looks literally like the last page had been ripped out of it. No doubt they could make some kind of machine for this job. Whoo!a - Kizor This has been your late-night Kizor hour. It's like comedy, only without all the funny parts. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 01:06:33 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:06:33 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121622 Inkling wrote: > > Thanks for the link, Potioncat. I do think that, taken as a whole, > Snape's actions in PoA are defensible. For example, I was impressed > that he didn't turn Black directly over to the Dementors when he had > the chance (when Black was unconscious), even though he had > threatened to do it earlier. Carol responds: Glad you liked my post, which was intended to alleviate Potioncat's fears about Snape in PoA. I think a number of people have provided important reassurances for you regarding OoP, notably that that the DEs were waiting for Harry in the DoM and that Snape probably couldn't see the Thestrals. (I think at least part of his time must have been spent in damage control--discovering the bound Inquisitorial Squad, undoing some minor hexes, sending Draco off to Madam Pomfrey to undo the bat-bogey hex, and finding out what had happened from a group of hysterical teenagers. It must have taken a bit of time even to determine that Harry and Hermione had gone off with Umbridge to the Forbidden Forest. The Thestrals could have flown off before he even had the whole story.) I don't for a moment think that we can deduce from the failed Occlumency lessons that Snape is working for Voldemort. First, consider all the evidence from previous books that he's on DD's side (saving Harry from Quirrell in SS/PS, his help in the Crouch!Moody matter, his dangerous mission at the end of GoF). And in OoP itself, note that Snape *does* inform the Order of Harry's vision and that if he had not done so, Harry would be dead. Inkling wrote: > But I agree with Alla that OotP is a different story. > I just can't get past the fact that his so-called lessons contained > no specific instructions and had the opposite result from what was > (supposedly) intended. JKR makes quite a point of this: "Before he > had started studying occlumency, his scar had prickled > occasionally...Nowadays, however, his scar hardly ever stopped > prickling, and he often felt lurches of annoyance or cheerfulness > that were unrelated to what was happening to him at the time, which > were always accompanied by a particularly painful twinge from his > scar. He had the horrible impression that he was slowly turning > into a kind of aerial that was tuned to tiny fluctuations in > Voldemort's mood, and he was sure he could date this increased > sensitivity firmly from his first occlumency lesson with Snape." > (just in case the "sure" doesn't convince, she adds "firmly" :-) > Something as dramatic as this, IMHO, cannot be laid simply to > Harry's lack of effort in occlumency. His mind is, in fact, under > assault, and it has something to do with what's going on in Snape's > lessons. Carol responds: But remember that he also felt a pain in his scar just as he was being touched by Umbridge and it was only past experience (probably including his first association with the pain in his scar with Snape instead of Quirrell) that enabled him to realize that Umbridge wasn't a DE (however evil she undoubtedly is) and that the timing was coincidental. Harry may well be "turning into a kind of aerial," but as Pippin points out, this seems to be an inevitable consequence of Occlumency lessons *for Harry* because of his connection to Voldemort. It probably is not an inevitable consequence of Occlumency lessons per se. If Snape is recalling his own lessons in occlumency (presumably taught by DD since Voldemort is not going to give his DEs protection against his own Legilimency), he would not have experienced any such vulnerability and may not be aware that Harry is doing so. Or it may be that both he and dumbledore want to see exactly how far Voldemort has gotten into Harry's mind. note that Snape *does* tell Dumbledore that Harry is dreaming of the DoM corridor, but DD does not order a halt to the lessons. (I believe he also tells DD that Harry has seen Rookwood, but I could be mistaken.) Also, we need to remember that Snape has no need to make Harry angry for these lessons. Harry is already angry--at Snape (thanks in part to Sirius planting doubts about the Occlumency lessons in Harry's mind), at Dumbledore, at Cho--at everyone except the legitimate target, Voldemort. Snape does tell him what Occlumency is, and as much as DD will allow him about why Harry is taking the lessons. He is remarkably tolerant (for Snape) when Harry (inadvertently) uses a stinging hex and a Protego. He is only angry when Harry sees things he's not supposed to be seeing, things related to Voldemort and/or the DoM, especially when Harry willingly prolongs those visions to see more of the corridor. Harry admits (to himself) that he has not practiced and that he wants to continue having the dreams. If Harry had calmed himself and emptied his mind of emotions at bedtime, he would not have continued to have the dreams. He is opening up *himself* to Voldemort, which is why Snape is angry. But DD doesn't want Harry to know about the Prophecy, so Snape can't explain that to Harry. If, as you suspect, the lessons were actually harming Harry and Snape wanted Harry harmed, would he have ended them for any reason? One more point. We need to look at the narrator here. Harry's dating the increased prickling to the beginning of the Occlumency lessons is his own view, not objective fact. He hates the lessons; he hates Snape; he *wants* to think that the lessons are harming him. That does not mean that they actually are harming him, or that Snape wants them to. It seems to me that Snape and Dumbledore may have a false expectation for the lessons. Occlumency gives *Snape* the ability to prevent Voldemort from seeing memories or sensing emotions that would enable him to detect a lie, and Snape and DD seem to think that the same skills will prevent Voldemort from entering Harry's mind via the scar. It's necessary for Snape to forcibly invade Harry's mind to get him to react against the invasion using skills similar to those he used to throw off the Imperius Curse. But Voldemort isn't entering Harry's mind forcibly through eye contact or a Legilimency spell. He's luring Harry into *wanting* to have that dream, hoping to get him to go after the Prophecy. Even when he plants the vision of Sirius in Harry's mind, he doesn't do so forcibly. It's enough like the earlier dreams that Harry wants it to continue, and similar enough to the true events involving Mr. Weasley that Harry doesn't question it. IMO, the failure of the Occlumency lessons has nothing to do with Snape's loyalties (though it may relate to his abilities as a teacher). It results from mutual antipathy, Harry's own desire to continue the dreams and his unwillingness to control the anger that is consuming him, and, possibly, from the nature of Occlumency itself. I see no evidence in OoP that Snape is disloyal either to the Order or to Dumbledore. And he has shown himself disloyal to Voldemort often enough that to let Voldemort have Harry would be to sign his own death warrant. Carol, hoping that she's helped Inkling feel at least a bit better about Snape From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 01:34:38 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:34:38 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121623 Dungrollin wrote: > > They [the DEs] didn't know. Voldy baited the trap with the vision of Sirius, then they waited. (Evil henchmen always get the tedious jobs.) > Inkling responded: > This could be the way it happened, good point. But if Snape is > working for the DEs it would only have made sense for him to give > them precise information. Carol responds: It was clearly Voldie who placed the DEs there to wait for Harry there. All of the information in the DoM chapters of OoP indicates that they're trying to get the Prophecy for Voldie, who shows up at the end when he learns--through Harry--that the Prophecy (orb) has been destroyed. Snape doesn't know anything about Harry's vision until Harry gives him the cryptic message about Padfoot in Umbridge's office, after which he contacts the Order and determines that Sirius is safe. He doesn't know, nor does the Order, that Kreacher has misled Harry into thinking that Sirius is indeed in the DoM. Later (we don't know when or how but I speculated about this in an earlier post), Snape finds out that Harry and Hermione have gone with Umbridge to the Forbidden Forest. He waits (we don't know how long) for their return then deduces that they've found a way to get to the DoM. He apparently informs DD of this fear, then contacts the Order, telling Sirius to stay behind and wait for DD, who is on his way. There is, at that point, nothing more that Snape can do without blowing his cover (and probably getting killed). There's no need for Snape to give the DEs any information here. They have everything they need from Kreacher, the Malfoys, and Voldie himself. And even if Snape knew that Voldie intended to plant a vision of Sirius in Harry's brain (as he clearly didn't), he couldn't have told the DEs when it would happen. Only Voldie could have told him that the time to get to the DoM is now. (And note that Snape is at Hogwarts, not at all deep in the DEs' plans or they'd have expected him to be there, fighting on *their* side.) I think if you reread the last three or four chapters of OoP, you'll find that I'm correct here. If you can find canon that contradicts me, please cite it. I don't pretend to be an authority, but I do think that your fears are needless. Carol, still trusting that Dumbledore and Hermione, JKR's spokespeople where facts are concerned, are right in trusting Snape From madkinson at cox.net Mon Jan 10 22:50:19 2005 From: madkinson at cox.net (amosdiggory99) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:50:19 -0000 Subject: Suggestions please: Mysteries In-Reply-To: <904ncf+9afk@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121624 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Flanagan" wrote: > More mysteries, minor and major: > How did Crouch Jr. learn all the advanced magic that he displayed > while at Hogwarts pretending to be Moody? He was very young when > sent to Azakban, then was under the Imperious Curse up until the > QWC. When did he change from the crying youth that Harry saw in the > pensieve into an accomplished mage capable of hoodwinking a powerful > magical object and successfully fooling Dumbledore for almost an > entire school year? It is about 13 years between the trial of Barty Crouch Jr (aka Polyjuice Moody) and GoF. I would assume that the imperius curse would NOT prevent him from practising his magic. Besides, what magic do we see Polyjuice Moody do other than turning Malfoy into a ferret? We know that brewing the potion isn't hard as three second years do it;-) As to the hexes, Voldemort had time to train him (through Pettigrew) before getting him into Hogwarts. > How do Quidditch players handle the Quaffle? Is it caught and thrown > or is it hit like in volleyball? It must be carried much like in rugby. I suspect that, if you could keep from getting hit by a Bludger, you could go from one end to the other with it. > Why was it necessary to have such an elaborate plot to transport > Harry to Voldemort in GoF? It took nearly the whole school year, and > there were many opportunities for a slip-up along the way. Couldn't > the ersatz Moody have kidnaped him by force, or slipped him a > disguised portkey in a much easier, and more certain, way? As others have said in other forums, it is likely that Voldemort used this method so he and his followers could return to Hogwarts after killing Harry, have a major wizarding audience, and kill or terrorize them (just a thought). amosdiggory99 From xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com Mon Jan 10 23:00:03 2005 From: xxneuman07xx at yahoo.com (Bob Newman) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:00:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lilly. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050110230003.30998.qmail@web30002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121625 Brothergib wrote: > The simple act of > Lily's sacrifice protecting Harry is not enough. It > was Lily's > knowledge of this 'ancient form of magic' and her > power as a witch in > producing the necessary accompanying charm that > protected Harry. Unless Lilly had, for some reason, been studing leagalese, and was forming a magicly binding oral contract with LV just before he killed her, which he agreed to when he killed her. From slspirit at free.fr Tue Jan 11 00:36:50 2005 From: slspirit at free.fr (Jeremia) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:36:50 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121626 > > Inkling replies: > > > > If so, it is the only spell in the WW that works that way. All > the > > spells we have encountered require only a single incantation. > > > > In this lesson, the incantation "Legilimens!" has already worked: > > Snape has access to Harry's mind. So, what else does he want? > > Potioncat: > The spell Snape was using to de-hex the broom in SS/PS was a > repeated spell...and apparantly so was the hex Quirrell was using. Chatrouge: Both Snape's spell and Quirrel's hex in PS were powerful spells ( don't remember the quote exactly but I think there's something about that ). So is Legilimens. Repeating the spell over and over would probably help controlling it. From malikin at club-internet.fr Mon Jan 10 23:49:54 2005 From: malikin at club-internet.fr (Fairy Tell) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:49:54 +0100 Subject: Harry's scar : which Rune ? [was: Re: Lilly] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20050111001815.009e7710@pop.club-internet.fr> No: HPFGUIDX 121627 Hello everyone, I'm new on the list and although I've been reading your posts for a couple of weeks now, I'm still impressed. So, apologies if this happens to be irrelevant. >Carol: > > IMO, the (activated) charm blocked the AK, producing the lightning- > > shaped scar, which vaguely resembles the eihwaz rune (defense or > > protection). I had never thought of this before but the lightning flash symbol also belongs to the "sig" rune. And because it's specifically designed to be a lightning flash, the meaning of the rune doesn't change wether it shows up straight or upside down. This strucks me because, as far as I know, the general meaning of "sig" is... undisputed victory. I still agree that the meaning of the scar in itself is more important though, I guess I just wanted to have a bit of fun. Hope you'll smile along with me, Isabelle. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 01:48:02 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 01:48:02 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121628 Inkling wrote: > > Yes, but..why was JKR so specific about the timeframe? Not just > very happy, but the happiest he had been in fourteen years. The > fourteen years thing clearly connects to Harry, IMHO. Carol responds; Think about Voldemort's condition for the last fourteen years: violently expelled from his own body because of a deflected AK, unable to survive except by possessing animals until Quirrell came along, inhabiting the back of Quirrell's head while Quirrell drank unicorn blood to sustain them both, deserting Quirrell and leaving him to die, living again by possessing animals until Wormtail found him, transformed into Baby!mort and surviving on Nagini's milk, resurrected into his old form only to be defeated in front of his DEs by Harry Potter--what has Voldemort had to be happy about other than the knowledge he gains from Rookwood about how to obtain the Prophecy? there's no reason whatever to connect this happiness, such as it is, with Severus Snape. But, yes, it relates to Harry. Everything does. Until Harry is destroyed, Voldemort can't concentrate on his rise to power. Carol > > Neri: > > Immediately before the sentence you quoted, DD says: > > > > "I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you > > myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have > been > > more dangerous than to open your mind even further to Voldemort > while > > in my presence - " > > > > This implies that, had DD himself taught Harry occlumency, he also > > would have "opened Harry's mind even further to Voldemort". It > seems > > that this is an unavoidable part of occlumency for beginners. > > Yes, but notice that he says "in my presence," that is, during the > lesson itself. However the effect of Snape's lessons is to leave > Harry's mind more open *all the time.* And it gets worse and worse > as the lessons proceed. I'm not sure that Dumbledore himself has > grasped what really happened, because he has not questioned Harry in > detail about his experience during and after occlumency lessons. Why > he would fail to do this after what Harry has told him I can't > fathom -- he must really trust Snape, to the point of blindness. > > > I agree with Lupinlore (in a post several days ago): Snape's > mistake > > here was that he did not warn Harry in advance (nor even after the > > fact) of this danger. Either he didn't know, or (more likely) he > was > > too resentful to care. The obvious result was that Harry had lost > > what was left of his trust in Snape. This was a bad result for > Snape > > whether he was acting on DD's side or on LV's side. So I tend to > > think that Snape was guided here by his emotions rather than by > > careful planning. This is of course rather ironic considering his > > lecture to Harry about subtlety and controlling emotions. > > I would (believe me)like to think this is true, but the "walking > aerial" effect Snapes lessons produce still really bothers me. > > > > > I'm not sure I was helpful ;-) > > Thanks for trying! :-) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 02:03:23 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:03:23 -0000 Subject: How could Slytherin House have helped Harry? Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121629 In PS/SS, the Sorting Hat told Harry that Slytherin could help him on the way to greatness (IIRC). In CoS, it tells him that he would have done well in Slytherin. Questions : why? How? What is it in Slytherin that could have been of any help to Harry? Possibilities: 1. Draco? Easy one : no, and the Sorting Hat knew it. If it can see what's going on inside people's head, then it must have known that Harry instinctively disliked Draco and that they would never get along. 2. Another student? Interesting possibility that takes us back to the issue of the Good Slytherin. Is there in Slytherin another influential student apart from Draco, who would have been on Harry's side and who could have provided him with help? That's possible, and what's more it's not too late for this to happen. 3. My favourite possibility : the Head of Slytherin, Snape. Snape hated Harry from the beginning because he saw a reincarnation of James in him: same looks, same apparent attitude, and same House. But what would have happened if Harry had been Sorted into Slytherin? Snape is good at denial, but this could have been too much even for him. What could have told him more loudly that Harry is not James, than to have Harry Sorted into the very House James despised so much? In fact, I suspect this might have delighted Snape who would then have taken a twisted pleasure into turning Harry into a true Slyhterin, just for the fun of insulting James' memory. So what if Snape had developed a positive prejudice towards Harry? What if in turn Harry had learned to see Snape in a more positive light, especially considering DD's support and approval of Snape? What would this positive relationship have brought to Harry? Let's imagine : - no Snape systematically pitting his own House against Harry's House - no Draco leading an entire House in an anti-Harry crusade - no Snape continually trying to stop Harry from doing whatever he has to do, and maybe even *helping* him do so! - no Scapegoat!Snape to wrong-track Harry way too often - Snape personally and voluntarily training Harry into all sorts of more or less authorised magical arts. That would have meant no Occlumency disaster for example. - a powerful teacher always available to help Harry. Of course, there would have been some drawbacks too: - no Weasley friends - no all-knowledgeable Hermione - no Marauders' Map - no Sirius! Both because Sirius would have been much less interested in a Slytherin!Harry, and because Snape would have told Harry too many bad things about Sirius for Harry ever to come to love Sirius the way he did - probably no Lupin either, though Harry might have been able to judge Lupin on his own. But all those drawbacks could have been compensated one way or another (other friends, Snape's knowledge and guidance...), so that in the end the result might still have been positive. So could it be that Snape was what the Sorting Hat had in mind when it told Harry that Slytherin could help him on his way to greatness? After all, Snape does have the profile of the teacher supportive of rule-breaking and dubious behaviour in his pet students, unlike McGonagall who is constantly trying to restrain the Trio. A supportive Snape would have been an immense asset to Harry, instead of the constant antagonist that he became after Harry was Sorted into Gryffindor. What do you think? Del From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 02:06:20 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:06:20 -0000 Subject: Snape's birthdate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121630 gorbash74 wrote: > > > > Interestingly, according to pantheon.org,Snape's birthdate marks the festival of Janus, the two faced Roman god. Coincidence? > > Potioncat: I'd suggest everyone go read about Janus. Here's one site > http://www.pantheon.org/articles/j/janus.html > > Janus was associated with important beginnings, and with the growing > up of young people > > Potioncat (who said her faith in Snape was shaken, not broken) Carol adds: As that site indicates, Janus is the god of beginnings and endings. Janus/January looks back over the old year but also looks forward to the new one. Snape, too, looks back at the past and forward to the future. His DE past *is* past. It has its effects, but it's dead. And the future, by its very nature, does not yet exist. He can only dream of and work toward a future without Voldemort, in which he can at last walk free, redeemed for his past sins serving Voldemort by his courageous and largely thankless efforts in fighting him. At least that's my reading. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 02:41:29 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:41:29 -0000 Subject: The Black estate (Was: Draco, no longer Harry's antagonist? -Money is the Key In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121631 bboyminn wrote: > As long as we are on the subject of Draco, I think in the next book, > one of the subplots will be Harry and Draco fighting it out for > control of the Black Family Estate. That should make some interesting > reading. I don't think Harry cares about the house or the money, but > the idea of Draco getting it would be intolerable. > > It would also be nice if the Malfoy family was now desperate for the > money because of the collapes of Malfoy's many business venture cause > by Lucius being once again implicated and arrested as a Death Eater. > > In addition, as a separate issue, I think Harry will inherit Sirius > Black's personal estate without any problems. Carol notes: As I mentioned long ago, it will be a bit hard to prove that Sirius is dead without a body, and with only teenagers, DEs, and Order members who don't want to blow their cover as witnesses. How can DD or anyone else prove that he's not still a criminal on the run? it would be easier to prove his innocence (catch Peter and bring him in) than to prove his death. Carol, who hopes that Sirius did write and will and that Lupin inherits *something* From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 11 02:43:17 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:43:17 -0000 Subject: SHIP : Just Desserts for Remus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121632 > Valky wrote: > "One of my favourite things about the Hans' postulation that Remus is the Grey King is that The Grey King has a young vibrant wife, symbolic of the joy that goes with the Grey King state in Alchemy. Personally I can't imagine anything more appropriate for Remus than to have someone young and joyful and full of life by his side, he deserves it. " > > Del replies: > And do you have any idea about who this "young vibrant wife" could be? > > I would personally vote for Tonks. She and Remus do seem to get along pretty well. Who knows if they didn't ask the Knight Bus to take them someplace quiet and discreet, after they dropped the kids at Hogwarts ;-)? > > Or maybe Hermione, but the age difference, which is already consequent between Remus and Tonks, becomes bothersome to me between Hermione and Remus. Not to mention that I would find it much more interesting to stick Hermione with Ron and vice versa ;-D ! > Valky replies: Got it in one there, Del. Naturally, I think Tonks. She's young and vibrant(colourful even ;D ). Tonks is kind and cheerful, to the kids, so her and Remus have something very much in common there, and in OOTP as I read it Tonks is at full pace constantly, she talks fast, she moves fast, everything excites her, she chooses bright colors and being a metamorphmagus means that she is, what you might call, more animated than most. So full of Life? I think, yes. Now Hermione, OTOH, beside the obvious fact that their age differences are simply too *huge* to even consider it (I really don't think JKR would do that do you?) doesn't at all fit the description of vibrant and lively so, presuming the alchemy parrallel to be true excludes Hermione from the running. Anyway, going back to just basic canon, we have a good bit of support for a SHIP early in HBP: 1: GOF and OOTP dropped many a hint about romance blossoming in Harry's background.... Bill and Fleur OOTP; Hagrid and Maxime GOF; 2: Spinners End promises to bring a possible festive occasion that takes Harry away from Privet Drive earlier than usual; among the most plausible things that have been suggested are Birthday Parties and Weddings. 3: JKR has also said that spouses of teachers play an important role in the future plot. The term used by JKR was plural, so we can expect more than one "Teacher" to turn up married before the end I expect. All in all, I like this SHIP a whole lot and hope it sails. Some extra stuff: I do also believe we will discover that Snape is _already_ married, but not till book seven, and I don't think the lady is in good health. St Mungos anybody? I doubt anyone elses partners could become significant if they were introduced, except maybe Macgonagall's husband, if she has one. Snape and Lupin, IMO, are the ones who are most obviously preset to have 'significant' others (Bad pun :P) Best to all Valky From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 03:10:04 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:10:04 -0000 Subject: Satellite!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121633 Snow wrote: > > Harry has all but one of Voldy's powers locked inside him so that when Voldy accesses the powers he believes himself to have, Harry has excruciating pain as a result. Below are some canon references I used to determine this accusation: > > > "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to > you the night he gave you that scar." COS Dobby's Reward > > > On the other hand Voldemort states that he lost `all but one' of his > powers the night at Godric's Hollow: > > "Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of > others." GOF The Death Eaters pg. 653 > > This concludes, to me, that Harry was the benefactor of Voldemort's > remaining powers the night at Godric's Hollow. > Carol responds: Interesting theory (I wouldn't call it an accusation, since you're not accusing anybody of anything). But there's a simpler explanation. Maybe Baby Harry received some but not all of Voldemort's powers (the only one he's displayed so far is Parseltongue) and Voldemort didn't lose his powers per se but only the ability to use them. Without his body, he couldn't use a wand or even speak. Later, he was able to use his powers through Quirrell (I doubt that Quirrell could have broken into Gringotts using his own powers), and even as Baby!mort, he could use a wand. Now that Voldie has his own body magically restored to him, he can use Legilimency, and presumably, he uses Parseltongue to speak to Nagini. There's no question that he can use the Unforgiveable Curses, a power that Harry so far lacks and hopefully will never fully develop. I'm not saying that your theory is wrong, but it isn't the only possible explanation. Certainly the Harry of OoP is more in contact with Voldemort's feelings and less able to separate them from his own than he's been in previous books, so maybe you're right--or partially right. The pain in his head, however, results from hitting the window and later from Dudley's fist slamming into his head, so there's a logical explanation for the feeling of his head being split in two. Whether it has an additional symbolic meaning is impossible to say at this point. Carol, noting that she typed "and will" instead of "a will" in her previous post and hoping that this one doesn't contain any typos From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 02:14:26 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:14:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050111021426.52418.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121634 Inkling wrote: >>If so, it is the only spell in the WW that works that way. All the spells we have encountered require only a single incantation. Potioncat replied: >>The spell Snape was using to de-hex the broom in SS/PS was a repeated spell...and apparantly so was the hex Quirrell was using. Chatrouge: >>Repeating the spell over and over would probably help controlling it. Juli now: I think a hex, curse, charm or jinx goes on until you tell it to stop. I like to consider the Quirell vs Snape duel like this: just for the sake of this example, let's say that Quirell was doing a Lumos spell, and Snape a Nox one, so they cancel each other out, and they must beging again: Lumos - Nox - Lumos - Nox until either one fails to do it, in this case it was Quirell first, so the Nox prevailed. In the Occlumency lessons, Severus only has to say Legimens once because Harry doesn't stop him, every time Harry manages to stop him and they start all over Snape must cast the Legimency spell all over again. By the way, I think Severus is also a Legimens, but when teaching Harry occlumency he must use the standard spell for Harry to realize his emotions are being looked at. All over the books we have references that Snape and Dumbledore are both legimens, but we never hear them say "Legimens" and Harry doesn't realize his brain is being read. Juli __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From kermit13166 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 02:18:14 2005 From: kermit13166 at yahoo.com (kermit13166) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:18:14 -0000 Subject: magical abilities Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121635 Greetings.... I have been filling in the space between now and July with many rereadings of the first 5 books. One question that I have that continues to linger is the ability to do magic without a wand. For the students, the only references I recall are with both Neville and Harry and both while under duress. As you all have such great eyes for seeing the little things, I was just wondering what your take is on that. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 02:22:32 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:22:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How could Slytherin House have helped Harry? Snape? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050111022232.55628.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121636 Del wrote: > In PS/SS, the Sorting Hat told Harry that Slytherin > could help him on > the way to greatness (IIRC). In CoS, it tells him > that he would have > done well in Slytherin. > > Questions : why? How? What is it in Slytherin that > could have been of > any help to Harry? > ...big snip... Juli: I think it was in the way of ambition: the Sorting Hat says in one of his songs that the ambitious Slytherin wanted ambitious students. The Hat saw Harrys potential to become a great wizard, just like Ollivander once said I think we can expect great things from you (paraphrasing from memory), so I think that if Harry wanted to he could achieve great power, maybe even MoM and the place to do so is Slytherin house. Thinking all Slytherins are evil is just wrong, some of them may be, but surely not all of them, I still have great hopes for Theo Nott and Blaise Zabini, and even Draco, I think there may be some good inside him. Snape does help Harry even if they seem to hate each other: he did save him in PS/SS and tried to in PoA and taught him occlumency in OoP. Juli __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 03:23:54 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:23:54 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121637 > Carol responds: One more point. We need to look at the narrator here. Harry's dating the increased prickling to the beginning of the Occlumency lessons is his own view, not objective fact. He hates the lessons; he hates Snape; he *wants* to think that the lessons are harming him. That does not mean that they actually are harming him, or that Snape wants them to. Alla: ".... Harry, are you sure you're all right?. For Harry had just run both his hands hard over his forehead as though trying to iron it. "Yeah... fine... he said, lowering his hands, which were trembling. "I just feel a bit... I don't like Occlumency much..." "I expect anyone would feel shaky if they'd had their mind attacked over and over again, " said Hermione sympathetically. ..... Harry did not answer he was still feeling ill" - OOP, p.540, paperback, amer.ed. I respectfully submit that there is absolutely NOTHING in this quote that can makes us somehow think that what Harry describes does not actually happen. YES, Harry does not like Occlumency, but he IS hurting AND he is hurting right after Occlumency lesson ended. I am not saying that it is a 100% guaranty, that lessons are actually harming him, but I think it is a pretty big one. That is what I meant much earlier when I stated MY unsatisfaction with unreliable narrator argument. YES, narrator is often unreliable, but when he describes objective feelings, I don't think we can dismiss it as unreliable simply because we would like to. :o) JMO, of course. Oh, another quick question, Carol. You just said in your other post that you trust Dumbledore and Hermione as JKR spoke people in their trust of Snape, right? So, here we have Hermione speaking up that anybody would feel shaky from attack on their mind. Do you think that she is also correct and weakened mental defenses are AT LEAST often sideeffect of the Occlumency? Because if you answer in the positive, I think that at least makes Snape guilty of not warning Harry to take it easy after the lesson. Just my opinion, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 03:42:34 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:42:34 -0000 Subject: Tom/ Harry (was Lilly's eyes Harry's glasses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121638 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miller, Gina (JIS)" wrote: > > I think the biggest questions are why Tom Riddle's name sounds so familiar to Harry and why DD asked Harry and TR the same question, "is there something you wish to tell me" > > My mother is stuck on the idea that Tom Riddle and Harry are the same person. I do not agree, but she makes some good points. > > Gina A. Miller Tonks here: When the Riddles are killed there is mention of a boy being seen outside. I think we have all assumed that it was Tom. There are references to the fact that Tom and Harry look something alike. Of course, Harry also looks like his father. But I wonder if it was Harry that was outside, with a timeturner or something. Also maybe the fact that Harry's eyes are green is the way we can tell him apart from Tom at the same age?? What do others think? Tonks_op From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 11 03:47:39 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 03:47:39 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121639 > > Carol responds: > One more point. We need to look at the narrator here. Harry's dating the increased prickling to the beginning of the Occlumency lessons is his own view, not objective fact. He hates the lessons; he hates Snape; he *wants* to think that the lessons are harming him. That does not mean that they actually are harming him, or that Snape wants them to. [Potioncat snipping Canon supplied by Alla. And very good canon it was!] > Alla > I respectfully submit that there is absolutely NOTHING in this quote that can makes us somehow think that what Harry describes does not actually happen. snipping again > YES, narrator is often unreliable, but when he describes objective > feelings, I don't think we can dismiss it as unreliable simply > because we would like to. :o) JMO, of course. Potioncat: I don't think Carol doubts that Harry is feeling these pains, I think the question might be whether he's correctly identified the cause. And does Snape know these things are happening? It's too bad it had to be Snape who taught him. He might have been more honest about his experiences with a different teacher. We know Harry is feeling worse after Occlumency starts. I would have to go back and re-read, but I have these questions for those who have read the material more recently. 1. Are there any other episodes of Harry feeling bad before Occlumency starts? 2. Do we know if anything else changes/begins at the same time as Occlumency? I snipped Alla's last question because I don't really have an answer. But I'll throw this out in honesty. If for some reason Snape had been the one to teach Harry the Patronus charm, he would no doubt have tossed a bucket of water on him, ordered him to stand up and opened up the cabinet again. (Nothing more than "that wasn't as bad as it might have been" and certainly no chocolate) Potioncat From musicofsilence at hotmail.com Tue Jan 11 04:03:56 2005 From: musicofsilence at hotmail.com (lifeavantgarde) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:03:56 -0000 Subject: Snape's birthdate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121640 >>>>>gorbash74 wrote: Interestingly, according to pantheon.org,Snape's birthdate marks the festival of Janus, the two faced Roman god. Coincidence?<<<<< >>>>Potioncat: I'd suggest everyone go read about Janus. Here's one site http://www.pantheon.org/articles/j/janus.html Janus was associated with important beginnings, and with the growing up of young people<<<< >>>Carol adds: As that site indicates, Janus is the god of beginnings and endings. Janus/January looks back over the old year but also looks forward to the new one. Snape, too, looks back at the past and forward to the future. His DE past *is* past. It has its effects, but it's dead. <<< Stefanie writes: A couple of other sites for you all -- http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9368442 (not a complete article -- the rest requires subscription) http://encyclopedia.com/html/j/janus-god.asp What I found quite interesting about the descriptions of Janus was the mention of "doorways" or as Encyclopedia Britannica puts it, " Roman god of doorways and *archways*" That's of course a stretch at association, but interesting nonetheless. Leaving the Janus' temple's doors open during a time of war? Now that the Wizarding World is most certainly going to be in a war climate, could this have significance? Snape being a good war omen...for which side, that is... Stefanie, who still holds Phineas Nigellus's outlook on Slytherins very close to heart when regarding our favorite Potions Master. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 04:05:24 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:05:24 -0000 Subject: Suggestions please: Mysteries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121641 Jim Flanagan wrote: > > How did Crouch Jr. learn all the advanced magic that he displayed while at Hogwarts pretending to be Moody? He was very young when sent to Azakban, then was under the Imperious Curse up until the QWC. When did he change from the crying youth that Harry saw in the pensieve into an accomplished mage capable of hoodwinking a powerful magical object and successfully fooling Dumbledore for almost an entire school year? > amosdiggory99 responded: > It is about 13 years between the trial of Barty Crouch Jr (aka > Polyjuice Moody) and GoF. I would assume that the imperius curse > would NOT prevent him from practising his magic. Besides, what magic > do we see Polyjuice Moody do other than turning Malfoy into a ferret? Carol responds: How about using all three Unforgiveable Curses on spiders, Imperioing his students, Imperioing Krum to Crucio Cedric Diggory, and AKing his own father? I may have forgotten a few, but I think this list is sufficient to prove that he was well-acquainted with Dark Magic and both willing and able to cast illegal curses before he came to Hogwarts as Fake!Moody. Barty Jr. was bright (he got twelve OWLs and was able to impersonate the real Moody convincingly), he was evidently a powerful wizard given his ability to cast Unforgiveable curses, he was highly motivated to return to his master and prove his devotion (in contrast to the DEs who "walked free"), and even before his trial in the Pensieve, he was thoroughly corrupted, having helped the Lestranges Crucio the Longbottoms. I agree with you that he probably learned Polyjuice potion (and the Transfiguration spell he used on Draco) as a student, but he must have learned the Unforgiveables as a young DE, maybe an apprentice to Bellatrix, the Crucio expert, and her devoted followers, Rodolphus and Rabastan. And for all we know, Winky in her mistaken kindness to poor young Master let Barty Jr. practice magic under the cover of his invisibility cloak. We know that he had periods when the Imperius Curse was weak, and the Imperius Curse didn't prevent him from maturing physically, so probably it didn't prevent the natural maturation of his magical powers, either. Mor important, I don't think you forget how to do an Unforgiveable once you've cast one. "Hoodwinking a powerful magical object" simply fits the pattern of intelligence, power, and motivation. If he didn't already know the spell he needed, he had access to Moody's books and the Hogwarts library. The crying boy in the Pensieve may have been a coward or a convincing actor or both, but either way, he was already a servant of Voldemort capable of casting the most terrible curses. By the time he stole Harry's wand and cast the Dark Mark (also obviously learned when he was a DE), he was a young man of about thirty-two, fully grown and full of hatred and determination, a fanatic to match Bellatrix in his devotion and willingness to serve the cause of evil as personified in Voldemort. Carol, who thinks that the Crouches as a family are tragic figures, particularly Crouch Sr.'s love for his son, which came too late to save either of them From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 04:17:32 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 04:17:32 -0000 Subject: SHIP : Just Desserts for Remus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" wrote: > > Valky wrote: > "One of my favourite things about the Hans' postulation that Remus is the Grey King is that The Grey King has a young vibrant wife, symbolic of the joy that goes with the Grey King state in Alchemy. Personally I can't imagine anything more appropriate for Remus than to have someone young and joyful and full of life by his side, he deserves it. " > > Del replies: > And do you have any idea about who this "young vibrant wife" could be? I would personally vote for Tonks. She and Remus do seem to get along pretty well. Who knows if they didn't ask the Knight Bus to take them someplace quiet and discreet, after they dropped the kids at Hogwarts ;-)? > Tonks here: ah.. hum.. well I do fancy him a bit. And who else could live with a werewolf? But I am not saying any more. ;-) Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 05:29:35 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:29:35 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121643 >>Nora: >Since it has been found for me, I point to me own post at 108762. >No, I don't think Voldie necessarily likes and/or esteems purebloods in and of themselves, but he does consider them better than anything else--but he's still at the top.< Betsy: Agreed! And I loved your post on Voldemort as a fascist - very clearly set out. I was leery about Voldemort buying into the frevor of the whole pureblood movement since Tom Riddle struck me as fairly cynical and quite willing to adopt any belief system that gave him a shot at power. But I do agree that the pureblood view of Muggles fit so well with his own hatred and provided such a convenient rallying cry that of course he took it as his own and twisted it to its ugliest end. (Not that it had far to go, I think. There is definitely something rotten in the WW.) >>Betsy: >And Snape was going along with Umbridge himself, keeping her in Veritaserum and all. He may well have encouraged his students to join the IS. Joining the IS was certainly the cunning route. And they protected their House - which shows a loyalty to Slytherin at least.< >>Nora: >I thought it was fairly transparent to everyone (not just to us and our priviledged perspective) that Snape was being fairly openly contemptuous of Umbridge. It wasn't only Harry who saw Snape being rude to her in Potions Class, after all. And (in part from my own experiences), we tend to underrate how perceptive children are about teacher attitudes towards administrators. :)< Betsy: But Snape's contempt (that I'm not sure Umbridge herself picked up on, or if she did, she seemed pretty sure that Snape was under her thumb, even if he was unhappy about it) wouldn't preclude the possibility that he encouraged his House to *appear* to support her. I don't think he'd encourage them to actually be loyal to her - just *appear* to be - as he did with the fake Veritaserum. (Sends a wink in khinterberg's direction. ) McGonagall encouraged Harry to keep his head down when it came to Umbridge, though she herself was less than polite to Umbridge whenever they crossed paths. Snape was in a stronger position than his students - he could allow a little acid into his tone. >>Nora: >We didn't see any hints of outrage amongst the Slytherin team when Draco uses 'Mudblood', while the Gryffindor reaction is BOTH "don't say that about our house member" and "dude, that's just not right"-- it's categorically unacceptable. I think noting who will say that word and who won't is a shorthand for a whole big set'o'attitudes.< Betsy: In some ways this is an unfair example though. We have two teams that are almost fanatically competetive with each other. We have an exchange of insults that quickly spiral into personal attacks (and it's Hermione, interestingly enough, who gets in a particularly cruel dig) and then a truly nasty name is used. Immediately words are exchanged for wands and fists (and it's the Gryffindors who have two burly beaters leaping onto a small boy two years their junior), Flint protects his Seeker, Ron curses Malfoy, it backfires, Ron spits up slugs, and the Slytherins laugh. When exactly were the Slytherins supposed to stand aside and scold Draco for using a bad word? And I would be shocked, remembering my own school days, if there aren't a slew of Muggle jokes that are shared where teachers and Muggleborns aren't listening, and in every single house. The use of 'mudblood' *is* shorthand for a set of attitudes. But do you really think Slytherin is the only House with such attitudes? (Out of curiosity - has any Slytherin other than Draco been heard to use that word?) >>Betsy: >Voldemort and his DEs do stand for everything dark in WW. But do they stand for Slytherin? Not to the WW anyway, or Slytherin would have been shut down a long time ago. (I think Crouch Sr., could have swung it.)< >>Nora: >I'm not sure anyone could have swung it, but the other point made is that for an appreciable portion of the WW, what Slytherin stands for is *okay*. Take Mrs. Black, who didn't approve of killing people, but was all about the inferiority of Mudbloods. Or Umbridge's attitude towards creatures. Fudge's belief in the importance of blood. The attitude towards Muggleborns and the greater WW problems towards treating other creatures well (stated by Dumbledore such that I think it's being given to us as *reality* in the Potterverse) are knotted together.< Betsy: That's what I'm saying. There is something rotton in WW. I just don't think it hangs its hat in Slytherin. Too many wizards and witches think the way Fudge and Umbridge and even Mrs. Black do. Heck, Voldemort did really, really well in the last war. Didn't Lupin say something about how many folks were fighting for him and how much they outnumbered the good guys? I think it would be impossible for all of them to come from Slytherin. But, I think in Harry's mind they all did, because he can so clearly see the negative aspects to that particular House. (And I don't deny that some of those negative aspects are there.) But even the Weasleys, such a Gryffindor family, have a gentle kind of condescension towards Muggles that could get jacked up into something ugly with the proper pressure. >>Nora: >Salazar's vision may well have been primarily defense oriented, although it's notable that the presentation we have of Muggle persecution of witches so far has it all played for comedy. But that doesn't change that there is something almost destined to go wrong in his solution, well-intentioned or not.< Betsy: Of course something could go wrong. Anything based on fear has huge potential to go wrong. And something did. Salazar's own heir has twisted his protectiveness into something that could well destroy the WW if he's not stopped. (And isn't it interesting that a boy Salazar himself would have admired is the one chosen to defeat the threat?) >>Nora: >I think we are going to find out more about the historical bases of all of this next book (hence I bet that the HBP is a historical figure, although I will end speculation there). Betsy: Oh, I hope so! (On the learning more of the history bit - not the HBP. Not as emotionally invested in the HBP. =D ) >>Nora: >We still have precious little of the positive shown us about Slytherin. We have a portrait of a dead Headmaster, and a man who might be spying, might be not, but absolutely none of us know him to any appreciable extent--so it could go anywhere. Not that much to hang your hat on, at the end of the day, and a lot to be skeptical of.< Betsy: And so, we wait with eager hearts for HBP! It's the very lack of positive traits that have me skeptical of our view of Slytherin. Our stereotypes of the other Houses have been broken (or my stereotypes anyway) through the introduction of characters like Luna Lovegood and Zacharias Smith. A similar thing must be done for Slytherin if the Sorting Hat's advice will ever be followed. But the thing is, we know much more about Slytherin than we ever knew about Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff. So it will take more than just a jolly reluctant- Slytherin turning up. There needs to be someone who is a Slytherin to his or her core that can demonstrate to Harry et al that Slytherin ain't that bad. Or at least that there's hope for that House, anway. Betsy, who wonders if she's the only one eager to see Draco interacting with Luna and Zacharias. From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 05:54:12 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:54:12 -0000 Subject: The Black estate (Was: Draco, no longer Harry's antagonist? -Money is the Key In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121644 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > bboyminn wrote: > > > As long as we are on the subject of Draco, I think in the next book, > > one of the subplots will be Harry and Draco fighting it out for > > control of the Black Family Estate. That should make some interesting > > reading. I don't think Harry cares about the house or the money, but > > the idea of Draco getting it would be intolerable. > > > > It would also be nice if the Malfoy family was now desperate for the > > money because of the collapes of Malfoy's many business venture cause > > by Lucius being once again implicated and arrested as a Death Eater. > > > > In addition, as a separate issue, I think Harry will inherit Sirius > > Black's personal estate without any problems. > > Carol notes: > As I mentioned long ago, it will be a bit hard to prove that Sirius is > dead without a body, and with only teenagers, DEs, and Order members > who don't want to blow their cover as witnesses. How can DD or anyone > else prove that he's not still a criminal on the run? it would be > easier to prove his innocence (catch Peter and bring him in) than to > prove his death. > > Carol, who hopes that Sirius did write and will and that Lupin > inherits *something* Antosha: One thing to remember about Sirius's death is that two of the witnesses to his fall through the Veil were not only Order members, but also Aurors: Kingsley Shacklebolt and Tonks. (Was she conscious at the time?) Can't get better witnesses than cops. Their presence has already, I think, been leaked. Kingsley was the one standing herd over the captured DEs, IIRC. It'd be easy to say he heard a disturbance and intervened. Once the death is confirmed, Sirius's criminal status is irrelevant. From that point, it's a matter of the WW's probate law and or Sirius's hypothetical will. Do we know if Andromeda or Bellatrix was the eldest of the Black girls? Because if Sirius died intestate (without a will), Tonks could end up the heiress. Just because she's not on the tapestry doesn't mean she can't inherit--was Sirius there? From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 05:56:38 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:56:38 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121645 "inkling108" wrote: > When you say he's not working for LV > or Harry, do you mean he is playing both > sides against the middle? No, not really. I think Snape really and truly hates Voldemort, the reason for his hatred I really don't know, but if you put a gun to my head and told me to guess I'd say he hates him because he killed Lilly. The trouble is, for reasons that have nothing to do with Voldemort, Snape also hates Harry with a passion. In Snape's eyes Harry is (almost) pure evil, but Snape is a realist, he knows Harry does have one virtue, only one, but it's a biggie. Snape knows Harry is the only one who has a chance of killing Voldemort. From that springs Snape's contradictions, he hates Harry but he saves his life. > it would seem that Snape was the only > one is a position to inform both sides > of the fact that the kids had in fact > left for the ministry, I'm not usually the one to defend Snape but I doubt he tipped off Voldemort; he sent Harry the dram and knew he would find a way to get to the ministry very quickly. Voldemort didn't need a tipster for that. Eggplant From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 06:25:19 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:25:19 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121646 >>Alla: >Actually, that was NOT my question. It does NOT matter what I think about those traits of character. :o) >You argued that Dumbledore named positive traits of Slytherin to Harry and I argued that we don't see Dumbledore judging those traits of character one way or another.< Betsy: My point was this - resourcefulness and determination are pretty much universally understood to be positive traits. I've never heard them used negatively. It would be bizarre to see them as negative unless someone specifically said, "and I don't mean that in a good way." And then I'd expect an explanation. I think you're probably over- thinking this scene.< >>Alla: >Funnily enough, I don't see Harry as being very ... resorceful in the chamber. Courageous.... yes. Resourceful... not really.< Betsy: The whole, putting the Sorting Hat on his head, thereby calling up Godric's sword and the stabbing of the diary with the basilisk fang I would label as resourceful. Again - I think you're over-thinking these words. Alla: >But that is just my interpretation fo course. All that I am saying that Dumbledore does not necessarily praise Slytherin traits of character to Harry in this quote. >I would say he praises Harry for the fact that contrary to having all those traits of character he ended up being in Gryffindor.< Betsy: But that doesn't make sense to the scene. Harry is upset, thinking that he's got traits similar to Tom Riddle aka Voldemort. Why on earth would Dumbledore list negative traits that he had in common with Voldemort? "You're shifty Harry, and you've got lots of anger in you. Yes, you're about three steps away from being a murdering bastard. But cheer up! You're in a good House after all!" Instead, Dumbldore lists what is positive about Slytherin - which must exist after all (unless you think all Slytherins are evil - which would go against everything JKR has done to create a three dimensional world), and then finishes his little pep-talk with proof that Harry does belong in Gryffindor. >>Alla: >Something else is interesting to me in this quote. "Certain disregard for rules"... Isn't it supposed to be Gryffindor trait?< Betsy: I would pay money to see someone try and explain that to McGonagall. =D >>Alla: >To me there is a HUGE difference between desire for secrecy from Muggles indeed maintained by all four Founders AND Salasar's official exlcusion from his house muggle borns witches and wisards. It looked to me that if Salasar had his way, none of the houses would have accepted muggle borns. >So,it seems to me that other three were pretty much united in not allowing Salasar to do that. And yes they were friends in the beginning, maybe till they did not the huge difference in their views on teaching?< Betsy: It makes sense though. To teach Muggleborn children you either have to kidnap them from their parents (sure to raise some Muggle wrath) or risk them returning with knowledge of the magical world (including weaknesses - like get his wand away from him, and most wizards are as helpless as Muggles - even more so since he's probably wand- dependent) and a loyalty tug-of-war going on. Muggles were attacking wizards and witches because they thought magic was *evil*. Maybe parents would think their children were okay - but would the extended family be so open minded? Or members of the village? And what if the child herself was so worried that she was evil that she confessed her "sins" to the wrong person? Obviously these problems could and were handled - but you must admit that Salazar's worries didn't come out of nowhere. Also, per the Sorting Hat's song in OotP Salazar was very upfront with what type of students he wanted to teach. And the founders taught together in harmony for several years. We don't really know what sparked the fight that ended in Salazar's leaving. Though the Hat does say that all four founders were fighting with *each other*. So it wasn't a big, "Salazar Sucks!" fight. I think it's a pretty big assumption that none of the other Houses ever cared about blood. If only 1/4 of the WW in Britain cared about blood why does Mr. Borgin imply to Lucius Malfoy that there was a time when Wizard blood counted for something (CoS, Scholastic, paperback, pg. 52)? There is bias in the WW, and it may have its roots in the time of persecution by Muggles when Hogwarts was founded. But I don't think blame for that bias can be thrown solely at Salazar's feet. Betsy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 06:26:42 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:26:42 -0000 Subject: Draco, no longer Harry's antagonist? -Money is the Key In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > > As long as we are on the subject of Draco, I think in the next book, one of the subplots will be Harry and Draco fighting it out for > control of the Black Family Estate. That should make some interesting reading. I don't think Harry cares about the house or the money, but the idea of Draco getting it would be intolerable. > > It would also be nice if the Malfoy family was now desperate for the money because of the collapes of Malfoy's many business venture cause by Lucius being once again implicated and arrested as a Death Eater. > > In addition, as a separate issue, I think Harry will inherit Sirius > Black's personal estate without any problems. > > Just a thought. > > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) Tonks here: I think that Bella and the adults that are Black family members will have a problem with Harry inheriting anything. And Draco will not have a part in it, his mother will. It would be nice if Tonks got the house. Harry leaves Privet Dr. early because there is going to be a wedding, Tonks is marrying Lupin and they are going to live in the Black family home. It will still be headquarters for the Order. Mama's picture and the elf will go!! Tonks_op (I really like this pretty ring he gave me. oops. wasn't going to tell.) From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 06:43:20 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:43:20 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121648 "justcarol67" wrote: > I have yet to see canon evidence that > she *intended* for DD to lose his position, > much less that she knew what that might > mean for Hogwarts or Harry. There is no canon evidence that Marietta is retarded either and she'd have to be not to know what sort of person Umbridge was. She may not have been able to predict in detail what the ramifications her betrayal would be but she MUST have known it would be devastating to Harry, the other members of the DA, and Hogwarts in general. > it's *Harry* who fears that he'll go to > Azkaban as a result of the hearing. There > is no objective evidence that he would >actually have gone there. How else can you explain the very first message Harry received from the ministry in the chapter "A Peck Of Owls", it said he was already expelled and his wand would be destroyed but IN ADDITION he was ordered to attend a "disciplinary hearing"; there is only one thing that could mean, expulsion and being forced to live as a muggle was not enough, the specter of Azkaban loomed. And if this was not something very very serious why was there a formal trial held in the largest courtroom by the full Wizengamot, something that has not happened in many years. This was a criminal trial not a "disciplinary hearing", Dumbledore specifically said so, and when people are convicted in a criminal trial they go to jail. The wizard jail is Azkaban. Percy was in his element and in a very good mood when it looked like Harry would end up in Azkaban, laughing on cue at Fudge's bad jokes (very good minister!) and looking smug. It was only when Harry won his freedom that Percy became morose. The exact same thing happened later when it looked like Dumbledore would go to Azkaban, except then it was even more blatant. > Mrs. Figg's (who, if we accept JKR's website > as canon, did not really see the Dementors You have me at a disadvantage, I have always taken it as a given that Figg did see the Dementors, am I wrong? What exactly did JKR say? > we have canon for Percy's good side, > what appears to be a genuine affection, > if not love, for his brother Ron, as > evidenced by his wading into the water > after the Second Task in GoF after > fearing that Ron would drown. Yes that was good I can't deny it, but it's interesting, whenever somebody wants to show Percy's good side they always come up with that exact same example and I think I know why; in 5 long books that one short sentence pretty much exhausts Percy's entire good side. It seems to be the only good thing he did in his life. > if we should cut Hermione some slack, > we should cut Percy some, too Hermione doesn't need any slack and Percy doesn't deserve any. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 06:53:47 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 06:53:47 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121649 "Steve" wrote: > In hindsight, here is where I see Hermione's > mistake. At the point > where everyone present > agreed to join, but before they signed the > paper, Hermione should have given them the > option to bow out. I don't understand your point at all. At the exact instant you specify Marietta could have stood up and said, "I don't care to sign", and then walked out the door. I am quite certain nobody would have stopped her. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 07:17:37 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:17:37 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121650 "delwynmarch" wrote: > why compare Hermione's range of action > with the range of actions of the secret > services during the Cold War A great riddle, let me think, Hmm, my mind is a blank, you got me, I don't know, I don't even have a clue as to why anybody would compare Hermione's range of action with the range of actions of the secret services during the Cold War. Ok Del, you win, I've thought and thought and can't think of an answer, I give up. So tell us Del, what's the answer to your riddle? Eggplant From snow15145 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 07:21:22 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:21:22 -0000 Subject: Satellite!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121651 Carol responds: Interesting theory (I wouldn't call it an accusation, since you're not accusing anybody of anything). But there's a simpler explanation. Maybe Baby Harry received some but not all of Voldemort's powers (the only one he's displayed so far is Parseltongue) and Voldemort didn't lose his powers per se but only the ability to use them. Snow: Thank you for your response, Carol, but how would you account for Voldemort's quote that "only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others." Is this just the uttering of a former vapor-self who was unable to use his abilities if so why is Voldemort capable of using a power (parceltongue) which we know has been permanently transferred to Harry? If Harry is in possession of the ability, transferred to him through Voldemort, to speak parceltongue, how can baby!Voldy or any form of Voldemort speak parceltongue when it is no longer in his possession, unless he has access to it? Carol: Without his body, he couldn't use a wand or even speak. Later, he was able to use his powers through Quirrell (I doubt that Quirrell could have broken into Gringotts using his own powers), and even as Baby! mort, he could use a wand. Snow: Good point, however, Harry's scar was responding to Voldemort and his endeavors to use magic `himself', not through someone else. The scar would not have been the intensely sensitive conductor it is, at the beginning. At the beginning, it was only when Harry was physically close in proximity to Vapormort that induced any pain, and then it was referred to as just a `hurt'. Voldemort's powers are very much alive in Harry and accessible through Harry even when he was Vapormort but Harry's scar response to the use of the powers Voldemort is accessing only grew with Voldemort's physical formation. It was only when Voldy became Baby! mort (a real physical substance) that Harry was capable of actually viewing Voldemort's schemes through his accessed powers, which intensified Harry's scar pain. Carol: Now that Voldie has his own body magically restored to him, he can use Legilimency, and presumably, he uses Parseltongue to speak to Nagini. There's no question that he can use the Unforgiveable Curses, a power that Harry so far lacks and hopefully will never fully develop. Snow: The worst properties of the powers that Harry has unknowingly acquired from Voldemort is exactly what makes Harry's statement at the end of OOP so utterly ironic: "But I don't!" said Harry in a strangled voice. "I haven't any powers he hasn't got. I couldn't fight the way he did tonight, I can't possess people?or kill them?" Harry has never acquired the power to possess people; this statement came from Voldy himself; so Harry defiantly is correct that he does not have the power to possess people. The next statement is that he can't kill people, which is also correct via the information from Bella at the MOM: "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 wont hurt me for long " Why can Harry not use an unforgivable curse because, like Dumbledore, he is too noble to use them or to understand that he has the power to use them via the Voldemort legacy unknowingly bestowed on him. The examples that Harry gave as to why he can't fight like Voldemort are the only ones that actually give a reason why Harry can't fight like Voldemort. Snow?who occasionally wishes this were a chat room instead of an adult forum No offence to you Carol From chrissilein at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 07:37:28 2005 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (LadyOfThePensieve) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:37:28 -0000 Subject: Trelawney was wrong, she spoke of Snape, but thought it was Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121652 Hi guys, since we know Snape was born at January, 9th, we know he is a capricorn and the capricorn is astrologically ruled by STATURN (by the way the 7.planet in our solsystem) In GoF, chapter 13 (Mad Eye Moody) she teaches the studenst to interprate the constellation of the planets. Goblet of Fire, Chapter 13: Excerpt from the book ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "'Harry!' Ron muttered. 'What?' Harry looked around; the whole class was staring at him. he sat up straight; he had been almost dozing off, lost in the heat and his thoughts. 'I was saying, my dear, that you were clearly born under the baleful influence of Saturn,' said Professor Trelawney, a faint note of resentment in her voice at the fact that he had obviously not been hanging on her words. 'Born under - what, sorry?' said Harry. 'Saturn, dear, the planet Saturn!' said Professor Trelawney, sounding definitely irritated that he wasn't riveted by this news. 'I was saying that Saturn was surely in a position of power in the heavens at the moment of your birth...Your dark hair...your mean stature...tragic losses so young in life...I think I am right in saying, my dear, that you were born in midwinter?' 'No,' said Harry, 'I was born in July.' Ron hastily turned his laugh into a hacking cough. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- So while she believed she was talking of Harry (she wasn?t ideed), we can now be sure maybe 85 percent it was Snape she was speaking of, even she didn?t know it , of course. We couldn?t know it, because we hadn?t no clue Snape was born in Midwinter and as capricorn and under Saturn?s rule. What do you think of it? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 08:05:21 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:05:21 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > "Steve" wrote: > > > In hindsight, here is where I see Hermione's > > mistake. At the point > where everyone present > > agreed to join, but before they signed the > > paper, Hermione should have given them the > > option to bow out. > I don't understand your point at all. At the exact instant you > specify Marietta could have stood up and said, "I don't care to > sign", and then walked out the door. I am quite certain nobody would > have stopped her. > > Eggplant bboyminn: Yes, but what is the likelihood of that happening in /real/ real life or /fictional/ real life. Marietta at that point is under a lot of peer pressure, and she may feel her mere presence there implies a willingness or commitment to join. By specifically stating that people have the opportunity to walk away, Hermione would be opening the door for those who feel pressured to be there or feel reluctant to make the commitment. Once people start signing, it would be extremely difficult for a kid to go against their peer group. In addition, a preceptive Hermione should have called people out by name, and given them the opportunity to leave if they didn't feel comfortable with the idea. It was clear from Zacharias Smith's statements and Marietta's body language that neither of them seemd too sure. It's sometimes difficult for young people to fight the group mentality. But calling them by name, and giving them a genuine opportunity to express their reluctance and leave, Hermione could have saved them all some headaches. True, techincally those uncertain people are quite capable of speaking up for and asseting themselves. But, I know from experience that in groups, especially groups of young people, that doesn't always happen. Let's face it, Marietta from the very beginning didn't want to be there, and that reluctance was picked up by observers in the group. -OotP Am ED, HB, pg 339- "(Cho's) friend, who had curly reddish--blonde hair, did not smile, but gave Harry a thoroughly mistrustfull look that told Harry plainly that, given her way, she would not be here at all" Pg 347 "..though Harry saw Cho's friend give her a rather reproachful look before adding her name..." So, there were signs, and Marietta's reproachful look certainly can be considered an indication that she was yielding to group pressure and not following her feelings. Pg 347 "...(Cho's) friend stood beside her (Cho), arms folded, clicking her tongue, so Cho had little choice but to leave with her." Also, an indication that Marietta had a strong desire to leave but couldn't bring herself to act independant of the group. What people CAN do, and what people are LIKELY to do are often very very different. Through the whole thing, Marietta is clearly doing something she doesn't want to do. She is yielding to pressure from Cho, and pressure from the group. As I said, if Hermione had been on the ball, she would have paused and specifically given people a way out. Of course, I say once again, that JKR needed things to go the way they did. That need more than anything is was influenced Hermione and Marietta's choices. As a reader, the question becomes, were those actions and choices consistent with real people and with the characters themselves. Personally, I think they were dead on. Smart as she is, I can see a 15 year old Hermione not having the foresight to think of all these details, and I can easily see 15 year old Marietta feeling very pressured (consciously and subconsciously) to go a long with the group. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 08:36:46 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:36:46 -0000 Subject: The Black estate (Was: Draco, no longer Harry's antagonist? -Money is the Ke In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121654 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > bboyminn wrote: > > > As long as we are on the subject of Draco, I think in the next > > book, one of the subplots will be Harry and Draco fighting it out > > for control of the Black Family Estate. > Carol notes: > ..., it will be a bit hard to prove that Sirius is dead without a > body, and with only teenagers, DEs, and Order members who don't want > to blow their cover as witnesses. ... It would be easier to prove > his innocence (catch Peter and bring him in) than to prove his > death. > > Carol, who hopes that Sirius did write and will and that Lupin > inherits *something* bboyminn: Actually, I agree. Although, perhaps the next book is a little too soon to try and resolve Black's death; maybe I should save it for book 7. I also believe that Dumbledore will formulate a clear and direct plan for dealing with the situation. At this point in time, revealing Black's death serves no one. It makes much more sense to focus on establish, whether factually or just in public opinion, Sirius's innocents. That puts him back in the good graces of the wizard world. In the past, I speculated that Harry should have Rita print another article in which Harry says with absolute certainty the Sirius is innocent. Harry, more than anyone, in the eyes of the wizard world, has apparent reasons to hate Sirius. So, a statement to the contrary by Harry would carry great weight. If the person who appears to have suffered the greatest harm by Black now thinks he's innocent, that has to mean something. Regardless of the method, I think Black's innocents is the first step. Once that is accomplished, and the Order/Dumbledore have work other circumstance to their advantage, they can then start to resolve the Estate. It only make sense for them to proceed in a fashion that serves them best. However, if Draco and the Malfoy family are desperate for money, they may try to force Dumbledore and Harry's hand on the matter. That could create a sticky problem. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 08:53:33 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:53:33 -0000 Subject: Draco, no longer Harry's antagonist? -Money is the Key In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > > > > As long as we are on the subject of Draco, I think in the next > > book, one of the subplots will be Harry and Draco fighting it out > > for control of the Black Family Estate. > > > > ...edited... > > > > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) > Tonks here: > > I think that Bella and the adults that are Black family members will > have a problem with Harry inheriting anything. And Draco will not > have a part in it, his mother will. > > ...edited... > > Tonks_op bboyminn: Slightly off-topic. There is a precedent in European inheritance custom for everything to go to the nearest living /oldest/ MALE relative; that would be Draco. Usually, it is the oldest son, but in this case, there is no son. By giving the bulk of the Estate to the oldest son or oldest nearest male heir, it keeps the estate from being diluted. If it is spread uniformly among all available direct heirs, the family fortune keeps getting smaller and smaller until it is no longer a fortune at all. If there is no available perferred heir, then the estate is usually divided in proportion among the available family members. In this case, Tonk's mother would inherit something as would Mrs. Malfoy, and possibly the Weasleys. I keep hoping that in those long lonely hours at Grimmauld Place, Sirius thoughts turned to Harry and his future, and to insure Harry future in the event that Sirius was no longer in the picture to care for Harry, Sirius made a handwritten Will that was witnessed by other order members. That would still leave room for Harry's inheritance of the Black Family Estate to be disputed, but would probably allow Harry to inherit Sirius's personal estate without questions. It seems like with only two books left in the series, there isn't room for all these many detailed sub-plots, but at the same time, I don't see how JKR can leave the question of Sirius's death and the Black Family Estate unresolved. The Order is using the Black Family house as headquarters. Black's death at some point is going to complicate that. So, somehow, I feel, all this has to be resolved, and what better way than to have Harry and Draco fight it out. All that said, I would also like to see Lupin and the Weasley family get something out of this. I'm just not sure how to work that into the story. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 09:17:32 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:17:32 -0000 Subject: Tom/ Harry (was Lilly's eyes Harry's glasses) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121656 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miller, Gina (JIS)" > wrote: > > > > I think the biggest questions are why Tom Riddle's name sounds so > familiar to Harry and why DD asked Harry and TR the same > question, "is there something you wish to tell me" > > Gina A. Miller > > Tonks here: > > When the Riddles are killed there is mention of a boy being seen > outside. I think we have all assumed that it was Tom. What do others think? > > Tonks_op Doddiemoemoe here: Each time I reread GOF I always wonder about the "boy outside"... I think it may well have been "time-turner Harry"....Only in that it may have prevented the whole "bone of the father" experience for him, but then again it may not as Volde's father may have died before anyhow...(seems like the type of mistake that could well have happened during one of Harry's exploits--(what if he 'borrowed hermione's turner AFTER she fell asleep in the bed that night--or early the next morn. in POA?!?...) Did Hermione realize something was amiss and turn it back in? She seems to be managing well in her studies..why drop her simplest class? Other than she would have had to to have engergies for spew, knitting elf clothes and keeping up with Harry.. As much as we love to chastise Hermione on morality...her standards of ethics certainly bear closer examination. DeeDee From Snarryfan at aol.com Tue Jan 11 09:32:47 2005 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:32:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121657 > Alla : > > Oh, another quick question, Carol. You just said in your other post > that you trust Dumbledore and Hermione as JKR spoke people in their > trust of Snape, right? > > So, here we have Hermione speaking up that anybody would feel shaky > from attack on their mind. Do you think that she is also correct and > weakened mental defenses are AT LEAST often sideeffect of the > Occlumency? Because if you answer in the positive, I think that at > least makes Snape guilty of not warning Harry to take it easy after > the lesson. > > Just my opinion, But how Snape could know about this? Like I try to explain in the post #121612 (note the try, it was late), it's a completely new situation. The pains are in his scar, by his link with Voldie, not his brain. Before him, those who learn Occlumency *couldn't* feeling strange pain, because, as far as we know, Harry's scar is the first one to exist. There are also the difference in the attacks. An *intern* attack of legilimency (like voldie does) is unheard. They doesn't know how the Occlumency can help or influence or do anything. They improvise. And maybe it's why it didn't work on the dreams or in the MOM, but worked once on Snape. Occlumency is the way to stop an extern invasion of the mind. Harry undergo an *intern* invasion, a different attack, which need a different defense, apparently not the Occlumency. Maybe it's like trying to put off a fire with Nox. The objectif is similar, but different. Christelle. From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 11 10:27:12 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:27:12 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121658 > > Inkling replies: > > > > If so, it is the only spell in the WW that works that way. All > the > > spells we have encountered require only a single incantation. > > > > In this lesson, the incantation "Legilimens!" has already worked: > > Snape has access to Harry's mind. So, what else does he want? > > Potioncat: > The spell Snape was using to de-hex the broom in SS/PS was a > repeated spell...and apparantly so was the hex Quirrell was using. Sigune: Warning: this is not canon but pure speculation, as we know so little about Occlumency ourselves - but it seems to me that if all you do is just *break into* someone's mind using "Legilimens!", you are only inside, and still have to find your way to the information you actually want to access. The break-in apparently causes random memories to rush to the fore; but if someone like Voldie uses Legilimency, I'd say he would want specific information, which, I should say, he would drag out by asking specific questions. As the mind works via association, the question, "How's Dumbledore these days?" would conjure up a torrent of Dumbledore-related memories among which the interviewer might find the thing he needs. So, what I mean to say, basically, is that a person doing Legilimency would be talking even after they have said the spell, just to find the information they were after. As to all the Snape-doubting of late, whether or not related to Occlumency lessons: If you ask me, Snape is not by far the powerful wizard many readers like to make him out. If he were, he might be his own evil overlord; he might not have been knocked out by three thirteen-year-old students in the Shack; he might not need Dumbledore's protection; he might not need a spell to perform Legilimency; he might not need to merge into the shadows if he doesn't want to be noticed as he would be able to make himself invisible like Dumbledore - and possibly, just possibly, he wouldn't be so frustrated and snarky and intolerable. Also, Snape is about the least perfect human being to walk the face of the series. He is cold, he enjoys hurting people, he is envious, he nurses petty grudges, he has still to grow up. What can we expect of such a man? Perfection in his actions? That would be most unrealistic. To me, all those elements that have been raised as evidence of Snape's unreliability amount to a catalogue of his failings, not to proof of his disloyalty. The point to consider in regard to Snape is whether or not he stands anything to gain from his association with Voldie. The answer seems to be no. Voldie has so far displayed disconcerting incompetence, which makes it hard to believe he could have been such a terror in the first war. Is this the man who will secure Snape an interesting future? I don't think so. Rather, it might be Albus Dumbledore, who is involved in every commission and organisation of import in the Wizarding World, runs the only wizarding school in Britain, and is at least equally powerful in terms of magic as Voldie is. Besides, where are Snape's old Slytherin gang? Rosier and Wilkes are dead; and does he really long for the company of Lucius Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange? I dunno, but it doesn't seem very likely. No, I think Snape is very unlikely to defect from Dumbledore - but that doesn't mean I would put it past him to wait to see which way the wind blows. He'll go where there is something to gain. So far, I just don't see how that could be Voldie's side. Yours severely, Sigune From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Tue Jan 11 10:52:18 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:52:18 +1100 Subject: Dumbledore's birthday - was Re: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121659 >>> Alla wrote: >> >> Now I'll start guessing a birthday for Dumbledore. (Mid-April like >> Alla and me?) >> I guessed Aquarius for Dumbledore - what do you think of the following? (Taken from www.thewitchesway.com - some info about Aquarian women omitted as irrelevant) Jocelyn -------------------------------------------------------------- Aquarius You are the James Dean of the zodiac, a natural rebel who dislikes restraint and dependency--almost to a fault. You get emotionally involved more in work than with people, and of all the signs, you find it most difficult to establish and maintain a close, intimate relationship. This is because of your incredible independence, individuality and freedom of spirit, and because you have a difficulty letting others into your life. Yet, at the same time, you are a natural humanitarian, honest and loyal, very inventive with an intellectual mind that loves to ponder the big questions. Dare to challenge this mental pioneer, and you will find a very stubborn, yet original, personality that enjoys impersonality and detachment. You crave freedom and dislike any invasion of space. You need a free rein in a career, preferring to work uninhibited and with a great need to express inventiveness. You have an urgent need to communicate on a grand scale, which makes you excellent in any field related to the media, such as radio, TV, film, satellites, or computers. You also make excellent inventors, social workers, and enjoy any type of work where you can express concern for humanity. You also work very well in the avant-garde fields, such as the arts, or cutting-edge research in technology or psychology. You may even have psychic talent. You follow your own path, preferring to go against the grain in a somewhat eccentric quest for knowledge and expression. This can border on the genius because you think in unique ways. It can also produce extreme stubbornness, which can sustain or destroy you. Despite your rebellious nature, you have a very strong compassion and usually become emotionally involved with causes. Your compassion comes from the intellect rather than the heart, however, and you typically have a broad spectrum of interests. On the negative side, this sign can sometimes resort to cruelty or a sadistic tendency if lacking love or mercy. As a boss, you can be very critical and demanding, and are often difficult to work with. Your coldness repels people, yet at the same time you have a fiery attachment to idealist 'causes' which inspire and motivate people to compassion. You usually cling to your opinions and rarely lose hope. Your chief faults, however, are unpredictability, remoteness and emotional problems stemming from your detachment. When you are evolved, however, you can feel great love and express it. You have the capacity to spread this to others. Aquarians usually have very strong bodies, but prefer to use their minds. They are imaginative, creative and usually have two kinds of friends: conservatives or unconventional bohemian types. If they work in an organization, they are typically leaders or organizers. Famous Aquarius individualists that have made lasting contributions are Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Aquarius man is also often inscrutable, desiring companionship but also individuality. He is fascinated by unusual people or places, and is always focused on the future, though he may also be interested in the mysteries of the past. He enjoys travelling, is a natural revolutionary, and will rebel if too restricted. More than anything, he needs a sanctuary to retreat to. Although he can be remote or undemonstrative at times as a parent, his love for children runs deep. Aquarians get along with just about anyone. They are not prejudiced, and are typically attracted to people of an intellectual nature. In romance, they need space and freedom--even when they make a commitment. They need room within to grow and express their individuality, and for a relationship, this is often a point of contention. They are stubborn, and are usually attracted to unique people. In fact, they are noted for their own uniqueness, and they value this quality in others. Home is important to these individuals as a status symbol--it increases their pride and prestige. Aquarians are very generous with money, often spending on their families and loved ones. They give money to humanity as well, having compassion for the poor. They also will save their money to finance some kind of libertarian idea they have. In the spiritual realm, they will seek their own path, since Aquarius is the sign of spiritual rebirth. They may also rebel against some kind of family or organized religion, choosing innovation over tradition. Their bold shyness and desire to communicate on a massive scale gives them an energy and power of thought that is constantly changing. Their religion may change, but their commitment to humanity stays constant. Aquarius is an air sign and a fixed sign, which denotes stability within change. Ruled by both Saturn and Uranus--the established order vs. the futurists--the typical Aquarius is in conflict with himself. He either feels he is ahead of his time, or behind it. Whatever the case, he is hypersensitive to group rules, tends to rebel against them, and does it in a very public way. He represents the power of thought as it is changing, and the power of the individual to express himself. He will stand up for what he believes in, and his true friends will join him in whatever the cause, believing in his integrity and commitment to humanity. From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Tue Jan 11 10:55:08 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:55:08 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's birthday - was Re: Happy Birthday.... Severus Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4241DBCC-63BF-11D9-B9A2-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 121660 On Tuesday, January 11, 2005, at 09:52 pm, I wrote: > > (Taken from www.thewitchesway.com - some info about Aquarian women > omitted as irrelevant) > Oops! That attribution should be www.witchesway.net ! Sorry! Jocelyn From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 04:17:16 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:17:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Suggestions please: Mysteries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050111041716.98089.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121661 > Jim Flanagan wrote: How did Crouch Jr. learn all the advanced magic that he displayed while at Hogwarts pretending to be Moody? ... snip... > Carol responds: ...edited... > And for all we know, Winky in her mistaken kindness to poor young Master let Barty Jr. practice magic under the cover of his invisibility cloak. We know that he had periods when the Imperius Curse was weak, and the Imperius Curse didn't prevent him from maturing physically, so probably it didn't prevent the natural maturation of his magical powers, either. Juli: But I don't think Barty Jr did any magic while under the Imperius curse, here's the quote from GoF, Ch 35 "But Winky didn't know that I was growing stronger. I was starting to fight my father's Imperius Curse. There were times when I was almost myself again. There were brief periods when I seemed outside his control. It happened, there, in the Top Box. It was like waking from a deep sleep. I found myself out in public, in the middle of the match, and I saw, in front of me, a wand sticking out of a boys pocket. I had not been allowed a wand since before Azkaban. I stole it. Winky didn't know. This means he didn't do any magic, at least any wand-magic, he could have done some wandless, but I doubt it. Barty must have learned the Dark Arts when he joined the DEs, afterwards he was sent to jail, then imperio'd by his father, then he went to Hogwarts as Moody so this doesn't leave much time to learn much magic. Juli __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com From TheMuffinMan0311 at comcast.net Tue Jan 11 04:34:15 2005 From: TheMuffinMan0311 at comcast.net (Chris O'Toole) Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:34:15 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: [HPforGrownups] magical abilities References: Message-ID: <41E35747.000001.02728@H-8996CPR4VQ2YL> No: HPFGUIDX 121662 kermit13166 wrote: >Greetings.... >I have been filling in the space between now and July with many >rereadings of the first 5 books. One question that I have that >continues to linger is the ability to do magic without a wand. For the >students, the only references I recall are with both Neville and Harry >and both while under duress. As you all have such great eyes for >seeing the little things, I was just wondering what your take is on that. The Muffin Man, My knowledge on this manner is very little, though I am aware of one other instance where wandless magic was performed, and it was NOT done under emotional circumstances... If you remember the instance in Stone where harry is at his first Quidditch match, Hermione talks about a jinx performed on Harry's broom, we thought at the time it was Snape, but it turned out to be Quirrel, none the less, Hermione said that all you had to do was remain constant eye constant while mutering an incantation, no wand is needed. Im not quite sure about this, but I beleive that all jinx's are wandless magic... because jinxes arent talked about much, but if anyone can proove me wrong, I'd be happy to hear it... From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 11 11:56:10 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:56:10 -0000 Subject: Trelawney was wrong, she spoke of Snape, but thought it was Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121663 "LadyOfThePensieve" wrote: snipping > So while she believed she was talking of Harry (she wasn?t ideed), we > can now be sure maybe 85 percent it was Snape she was speaking of, > even she didn?t know it , of course. We couldn?t know it, because we > hadn?t no clue Snape was born in Midwinter and as capricorn and under > Saturn?s rule. > Potioncat: There is some thought that she was speaking of Tom Riddle, reading his traits, not knowing it wasn't Harry's "aura" if you will. It could only be Snape if Snape was in Harry too. (It's getting crowded in there) But it does seem to be making Tom-Severus-Harry more and more alike. Something that's been noticed before. (You could toss Sirius in too, and James, I suppose) From chrissilein at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 12:22:37 2005 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (LadyOfThePensieve) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:22:37 -0000 Subject: Trelawney was wrong, she spoke of Snape, but thought it was Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121664 That?s funny potionscat, I got the same idea, too. It could be a clue or hint of a Tom-Severus-Harry connection. Rights now it fits Snape, but we already know from JO we will get informations about the circumstances of Tom?s birth. > Potioncat: > There is some thought that she was speaking of Tom Riddle, reading > his traits, not knowing it wasn't Harry's "aura" if you will. It > could only be Snape if Snape was in Harry too. (It's getting crowded > in there) > > But it does seem to be making Tom-Severus-Harry more and more alike. > Something that's been noticed before. (You could toss Sirius in too, > and James, I suppose) From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 11 12:43:00 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:43:00 -0000 Subject: Where is the vessel known as VASSAL? was: Trelawney was wrong, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121665 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "LadyOfThePensieve" > It could be a clue or hint of a Tom-Severus-Harry connection. > Rights now it fits Snape, but we already know from JO we will get > informations about the circumstances of Tom?s birth. > > > Potioncat: > > But it does seem to be making Tom-Severus-Harry more and more alike. Potioncat again: Who wrote VASSAL? Does anyone know where to find those posts? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 14:12:19 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:12:19 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121666 Nora: We didn't see any hints of outrage amongst the Slytherin team when Draco uses 'Mudblood', while the Gryffindor reaction is BOTH "don't say that about our house member" and "dude, that's just not right"-- it's categorically unacceptable. I think noting who will say that word and who won't is a shorthand for a whole big set'o'attitudes. Betsy: In some ways this is an unfair example though. We have two teams that are almost fanatically competetive with each other. We have an exchange of insults that quickly spiral into personal attacks (and it's Hermione, interestingly enough, who gets in a particularly cruel dig) and then a truly nasty name is used. Immediately words are exchanged for wands and fists (and it's the Gryffindors who have two burly beaters leaping onto a small boy two years their junior), Flint protects his Seeker, Ron curses Malfoy, it backfires, Ron spits up slugs, and the Slytherins laugh. When exactly were the Slytherins supposed to stand aside and scold Draco for using a bad word? Alla: Ummmm, the moment Draco said that word? How about Flint saying something for example? How about ANYBODY in the Slytherin team? Surely, they don't think that competitiveness is a justification for racism or (as I consider it a stronger parallel) antisemitism for example. Betsy: And I would be shocked, remembering my own school days, if there aren't a slew of Muggle jokes that are shared where teachers and Muggleborns aren't listening, and in every single house. Alla: Since we are not privy to those , I prefer to think that they don't exist, but of course we don't know. Betsy: The use of 'mudblood' *is* shorthand for a set of attitudes. But do you really think Slytherin is the only House with such attitudes? Alla: Actually.... yes. Since I don't see ANY student from any other House using this word. Does not mean that it is a complete picture, but that IS the picture so far. Betsy: (Out of curiosity - has any Slytherin other than Draco been heard to use that word?) Alla: Well, we did not hear many Slytherins actually speaking didn't we? Let good Slytherins talk more next books, if they exist, please JKR. :o) Betsy: And so, we wait with eager hearts for HBP! It's the very lack of positive traits that have me skeptical of our view of Slytherin. Our stereotypes of the other Houses have been broken (or my stereotypes anyway) through the introduction of characters like Luna Lovegood and Zacharias Smith. A similar thing must be done for Slytherin if the Sorting Hat's advice will ever be followed. But the thing is, we know much more about Slytherin than we ever knew about Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff. So it will take more than just a jolly reluctant-Slytherin turning up. There needs to be someone who is a Slytherin to his or her core that can demonstrate to Harry et al that Slytherin ain't that bad. Or at least that there's hope for that House, anway. Alla: I have a feeling that Theo will be Slytherin from core to core, just more independent thinker than many and that is what IMO we need for Slytherin, someone not to follow the croud. Just my opinion, Alla From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 11 14:36:48 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:36:48 -0000 Subject: How visable was Voldemort during the First War? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121667 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > The question is this: > > Just how open and visible was Voldemort was during the first war? > I kept thinking about the analogy between Nazi Germany before the WWII (not much fun at 3am ;-)) and how Hitler was an elected member if government before he declared himself dictator. > Although, I know HP is a different set of circumstances, and Voldemort was not a member of the Ministry. Could he could have been something, a member of the Wizengamot perhaps, or a power player like Lucius Malfoy is in Harry Potter??s time? > > I suppose my question is was Voldemort an underground terrorist working to subvert the Ministry of Magic? And if he so, was the Ministry openly or secretly opposing him? (If secretly, was that what the Order was set up for?) Or was Voldemort a legitimate member of the WW, albeit one with extreme opinions, working to subvert the Ministry? > > Thanks and cheers, Mandy Valky: Ok, I don't claim to be any kind of authority on this, but if you ask my opinion, I'd say number two, with a twist on your take of it. LV wasn't a power player like Lucius, that's far too petty for him. To explain throroughly, DD says at the end of COS Tom dissappeared for many years and when he re-emerged he was almost unrecognisable, hardly anyone connected him to the handsome clever head boy he was at Hogwarts. I glean two things from this: 1. Voldemort was visible to the WW prior to the war but he had been gone a long time, hence I suspect that although he was at first legitimately a part of the society it probably wasn't a position of Ministerial or political distinction, a position like that would require he be a reputable member of the London Wizard community for many years. He was not, so whatever he *did* do when he came back it was not likely to be that. 2. Tom had just spent a couple of decades contemplating and plotting his immortal reign of terror. He is not coming back to London to bribe St Mungos I should think. Chances are he walked in pretended to be nobody and started *killing* his enemies before they even knew he was there. Purpose purpose purpose is the key to imagining what LV did at the beginning of his first war. Remember he had about 20 years to plan it, he wasn't going to fart around with small fry. Just one more thing, about the organisation of the Order of the Phoenix. Dumbledore is described as the only one he ever feared. The way I read that, is that DD found LV out and undermined his war a fair few times all on his own. The Order of the Phoenix came later, and I am most comfortable with the presumption that it just formed all by itself, a bit like the DA. Dumbledores friends and admiring associates volunteered themselves to create an organised rebellion. They *nominated* DD their leader, remember how he blushed in the first chapter of PS.. he's modest, he inspired the OOtP he didn't demand it. Hope that helps you in your RP, and perhaps even starts some conversation about this topic. Good Luck Mandy, and thanks for asking. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 14:46:27 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:46:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar (Was: Lilly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121668 > Carol: > > So, to return to Valky's question, we have the *location* of the scar > as one of its properties. It's on his forehead where its highly > visible (though we're never told its size or color, which therefore > can't be important). The location makes Harry instantly recognizable > to anyone in the WW, as he would not be if Voldie had aimed for his > heart rather than his head. The scar would be hidden under his robes, > and instead of getting headaches, he would be having apparent heart > attacks which he might not recognize as being related to his scar. As > it is, the scar is very much a part of his identity and has been even > before he understood its significance (see the description of his > appearance in SS/PS). It, along with his green eyes, helps to > distinguish him from James. > > The location is also important because it enables a connection > Voldemort through their minds rather than their hearts. (Voldemort, to > all intents and purposes, doesn't have a heart, but he certainly has a > mind.) Because the scar is on his forehead rather than, say, his > chest, he partially shares Voldemort's powers of Legilimency, seeing > his dreams and feeling his emotions but also subject to visions > implanted by Voldemort. And possibly, though this is iffy, the > particular part of the brain behind the forehead, the frontal lobe, > may be important. (Anatomy experts may be able to help us with this one.) Finwitch: Well, as I recall from reading some anatomy-book and documents, the front lobe is the part of the brain where the intellect, understanding, thinking, decision-making and all that is. What that means to Harry-- well, apparently, his identity, thoughts, decisions, desires etc. can be influenced trough the scar. And er - I think that Legilemens would attempt to reach this part as well. You know, I think that, with both Snape (via eye-contact and a spell) and Voldemort (via the scar) attacking Harry's mind, well... It's like well, a door or a wall or fence between Harry&Tom. The scar is a hole in it, and Snape's attacks were tearing it apart, seeking Harry's secrets/bad moments/whatever... Occasionally, Snape's Legilimency got Tom instead of Harry trough the hole (seeing the corridor), and his awareness made Harry aware of Tom's thoughts... (honest, *HARRY* didn't think of the corridor until Snape began Occlumency, did he?) Harry was right - Snape DID make it worse. Whether that was intentional or not, I don't know. The thing is... Harry's mind *was* open to Voldemort. The hole had been there since he got the scar. Occlumency (building the wall) would have helped, but Snape's attacks WERE making it worse by widening the hole. However, even if Harry had managed to put up walls when he was awake, no way means they'd stay there when he was *sleeping*.... As to what happened when Snape's attack was suddenly (unintentionally on Harry's part) turned against him, well... you know -- maybe Voldemort did it, but Harry didn't realise he was there - mainly because he always HAD been? Finwitch From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 11 14:53:02 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:53:02 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121669 > Alla: > > I have a feeling that Theo will be Slytherin from core to core, just > more independent thinker than many and that is what IMO we need for > Slytherin, someone not to follow the croud. Potioncat: I snipped a very interesting conversation. Do go upthread and read it if you haven't. Alla, are you saying Theo will be as "bad" as the other Slytherins, just more independent or are you saying he won't hold the Pure-blood ideology? My thoughts on Slytherin House....taking several steps back and looking at this as a work of fiction, OK? The author could be writing a story in which part of what she does is show the value of courage and the danger of ambition. She does that by having the Gryffindors be kind and good and victorious in all they do while the Slytherins are cruel and slimey and generally defeated in their efforts. (I'm over simplifying this) Or the author could be showing us the dangers of stereotyping a group by setting us up to think the Slytherins are all bad, but then has someone surprising or several someones show up as not what we expected. And given that most of JKR's characters are teens and teens often sort others into groups, this could be what she is doing. After all, did anyone expect the Hogwarts champion to come from Hufflepuff? Potioncat From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Tue Jan 11 15:13:06 2005 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:13:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Christian motifs but not Christian allegory? (Was: JKR a Calvinist? Potterverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C113511-63E3-11D9-93F6-000A95DC8A32@bellsouth.net> No: HPFGUIDX 121670 On Jan 9, 2005, at 6:08 PM, justcarol67 wrote: For the record, I didn't mean an objection to the Christmas celebrations per se. I just thought it was odd that if she were a Calvinist, as some people have suggested, that she would recognize the Church seasons--Advent... ( the Anglican, Episcopal, and (I think) Catholic Churches... I don't know whether a Presbyterian (Church of Scotland) would follow that tradition... in her books seems CoE to me, with no suggestion of Calvinism. Life is complicated. Unfortunately, I don't think church membership alone will be enough to ascertain the specifics of JKR beliefs. A couple of examples... A few years ago the rector of the local Episcopal church (mainline) was a Calvinist. His theological ideas concerning God and salvation was from the reformation (i.e. reformed.) On the other hand, I have come across numerous members of historically Calvinist churches that had strong historic ties to Puritanism who no longer believe in predestination, and they don't celebrate Christmas for twelve days either. Go figure. And belief in predestination (or "the five points of Calvinism") is not even a requirement for lay membership even in most conservative Presbyterian churches. Plenty of people are members who don't believe all the particulars belong. To find the answer, to what JKR believes, she will have to communicate that to us. However, I remember reading (somewhere?) that she said didn't think people were born bad or ?. I don't have the quote exactly, but it struck me as something that a true blue Calvinist would never say. A side note, it's a clarification really, so Elves please don't scream. It's not just advent; there are strains within conservative Presbyterianism that are still trying to do away with Christmas celebrations. My understanding is that this anti-Christmas celebration sentiment is still alive in parts of Scotland. A local church, in a denomination with informal ties to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, has a Pastor who has tried to rid the congregation of Christmas. He tried to move the Christmas to another month, his idea of the real month for the birth of Jesus. He wouldn't even sing Christmas carols on Christmas day. He also during a sermon where his Santa-believing nephews were in attendance that Santa doesn't exist, etc. Ouch! BTW, these churches would object to being called "fundamentalist," for that is another theology, so be careful. Obviously, though JKR is not that kind of Presbyterian. Barbara Roberts [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 15:14:28 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:14:28 -0000 Subject: Fools gold In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121671 jotwo wrote: > I am also speculating whether another plot function for Pyrites was > performing alchemy for Voldemort. > In the very early page of Philosopher's Stone that you can find on > the web site Harry, Ron and Hermione are discussing Nicholas Flamel > and the Philosopher's Stone. Hermione says she has read about this > in a book, Alchemy, Ancient Art and Science by Argo Pyrites. The > Argo was the ship of Jason and the Argonauts on their voyage to find > the Golden Fleece. Thus the first name is also connected to gold. > > Whether or not the Pyrites who worked for Voldemort was the same as > the author of the book about alchemy, a name that means fool's gold > seems the type of punning moniker that JKR would give an alchemist. > Especially as the quest to turn base metals into gold is, in reality, > fruitless (and even in legend only Flamel achieved it). Finwitch: Well, Alchemy leaded to chemistry among Muggles (Potions for Wizards). Chemistry cannot turn lead into gold, nuclear physics, in theory, can do that. The problem is that the process costs way too much to be profitable. (you'd need platinum, and that costs more than gold does) Much more worth could be gained by making diamonds out of coal (chemically same thing, really) -- industrial diamonds ARE being made that way I believe - with loads of heat and pressure... Another thing the philosopher's stone is famed for, is sovereign healer (Elixir of Life). Considering that many of our medications today consist of results of chemistry (offspring of Alchemy) it wasn't all *that* useless... after all, for the Alchemist, it was the study and perfection of themselves that was supposed to be important. But of Nicholas Flamel... OK, he managed to make the stone (and Dumbledore believes it was destroyed). Did he, perhaps, need something more to make his elixir? Perhaps the Elixir is made of Mandrake Leaves (we DO know there's that powerful restorative potion), Phoenix Tears (healing powers - strong ones, too) - and uses Philosopher's Stone as a catalyst, for extra-power or whatever. It seems that he'd only need a little if the stone is consumed at all in the making of the Elixir. I wonder though - will we see Nicholas or Perenelle Flamel in the series? And I'd suppose that if the stone was destroyed, in order to do so, Nicholas had to use it to brew his Elixir (and gain GALLEONS of it, and he only needs a drop every now and then so er - I think he's not about to die any time soon.) Finwitch From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Tue Jan 11 15:22:43 2005 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:22:43 -0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trelawney was wrong, she spoke of Snape, but thought it was Harry References: Message-ID: <009301c4f7f1$681bfc20$0501010a@harrypotter> No: HPFGUIDX 121672 From: "LadyOfThePensieve" Hi guys, since we know Snape was born at January, 9th, we know he is a capricorn and the capricorn is astrologically ruled by STATURN (by the way the 7.planet in our solsystem) In GoF, chapter 13 (Mad Eye Moody) she teaches the studenst to interprate the constellation of the planets. So while she believed she was talking of Harry (she wasnt ideed), we can now be sure maybe 85 percent it was Snape she was speaking of, even she didnt know it , of course. Now Elanor Pam: Hm... it'd be easier if we knew Snape's height, since Trelawney also mentions a "mean stature". Is there any canon for Snape's stature? And OMG, Snape is a capricorn just like me T_T;;; I don't know if I should feel ashamed or smug. Elanor Pam, who doesn't know of any character from any book or any story that was born December 30, except for a very minor character in an old anime From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 15:33:59 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:33:59 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121673 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "evita2fr" wrote: > > > > Alla : > > > > Oh, another quick question, Carol. You just said in your other post > > that you trust Dumbledore and Hermione as JKR spoke people in their > > trust of Snape, right? > > > > So, here we have Hermione speaking up that anybody would feel shaky > > from attack on their mind. Do you think that she is also correct > and > > weakened mental defenses are AT LEAST often sideeffect of the > > Occlumency? Because if you answer in the positive, I think that at > > least makes Snape guilty of not warning Harry to take it easy after > > the lesson. > > > > Just my opinion, > Christelle: > But how Snape could know about this? Like I try to explain in the > post #121612 (note the try, it was late), it's a completely new > situation. > > The pains are in his scar, by his link with Voldie, not his brain. > > Before him, those who learn Occlumency *couldn't* feeling strange > pain, because, as far as we know, Harry's scar is the first one to > exist. Annemehr: That was a good argument, and something to keep in mind. But again, apparently Dumbledore *did* know about it, as he told Harry that he believed nothing could be more dangerous than opening Harry's mind further to Voldemort while in Dumbledore's presence. "Opening Harry's mind further to Voldemort" *means* through their unique connection, which involves the scar, and the connection being active has always involved scar pain. This is not necessarily to blame Snape, however, since I can easily believe that Dumbledore may not have warned Snape about the effect. It may have been dangerous for Snape to have this knowledge while opening Harry's mind to Voldemort while in Snape's presence, for instance. Rather, as Dumbledore expected Snape to overcome his feelings about James to teach Harry, he may also have expected Harry to soldier on through this side-effect until he learned Occlumency and closed his mind. Christelle: > There are also the difference in the attacks. > > An *intern* attack of legilimency (like voldie does) is unheard. They > doesn't know how the Occlumency can help or influence or do anything. > > They improvise. Annemehr: Even at the end of the book, my impression is that Dumbledore was sure that Occlumency would have worked if Harry had learned it. Dumbledore does not say that trying to have Harry learn Occlumency was a mistake, only that in believing Snape could teach it, he made an error. It seems to be part of a pattern with Dumbledore, that he can anticipate the effects of the connection between Voldemort and Harry, even if such a connection is unique in the experience of the WW. In PS/SS, he seemed to know that the scar would be useful. In CoS, he knew about the transfer of powers from Voldemort to Harry, and in GoF he certainly showed no surpise about Harry having visions of LV in dreams. The whole plot of OoP was guided by Dumbledore's anticipating that Voldemort would discover the connection himself and then try to influence and possess Harry through it. Even if Harry is the only one known to have survived an AK curse, Dumbledore seems to know enough about what LV may have done to gain immortality, about the AK curse itself, and about the Ancient Magic that Lily tapped into to deduce the resulting connection and its effects. Finally, I do think it is possible that any Occlumens may be aware of the effect of one's mental defenses becoming weaker while learning. Remember that Harry successfully repelled Snape on *the first try,* when the memory of Cho came up. Perhaps this is actually common in any Occlumency student, who then fails to have any success on further attempts as their defenses weaken until, gradually, the technique is mastered. In this scenario, Snape would have known about the effect and ought to have warned Harry -- if the lessons are generally known to make one's mind more vulnerable, it is an easy deduction to suppose they would make Harry's mind more vulnerable to Voldemort. So, either only Dumbledore knew and didn't tell Snape, or Snape also knew, and didn't tell Harry. Either way, it undermined Harry's confidence in the lessons. Annemehr From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 15:46:03 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:46:03 -0000 Subject: Sirius' will? (was: The Black estate) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121674 Finwitch: Well - I'd think Sirius DID write a Will: Nymphadora Tonks will inherit 12 Grimmauld Place and her mother the rest of the Black Family Fortune. Harry and Lupin are to share most of Sirius' personal belongings, starting with Sirius own place (Spinners End?)! I'd say Sirius left behind some letters for Harry as well, to be delivered on Harry's birthday, Halloween, Christmas, Easter and upon the last day of school. (he MIGHT have done that). Maybe something for Hermione, Ron and the twins. And er - somewhat scolding messages to Dumbledore, Snape, Ministry of Magic etc. Goblins might be handling part of this, or maybe there are spells for such things? Finwitch From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Tue Jan 11 16:13:05 2005 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:13:05 -0000 Subject: How could Slytherin House have helped Harry? Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121675 Del wrote: So what if Snape had developed a positive prejudice towards Harry? What if in turn Harry had learned to see Snape in a more positive light, especially considering DD's support and approval of Snape? What would this positive relationship have brought to Harry? Let's imagine : - no Snape systematically pitting his own House against Harry's House - no Draco leading an entire House in an anti-Harry crusade - no Snape continually trying to stop Harry from doing whatever he has to do, and maybe even *helping* him do so! - no Scapegoat!Snape to wrong-track Harry way too often - Snape personally and voluntarily training Harry into all sorts of more or less authorised magical arts. That would have meant no Occlumency disaster for example. - a powerful teacher always available to help Harry. Of course, there would have been some drawbacks too: - no Weasley friends - no all-knowledgeable Hermione - no Marauders' Map - no Sirius! Both because Sirius would have been much less interested in a Slytherin!Harry, and because Snape would have told Harry too many bad things about Sirius for Harry ever to come to love Sirius the way he did - probably no Lupin either, though Harry might have been able to judge Lupin on his own. Leah: No Weasley friends...hmm. Harry had already met and bonded with Ron on the train, and, as you point out, had already met and not bonded with Draco. Given the anti-Slytherin sentiments already installed in Harry, he is likely to have tried to continue the budding friendship with Ron. If that worked, and it might have done if Harry had been desperate enough, then access to the other Weasleys would follow. Harry would increase his chances of Gryffindor friendships if he led an anti-Draco coterie within Slytherin, something he would be inclined to do anyway. no-all knowledgeable Hermione.... Since Ron and Harry would not have been doing Charms together, the know-it all incident which led to the troll rescue would have to take place after potion or COMC, but providing Ron and Harry sustain a friendship, it would still seem possible. If no friendship formed between HHR, then perhaps Hermione, hardly Miss Popular in PS/SS, might have applied for a transfer to Ravenclaw. In Ravenclaw, she might have gone on to form an interhouse friendship with Harry- or a friendship with Cho and therefore Cedric. no Marauders Map- depends on Weasley friendship-see above no Sirius....I would have to agree with this one, but as you say there's also Lupin. And if Harry could judge Lupin as you suggest, perhaps the two of them might be able to persuade an already more amenable Snape. What we would have out of all of that is the possibility of a lot more interhouse friendship, and a lot less judging people because of their house or background. In other words, what must happen by the end, happening at the beginning! One other major drawback of Slytherin-Harry occurs to me. If James is no longer his hero, what happens to the patronus? Leah From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 16:38:48 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:38:48 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121676 "Steve" wrote: > Once people start signing, it would > be extremely difficult for a kid to > go against their peer group. Yes, but examine exactly why it would be difficult. Marietta knew if she did not sign the others would think less of her, they would conclude she was a coward or one of Umbridge's toadies or both; and their judgment would be absolutely positively 100% correct. I see no reason why Hermione should go out of her way to make life easy for such people. In fact it's good she didn't walk out before signing because she already knew too much and she wouldn't be under the Hex. The hex was like a burglar alarm, it won't stop a thief from breaking in but it will alert you to his presents and that is useful. > Marietta from the very beginning didn't > want to be there, and that reluctance > was picked up by observers in the group. Many people were reluctant and some seemed to be much more reluctant than Marietta. Ron was suspicious of several people but he wasn't suspicious of Marietta, I wasn't either. Eggplant From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 11 16:42:44 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:42:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Complete and utter derail Message-ID: <20050111164244.28037.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121677 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > SnowIn earnest hopes that whatever the endingit won't be like the > last page has been ripped out of the book. Kizor: I'm afraid I've had another of my sleep-loss-induced Bright Ideas. So what we need is a couple of fourth-wall-breaking hints in book six, and some more in book seven, hinting that JKR is in fact chronicling actual events and has managed to get away with it by [INSERT PLAUSIBLE REASON HERE]. Then the final chapter of the seventh book makes it clear that there's going to be a huge, life-changing revelation on the actual way of the world on the last page... ...and the end of the book looks literally like the last page had been ripped out of it. No doubt they could make some kind of machine for this job. Hans: That's NOT funny! I'll tell you why. Because that is precisely how "The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross" ends! I quote the end of "The Alchemical Wedding": 'Now after they had all spoken friendlily to me for a while, and at last given their hands, committing me to the Divine protection, I was conducted by both the old men, the Lord of the Tower, and Atlas, into a glorious lodging, in which stood three beds, and each of us lay in one of them, where we spent almost two, &c..... (Here about two leaves in quarto are missing, and he (the author of this), whereas he imagined he must in the morning be doorkeeper, returned home.)' Now be honest, Snow, where did you get this idea? Is this truly original or will you confess you got it from "The Alchemical Wedding"? As 99.9% of members of this group will know, I claim that Harry Potter and "The Alchemical Wedding" are inspired by the same source, but this is one similarity between the two that I DEFINITELY would NOT enjoy! Don't do that to us Jo! Please. Kizor: This has been your late-night Kizor hour. It's like comedy, only without all the funny parts. Hans: You can say that again! ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 11 17:21:35 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:21:35 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Why the Dark Mark? Message-ID: <20050111172135.42247.qmail@web25101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121678 From: "northsouth17" I was reading through GoF, when I came to the description of the Dark Mark, and something that had always bothered me a bit, struck me quite strongly - it's rather silly. It's a skull with a serpent sticking out of its mouth, which is a little bit adolescent in itself, and what more, it's made out of emerald _stars_! This put me in mind not so much of a symbol of horror and evil, as of a somewhat tasteless disco light. Have there been any thoughts on what possible meaning the dark mark could have? It seems like a fairly prominent Voldemort symbol - his followers get it tattooed on themselves! - and yet it seems rather tacky. I feel like it should have a story, a meaning of some kind, but can't find it, beyond a general representation of Voldemort - Death, snake, etc. Hans: This symbol is also used in "The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross" and may very well have been where Jo got the idea. I quote from Day Four: 'And last of all there was a skull, or death's head; in this was a white serpent, who was of such a length that though she wound about the rest of it in a circle, her tail still remained in one of the eye holes until her head again entered the other; so she never stirred from her skull, unless it happened that Cupid twitched a little at her, for then she slipped in so suddenly that we all could not choose but marvel at it.' As you can see the snake comes out of the eye socket, but for the rest it's the same. I was actually panning to discuss this in my series of symbols, but I'll do it now. What the "The Alchemical Wedding" is describing here is an altar table with various objects on it, the skull and serpent being one of them. The altar is surrounded by six kings and queens: the black king (Snape) and his wife, the grey king (Lupin) and his wife (TONKS!!! according to Valky) and the king and queen who are to be resurrected by means of the alchemical wedding (my conjecture: Harry and Hermione). The symbol of the skull and the serpent in my opinion symbolises the rebirth and the immortality which the alchemical wedding achieves. The white serpent by itself symbolises wisdom. The fact that it's circling out of one eye socket and out the other symbolises eternity. Voldemort is misusing a holy symbol for his nefarious purposes. He is indeed striving after immortality! Only he wants it in purely physical terms and at the expense of every one else. Perhaps that's why his serpent doesn't form a circle - he won't succeed. I have a scan of an illustration of this scene. It shows the snake quite clearly. If possible I'll upload it. If not, it's in the photos section of Harry Potter for Seekers. 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! ===== Hans Andra see you at Harry Potter for Seekers http://groups.yahoo.com/group/harrypotterforseekers/ ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 17:21:00 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:21:00 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121679 "annemehr" wrote: > he told Harry that he believed nothing > could be more dangerous than opening > Harry's mind further to Voldemort while > in Dumbledore's presence. If Dumbledore had given the lessons Harry might have been able to break into Dumbledore's mind just as he did with Snape, and Dumbledore knew many more secrets that would be useful to Voldemort than Snape does. At no time does Snape or Dumbledore say one word to Harry about Occlumency temporarily weakening your defenses, if this is true and they didn't warn Harry about the side effect then both should be sued for magical malpractice. But I don't think that is the norm in Occlumency, I think it is due to Snape. > he may also have expected Harry to > soldier on through this side-effect > until he learned Occlumency and > closed his mind. Harry was taking extremely unpleasant lesions for reasons nobody would explain from a teacher who hated his guts and that made him weak. And Dumbledore expected Harry to apply himself to that? Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 17:25:18 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:25:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's birthday - In-Reply-To: <4241DBCC-63BF-11D9-B9A2-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121680 I want to change what I said earlier. I forgot about the twins BD being on April 1. I go with the folks that say that DD does not have a birthday. And she will never tell us if he does have one. Tonks_op From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 17:29:55 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:29:55 -0000 Subject: Sirius' will? (was: The Black estate) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121681 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 willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 11 17:35:04 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:35:04 -0000 Subject: JKR and Occlumency lessons (was Re: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121682 Eggplant > Harry was taking extremely unpleasant lesions for reasons nobody > would explain from a teacher who hated his guts and that made him > weak. And Dumbledore expected Harry to apply himself to that? > > Potioncat: There have been countless discussions about Occlumency lessons, and I've participated in quite a few of them. We can argue whether it was DD's mistake or Snape's fault or Harry's distrust....or something else instead. And we all tend to get very emotional about it. But really, what was JKR intending when she wrote these classes? What are we learning from them? How did they affect the characters? Potioncat From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 11 17:50:14 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:50:14 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121683 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > "Steve" wrote: > > > Once people start signing, it would > > be extremely difficult for a kid to > > go against their peer group. > > Yes, but examine exactly why it would be difficult. Marietta knew if she did not sign the others would think less of her, they would conclude she was a coward or one of Umbridge's toadies or both; and their judgment would be absolutely positively 100% correct. < Pippin: There are supposed to be around a thousand students at Hogwarts, and only 28 or so were in the DA. Are you saying everyone else was a coward or an Umbridge toady? And if Marietta was an Umbridge toady or a coward, why didn't she inform on the DA for six months? Even when she went to Umbridge, she didn't rush in and say, "Professor, there's a secret meeting going on right now in the Room of Requirement -- if you hurry, you can catch them." She only said that "if [Umbridge] proceeded to a secret room on the seventh floor, sometimes known as the Room of Requirement, [she] would find out something to [her] advantage." Umbridge goes on: "I questioned her a little further and she admitted there was to be some kind of meeting there. " We know that Umbridge has used illegal methods to question students, so it is hard for me to hold Marietta responsible for what she said. It's worth noting that what she said freely didn't trigger the hex. I doubt that Marietta wanted to get her friends in trouble. My sense is she only tried to get the meetings stopped, as they would be if Umbridge started watching the RoR. Marietta seems to have been a very reluctant spy. In fact if it weren't for Hermione's hex, Umbridge might have wasted a lot more time trying to get Marietta to talk, and the DA might have escaped. Marietta's mother was policing the floo network for Umbridge, which made Marietta a security risk whatever her own views. It would have been wise for Hermione to do a little background checking before she signed people up. Pippin From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 11 17:55:03 2005 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (megalynn44) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:55:03 -0000 Subject: Suggestions please: Mysteries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121684 "Jim Flanagan" wrote: Why was it necessary to have such an elaborate plot to transport Harry to Voldemort in GoF? It took nearly the whole school year, and there were many opportunities for a slip-up along the way. Couldn't the ersatz Moody have kidnaped him by force, or slipped him a disguised portkey in a much easier, and more certain, way? Me: I wondered that myself after the first reading or two. However, upon reflection, there are numerous cases of people mentioning the multitude of different protection Dumbledore has placed on Harry at Hogwarts. It's my belief that it is impossible for Harry to be taken whiel Harry is there, unless it is some form of transportation that has been cleared. Thus normally any kind of portkey would not work, yet since this was a portkey Dumbledore knew of it was cleared for harry to use. Megs From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 18:05:07 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:05:07 -0000 Subject: JKR and Occlumency lessons (was Re: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121685 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Potioncat: > There have been countless discussions about Occlumency lessons, (snip) > > But really, what was JKR intending when she wrote these classes? > What are we learning from them? How did they affect the characters? > > Potioncat Tonks here: Maybe she is showing us ways to fight the inner conflict in our mind when evil thoughts come in. How to keep LV out. And/OR she is having Snape seperate HP and LV. Harry is in such distress after, because LV is being seperated from him. Before they were fused together. Snape did his work. DD checked it with his strange instruments. *In essense divided*. Snape's job was done. My best shot. Tonks_op From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 18:10:02 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:10:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050111181002.97880.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121686 >Betsy: > >I've come to believe that Voldemort's pureblood schtick is just >that, schtick. He hates and despises Muggles, so those wizards big > on Muggle-baiting would have attracted him.< > > > Betsy: > Oh, I don't doubt that the DEs are all over the pureblood stuff, > hence Bellatrix's shock and horror at Harry's big reveal. But I > wonder if it's seriously Voldemort's big thing. I do think he sees > anyone not him as tainted and inferior. I think Betsy's got a good point. No doubt the DE's are motivated by muggle-born and half-blood hatred and jump on any opportunity to terrorize them whenever they can. But I think you can make a good case that Voldemort is anti-everybody, an equal-opportunity hater, if you will. It's hard to see what particular animus he mind have against muggle-borns and half-bloods, although a life-long distaste for spoiled brat rich boys who leave their pregnant wives/girlfriends is certainly understandable. A evil overlord needs henchman and the dumber henchmen, the better. The racist purebloods have a pretty simple hatred that he can manipulate to get them to do what he wants for his own purposes, which include his own personal rule. Voldemort has an agenda, and everything in his life - including whatever prejudices he indulges in - is secondary to advancing that agenda. 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 Tue Jan 11 18:14:47 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:14:47 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar (Was: Lilly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121687 When I think of Harry's scar I think of Baptism. The sign of the cross is placed on the forehead. I think that is where she got the idea from. But I hope it doesn't mark Harry as LV's. It marks him as LV's equal. Tonks_op From cmann1071 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 18:36:58 2005 From: cmann1071 at yahoo.com (CMann) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:36:58 -0000 Subject: Question? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121688 Okay, at the end of GOF Harry Potter gets into the horseless carriages that take him and the other students to the train. Now in the begininng of Order of The Phoenix he sees Thesterals pulling the carriages. It's explained to him that he sees them because he witnessed someone dying. Now why did he not see them at the end of GOF? He had already seen Cedric die, he should of seen them then, right? Just wondering. Craig From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 18:52:13 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:52:13 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121689 "pippin_999" > There are supposed to be around a > thousand students at Hogwarts, and > only 28 or so were in the DA. Are > you saying everyone else was a coward or an Umbridge toady? Yes, if they knew about the meeting and refused to come. > And if Marietta was an Umbridge toady or > a coward, why didn't she inform on the > DA for six months? Only Marietta knows why she took that last step, but I don't think it's important why she chose to become a traitor, the important thing is that she is one. > She only said that "if [Umbridge] > proceeded to a secret room on the seventh floor, sometimes known > as the Room of Requirement, [she] > would find out something to [her] advantage." She ONLY said that?! She just told her everything she needed to know, from that point it's easy, Umbridge can learn the rest on her own. > I doubt that Marietta wanted to get > her friends in trouble. If Marietta didn't know that would get her "friends" in trouble then she shouldn't be at Hogwarts, she should be in a special school for the mentally challenged. > if it weren't for Hermione's hex, Umbridge > might have wasted a lot > more time trying to get Marietta to talk, > and the DA might have escaped. So much for the argument that Hermione was mean to make the curse so strong. > Marietta's mother was policing the > floo network for Umbridge, > which made Marietta a security risk > whatever her own views. Hermione probably felt it was unfair to judge somebody by their family. Do you judge Harry by the Dursleys? Eggplant From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 18:54:48 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:54:48 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121690 Eggplant wrote: "I see no reason why Hermione should go out of her way to make life easy for such people." Del replies: Except that you forget *why* it would have been a good idea for Hermione to make Marrietta's life easier : so that she couldn't betray the DA later. We're not arguing that Hermione should have tried and made Marrietta's life easier for Marrietta's sake, but for the DA's sake. Unless that doesn't count for you either? Eggplant wrote: "In fact it's good she didn't walk out before signing because she already knew too much and she wouldn't be under the Hex." Del replies: What did she know exactly? That a bunch of students had agreed to let Harry teach them DADA. The group wasn't illegal at the time, and they hadn't set a date for a further meeting. So short of putting a spy on each DA member's tail to prevent them from meeting again, there was nothing much Umbridge could have done. Oh, yeah, she could have given them all a detention. Well, they *knew* this could happen, didn't they? Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 18:57:54 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:57:54 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121691 I, Del, wrote earlier: "why compare Hermione's range of action with the range of actions of the secret services during the Cold War " Eggplant answered: "A great riddle," Del replies: A riddle? I see no riddle here. It's very obvious to me that those 2 things are not really comparable. You're the one who made the comparison, so it's your job to explain why it's valid. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 19:03:13 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:03:13 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121692 Eggplant wrote: "If Marietta didn't know that would get her "friends" in trouble then she shouldn't be at Hogwarts, she should be in a special school for the mentally challenged. " Del replies: May I suggest we send, say, Harry, to that school for mentally challenged too? After all, he was "stupid" enough to think that the two most wanted wizards in Britain could just walk right into the most secret department of the MoM in the middle of the afternoon on a workday... Del From jennifer_maccherone at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 19:04:18 2005 From: jennifer_maccherone at yahoo.com (nifferhpfan) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:04:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore next MoM? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121693 I know that Dumbledore turned down the MoM position in the past. Do you think that after Fudge's mishandling of LV's return that he might be willing to take the position now? Niffer From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 19:06:39 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:06:39 -0000 Subject: Question? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121694 Craig wrote: "Okay, at the end of GOF Harry Potter gets into the horseless carriages that take him and the other students to the train. Now in the begininng of Order of The Phoenix he sees Thesterals pulling the carriages. It's explained to him that he sees them because he witnessed someone dying. Now why did he not see them at the end of GOF? He had already seen Cedric die, he should of seen them then, right?" Del replies: I respectfully suggest you read through the FAQ (go to the home page, there's a link to them). Among other things, you'll read there: "Q: Harry sees the carriages at the end of GoF, after seeing Cedric's death, so why doesn't he see the thestrals? A: JKR's official explanation is that Harry is still in shock at the time. He didn't accept and understand Cedric's death until later, and thus hadn't yet "seen" death." Del From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 11 19:08:40 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:08:40 -0000 Subject: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: <20050111172135.42247.qmail@web25101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121695 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a wrote: 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. From trekkie at stofanet.dk Mon Jan 10 23:05:01 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:05:01 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's birthdate References: Message-ID: <004001c4f768$d05fb850$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 121696 Gorbash74 wrote: > Interestingly, according to pantheon.org,Snape's birthdate marks the > festival of Janus, the two faced Roman god. Coincidence? > O_o Hardly! Two faced god. Two faced /double tongued /double agent? Noooooo! I don't want Snape to betray DD... ~Trekkie (who is an avid Snape supporter) From poppytheelf at hotmail.com Tue Jan 11 19:25:29 2005 From: poppytheelf at hotmail.com (Phyllis) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:25:29 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar (Was: Lilly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121697 Carol wrote: <> Phyllis responds: According to Hagrid, the scar was the result of a "cut" Harry received by being touched by a "powerful, evil curse" (PS, Ch. 4). Hagrid also references pulling Harry out of the wreckage of his house with a "great slash across his forehead" (PoA, Ch. 10). It's also referred to as a "curiously shaped cut" in PS, Ch. 1. From these references, I conclude that there was a wound, and that the scar was formed from the healing of the wound. While AKs normally don't leave marks on their victims, they also normally don't backfire on their originators. So it could be that the cut was made by the backfired AK because it backfired and not due to Lily's sacrifice or some other reason. Carol: <> Phyllis: We're just told that it's "very thin" (PS, Ch. 2). However, I'm not so sure that, just because we haven't been told something, that renders such information unimportant. I happen to think there's quite a lot of information we haven't been told yet that is going to turn out to be extremely important (such as who the HBP is, for example ;-). ~Phyllis From nrenka at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 19:36:22 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:36:22 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121698 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > The use of 'mudblood' *is* shorthand for a set of attitudes. But > do you really think Slytherin is the only House with such > attitudes? Out of curiosity - has any Slytherin other than Draco > been heard to use that word?) Young!Snape, in the Pensieve scene. And while yes, he was under distress there, I think that JKR is broadly drawing our attention to a distinction between those who will use it, and those who won't. There are ideological lines being indicated in that scene, for while James Potter is a grade-A jerk there, he is also insistent that he would never call Lily THAT, and it is Snape's use of the word that really sets him off again. To repeat myself, that word is a kind of shorthand that gives us some significant insight into a character's ideological orientation. Maximal connotations with minimal effort on JKR's part--a nice literary combination. Elegant instead of clunky. Slytherin may not be the only House where such attitudes exist, but it's the only one that, to a certain extent, enshrines them institutionally. "Pure blood" as a password is another case where a little thing is used to tell us a lot. There is something rotten in the WW, not unique to Slytherin House, but so far our evidence is that it is tolerated in that House to an extent (we've never heard Mudblood jokes in Gryffindor House, and there are Muggleborns in Hufflepuff that we know of; so the problem is that we have *texual* basis for Slytherin attitudes, and only the possibility for such attitudes in the other Houses. I will argue based on what we know rather than what we speculate or would like to see.), and that House has produced a good number of fanatical followers of that idea. I agree that we need a positive Slytherin; but I think that person(s) will have to disavow the ideology of the current reigning clique in the House. -Nora watches the snow come down... From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 11 19:40:02 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:40:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore next MoM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121699 Niffer wrote: > I know that Dumbledore turned down the MoM position in the past. Do > you think that after Fudge's mishandling of LV's return that he > might be willing to take the position now? Potioncat: I've considered that possibility too. Particularly since it would cause a change at Hogwarts. If DD is MoM, something bad would come out of it,I think, since JKR answered that "Unfortunately" Arthur isn't the MoM. From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Tue Jan 11 20:10:37 2005 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:10:37 -0000 Subject: Lack of Confidence in JKR (WAS:Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121700 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mizstorge" wrote: All I have to add to this discourse, besides nodding in agreement to those who said there doesn't seem to be a unifying Slytherin philosphy of evil, is my great surprise no one jumped on my comment about hoping the ending wouldn't be LAME! After what I consider the underwhelming revelations about the prophecy at the end of OOtP (Jo, honey, we already knew all that. Or suspected it. Whatever.)and IMO the poor job on POA the movie, I have felt my confidence at being in the hands of a skillful writer diminish. Since JKR's comment that when the series is finished that she wants to go back and fix a few things, I've begun to doubt that in fact she had it all planned out since before Book 1 and has been actually changing things as she goes along to suit the new direction. I think fan speculation and discussion has driven some of those changes, so in a way it's nice we've been part of this interactive process - on the other hand, I'm curious what the books would have been like otherwise. I really hope I'm wrong; we've too all many hours, even years, of our lives invested in Harry's story. I just hope when I finish HBP I will still want to read Book 7. > My greatest FEAR is the ending is going to LAME! Hermione kills > Malfoy pere and/or fils, Neville kills Bellatrix, Harry kills and/or > is killed by LV/TR and somehow everyone who lives does so happily > ever after. No one changes, the injustices of the WW aren't > redressed, and we never find out if Remus was *living with* Sirius at > Grimmauld Place. > > My greatest HOPE is that JKR isn't going to keep up with her bigotry > about Slytherins. You know, the "Why do you keep going after the bad > boys?" rant. Although she keeps comparing them to Nazis, anyone who's > actually read about Nazi Germany knows not *all* Germans, and not > even *all* Nazis, were murderous genocial maniacs. Maybe *most* > Nazis, but certainly not *most* Germans. I truly hope *some* > Slytherins will be ambitious enough to support their School, and > perhaps the Ministry, because they realize in the Brave New World > Voldemort supporters are going to be outcasts. I hope the Slytherins > in general, maybe Draco and Pansy in particular, are going to to be > the cavalry who come riding in to save the day and their House > finally gets the recognition it deserves at Hogwarts. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 11 20:17:23 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:17:23 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121701 > > "pippin_999" > > > There are supposed to be around a > > thousand students at Hogwarts, and > > only 28 or so were in the DA. Are > > you saying everyone else was a coward or an Umbridge toady? Eggplant: > Yes, if they knew about the meeting and refused to come. Pippin: What? No other priorities? No heavy dates, dying grandmothers, people who've already taken their OWLs and aren't trying for a DADA NEWT (probably most of the sixth and seventh years) etc? Pippin: > > And if Marietta was an Umbridge toady or > > a coward, why didn't she inform on the > > DA for six months? Egghead: > Only Marietta knows why she took that last step, but I don't think > it's important why she chose to become a traitor, the important > thing is that she is one. Pippin: Motive is generally thought to be important in analyzing a crime. > > > She only said that "if [Umbridge] proceeded to a secret room on the seventh floor, sometimes known as the Room of Requirement, [she] would find out something to [her] advantage." Eggplant: > She ONLY said that?! She just told her everything she needed to know, from that point it's easy, Umbridge can learn the rest on her own.< Pippin: But she couldn't, could she? She didn't know what she was looking for -- it could have been some students using the room to generate dungbombs. Highly against the rules, but not exactly a Ministry case. Unless Willy Widdershins was able to identify Marietta at the Hogs Head, Umbridge would have no reason to connect Marietta with the DADA group -- if it weren't for that hex. > > I doubt that Marietta wanted to get her friends in trouble. Eggplant: > If Marietta didn't know that would get her "friends" in trouble then she shouldn't be at Hogwarts, she should be in a special school for the mentally challenged. < Pippin: We're talking about a sixteen year old girl who doesn't know about the quill, or about Umbridge setting dementors on Harry to try to get him expelled. How would she even imagine what Umbridge is capable of? > > if it weren't for Hermione's hex, Umbridge might have wasted a lot more time trying to get Marietta to talk, and the DA might have escaped. << Eggplant: > So much for the argument that Hermione was mean to make the curse so strong.< Pippin: My point concerned the visibility of the curse--such a powerful hex was in itself a reason to believe that the meeting was important. Marietta never did say it was a DADA group or that Harry Potter was involved...Umbridge had to have put that together from what Widdershins told her. Without the hex she might never have made the connection. > > > Marietta's mother was policing the floo network for Umbridge, which made Marietta a security risk whatever her own views. > Eggplant: > Hermione probably felt it was unfair to judge somebody by their > family. Do you judge Harry by the Dursleys? Pippin: It would hardly be unfair to ask Marietta, in private, if she saw a conflict and how she would handle it. Hermione wouldn't have lost anything by allowing Marietta to leave the group, since Umbridge found out about the Hogs Head meeting anyway, and she would have gained increased security for the meeting site. Pippin From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jan 11 20:37:44 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:37:44 -0000 Subject: Lack of Confidence in JKR (WAS:Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121702 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mizstorge" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mizstorge" > wrote: > All I have to add to this discourse, besides nodding in agreement > to those who said there doesn't seem to be a unifying Slytherin > philosphy of evil, is my great surprise no one jumped on my comment > about hoping the ending wouldn't be LAME! Hickengruendler: Okay, than I will. ;-) > After what I consider the > underwhelming revelations about the prophecy at the end of OOtP (Jo, > honey, we already knew all that. Or suspected it. Whatever.) Hickengruendler: But you shouldn't forget, why we suspected it. Because JKR played fair and gave the hint in the book. She could just have never mentioned in PoA, that Trelawney already made an important prophecy, and in this case we all would have been surprised by it in PoA. But she even said, that she put clues in the books to give us a fair chance to figure a few things out. Here she did it. She played fair and gave the reader enough information. > and IMO > the poor job on POA the movie, I have felt my confidence at being in > the hands of a skillful writer diminish. Hickengruendler: What has JKR to do with the movie? She had other things to do while it was shot, like writing book 6. IMO, fans really overestimate the influence JKR has at the movies. She might be able to stop them if they are doing something that contradicts something that happens in a future book, but she is not that much involved in it, that anything we like/don't like about the movies can be attributed to her. (And I hope this wasn't off-topic, I know that we are not supposed to discuss the movie here, but this was not really about the movie, was it?) Since JKR's comment that > when the series is finished that she wants to go back and fix a few > things, I've begun to doubt that in fact she had it all planned out > since before Book 1 and has been actually changing things as she goes > along to suit the new direction. Hickengruendler: Yes, and she said so. She said that a few things were changed, for example giving Rita some of the part the Weasley cousin should have played, or adding more about Hermione and the house-elves. But that's hardly a surprise, she made the plans more than a decade ago. They are bound to change, if only because the author has hopefully changed in this time. But the central plot is still the same, I am sure about it. Otherwise it will be impossible for JKR to resolve it, because all the different storylines are much to interwoven, now. And she already did change a few things in the later editions of earlier books, like Flint's year. I suppose she was talking about such details, that don't involve the plot directly. Personally, I am not afraid that the ending will be lame. So far I liked every book she has written, and I see no reason as why this should change. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 20:39:38 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:39:38 -0000 Subject: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121703 northsouth wrote: > > Hello, all, my first post after a long while lurking! > > I was reading through GoF, when I came to the description of the Dark Mark, and something that had always bothered me a bit, struck me quite strongly - it's rather silly. > > It's a skull with a serpent sticking out of its mouth, which is a little bit adolescent in itself, and whatmore, it's made out of emerald _stars_! This put me in mind not so much of a symbol of> horror and evil, as of a somewhat tasteless disco light. > > Have there been any thoughts on what possible meaning the dark mark could have? It seems like a fairly prominent Voldemort symbol - his followers get it tattooed on themselves! - and yet it seems rather tacky. I feel like it should have a story, a meaning of some kind, but can't find it, beyond a general representation of Voldemort - Death, snake, etc. Carol responds: While JKR may, as Hans points out, have been influenced by the Rosicrucian symbol for immortality, I don't think we need to go that far outside the text to understand the significance of the Dark Mark, or at least part of it. Even a child will associate a skull with death (a skull and crossbones would be familiar to them from pirate flags and perhaps as a symbol for poison). As for the skull being "adolescent," so was Tom Riddle when he created the symbol, and many readers of the books are pre-adolescent. But you don't have to be a child or an adolescent to be horrified by a skull, and for older readers it may have additional associations, especially in conjunction with a serpent. A snake or serpent is of course the symbol for Slytherin, and the snake coming out of the skull's mouth seems to be tied to the ability of both Voldemort and his ancestor Salazar Slytherin to speak Parseltongue. (Remember that the basilisk in CoS enters the chamber through the mouth of the statue of Slytherin.) Snake symbolism is quite complex and outside my area of expertise, but the Judeo-Christian association of the serpent with Satan in the Garden of Eden and the associated view of snakes as sinister and slippery in the sense of wily) is only one aspect of the symbolism, though an obvious and important one--the basilisk "slithers" from the depths of the statue of *Slytherin* and Lucius Malfoy, arch-Slytherin, is described by Voldemort himself as "my slippery friend." But snake symbolism isn't all bad or no one, not even the purebloods, would want to be associated with Slytherin House. In Greek, Roman, and Egyptian mythology, the snake was much more benign--IIRC, snakes can symbolize transformation, wisdom, eternity, etc., depending on the culture. (The caduceus of Hermes and the staff of Aesclaepius are examples.) I don't know about the Druids, who may be more important to the discussion. Someone else can elaborate on this, I'm sure. You mentioned the emeralds that seem to compose the Dark Mark that Barty Jr. casts. Remember that emeralds are the stones in the hourglass for Slytherin house points. Green is the color of Slytherin House as the snake is its symbol, and green, like snakes, is ambiguous in terms of symbolism. We tend to think of it as symbolizing life or growth or springtime. Evergreens at Christmastime suggests survival through the winter and therefore survival after death, resurrection of everlasting life. So there may be an element of (earthly) immortality in the choice of green as the color of Slytherin, just as there is in the choice of yew and the Phoenix feather for Voldemort's wand. But green also suggests the uncanny. Note the use of green light in movies involving ghosts or supernatural forces, notably the Undead. (Think of the Paths of the Dead scene in LOTR, for example.) Given all this, I think Tom Riddle on his journey to becoming Lord Voldemort deliberately chose the symbolism and color of the Dark Mark to reflect his quest for (earthly) immortality and his descent from Salazar Slytherin. And I think he knew that snakes, skulls, and an unearthly green could in themselves be terrify to people who only understood part of the symbolism, but possibly attractive to initiates who understood the full meaning. Note, too, that some of the fear associated with the Dark Mark for the WW in general stems from its use by the Death Eaters in Voldy War 1 to mark the sites of their murders and declare their responsibility as individually anonymous members of a terrorist group loyal to Lord Voldemort. It's his symbol, after all, and would have been recognized as such by any member of the WW living at that time. A recent thread discusses the possible significance of the term Death Eaters and the incantation for casting the Dark Mark ("Morsmordre" or "Eat Death!") You should be able to find it using Yahoo!mort (our pathetically evil and incompetent search engine) as it was a very recent discussion. Or some person with more patience and a kinder heart than mine will look it up for you. Carol, welcoming responses to clarify or correct my interpretation, especially the symbolic elements and mythological associations From inkling108 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 21:14:44 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:14:44 -0000 Subject: More About Snape and Occlumency (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121704 Hello, Inkling here: Thanks to everyone who responded to my fears about Snape. Since there are so many thoughtful arguments, I've decided to reply to them in one post rather than trying to respond individually. Hopefully this will make it easier to follow, and be easier on list volume as well. (Waving at the List Elves!) Keep in mind, my views on Snape are a work in progress, and have already changed several times. But, after pondering the many excellent posts on the topic, here is how I see things at the moment: (Warning -- long post follows) Before we get into what Snape is actually up to in these lessons, lets take a look at what we know about occlumency. It won't take long, since it isn't much. Snape defines it as follows: "Occlumency, Potter. The magical defense of the mind against external penetration. An obscure branch of magic, but a highly useful one." Okay, it's a branch of magic. Now, all the branches of magic we have encountered so far use specific techniques and incantations to do the job (with the exception of potions, where you don't need incantations). So you might expect occlumency to feature these as well. Jump to Snape's lessons. No methods, no incantations, just general instructions like "Clear your mind" and "Focus, now." Pippin, it is true that Snape gives Harry useful information when he tells him that Occlumency requires similar skills to resisting the Imperius Curse. But this is still fairly general stuff. (Lupin, by contrast, followed up a general instruction (repell a dementor by projecting a postive emotional force) with specific methods. If he hadn't, would Harry have been able to produce a patronus? Don't think so.) But are there specific methods to teach? Well I can think of at least one, using a Shield charm. But Snape does not teach Harry this. Harry discovers it on his own, which unnerves Snape. He goes white and shaky and says, "I don't remember telling you to use a Shield charm" And can it be there are no incantations associated with Occlumency? It seems similar to a Patronus charm, in that you are using your mind to repell a foe. Normally that sort of thing requires an incantation. But Snape never mentions one. Now, all this does not necessarily add up to a case against Snape. The problem is that Snape is our main source of information on Occlumency. If it turns out he is not giving a full or accurate presentation, then we are being misled along with Harry. But I think we do have enough information to conclude that Harry has a legitimate complaint when he says to Snape: "You're not teaching me how!" This is not just his anger speaking. Snape is, in fact, being vague. And rather than respond to Harry's complaint, he changes the subject ("Manners, Potter!") -- not a good sign. Likewise, I think Harry's concern that the lessons are opening rather than closing his mind is legitimate. I don't think, Carol, that it can be explained as emotional reaction. I wholeheartedly agree with Alla on this one. Harry may project emotion onto events, but he is not imagining the events themselves. Now, these are all pretty recent conclusions. I used to think that the problem between Snape and Harry was primarily emotional. Well, maybe it was in the first four books, but in Book 5 I think there has been a change. What I see now is JKR using emotional drama to skillfully distract us from what's really going on. For example, in all the drama of the pensieve scene between Harry and Snape, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that Snape managed to end the lessons right after Harry found out he could use a shield charm to flip the Legilimens spell onto Snape and get a look into his mind. Coincidence? Similarly, with all the focus on Harry's emotional reaction to Snape, and the escaped Death Eaters, it's easy to overlook the significance of LV being "the happiest he has been for fourteen years" on the night of the first lesson. Fourteen years -- a huge clue, but you don't notice at first because there's so much else going on. (Man, JKR is good!) We are led to believe this happiness was because of the death eaters' escape. But consider this: According to the Daily Prophet, the Death Eaters escaped in the early hours of the evening. Now, if GOF is any guide, the first thing they would do is apparate at LV's side. Which would mean his reaction -- overjoyed or not --would have occurred hours before Harry supposedly tuned into it. It would also mean they rejoined Voldemort just before Snape's first lesson. In his essay, Voldemort's Pawns, Stic presents the following nightmare scenario: 1) DE's break out and rejoin LV. 2) LV questions Rookwood and finds out only he and Harry can remove the prophecy (what Harry later sees is LV's memory, not the live event) 3) LV, knowing that his spy Snape is about to give Potter occlumency lessons, contacts him, informs him of the new plan, and orders him to open Potter's mind as much as he can. 4)Snape obeys, all the while careful to appear as if he is trying to help Harry learn occlumency. He attains some success. 5)He reports his success to LV. 6) (this part is my speculation) LV decides to test the waters, finds he can now knock a fully conscious Potter flat and make him forget his own name. 7) LV is the happiest he has been for fourteen years! Awful -- but plausible. The worst thing is, it actually fits with the timeline of events better than the standard explanation. There's more to say, but I've gone on quite long already, and I do have to cut it short for now. Still suspicious (but still hoping she's wrong), Inkling From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 11 21:21:56 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:21:56 -0000 Subject: Lack of Confidence in JKR (WAS:Greatest Fear/greatest Hope) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121705 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mizstorge" > wrote: > All I have to add to this discourse, besides nodding in agreement to those who said there doesn't seem to be a unifying Slytherin philosphy of evil, is my great surprise no one jumped on my comment about hoping the ending wouldn't be LAME! After what I consider the underwhelming revelations about the prophecy at the end of OOtP (Jo, honey, we already knew all that. Or suspected it. Whatever.)< Pippin: But the first prophecy never was a major mystery. It received a only a passing mention in Book Three, and while it obviously had a role in Book Five, for most of the book we didn't know that's what all the fuss was about. And Dumbledore gave us fair warning that the prophecy was basically worthless: "Nevertheless, you should never have believed for an instant that there was any necessity for you to go to the Department of Mysteries tonight." Its value to the Order was only in what Voldemort *believed* it contained: "the knowledge of how to destroy you." Fudge's arrival at the Ministry, led by the statues of the House Elf and a Goblin, would seem to foretell a shift in the balance of power. We have already seen that some Slytherins stood to honor Harry at the feast in GoF. That, together with the Sorting Hats warning that only if the Houses are united can Hogwarts withstand her foes, has to count for something. Why is it there if nothing is going to come of it? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 21:45:56 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:45:56 -0000 Subject: The Black estate (Was: Draco, no longer Harry's antagonist? -Money is the Ke In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121706 Antosha wrote: > One thing to remember about Sirius's death is that two of the witnesses to his fall through the Veil were not only Order members, but also Aurors: Kingsley Shacklebolt and Tonks. > (Was she conscious at the time?) Can't get better witnesses than cops. Carol responds: No, Tonks was unconscious. And Kingsley may be unwilling to blow his cover. Remember, he was pretending to be loyal to Fudge and Umbridge when Dumbledore was removed as headmaster. Antosha: > Do we know if Andromeda or Bellatrix was the eldest of the Black girls? Because if Sirius died intestate (without a will), Tonks could end up the heiress. Just because she's not on the tapestry doesn't mean she can't inherit--was Sirius there? Carol: Not sure what you maen by "was Sirius there?" His name, like Andromeda's was burned off the tapestry. But Andromeda appears to be the middle daughter as her name was between Narcissa's and Bellatrix's. Also, we know that Bellatrix is only about three years older than Sirius (she apparently left school at the end of his fourth year, her seventh), so if Andromeda is younger than Bellatrix, she wouldn't have had time to leave school, get married, and produce a child the age of Tonks, now apparently in her early twenties. I'm guessing that Narcissa is the oldest, the same age as Lucius Malfoy (five years older than Sirius), which would make Andromeda, the middle daughter, four years older than Sirius, who was about 21 when Harry was born. So that would give Andromeda just enough time to have a child who is six (or seven, if we push it) years older than Harry. And if Narcissa rather than the childless Bellatrix is the eldest, Draco rather than Tonks would end up as the heir (after his aunt and mother). And if there's an entailment on the estate that skips to the first male heir, he'll inherit it, anyway, regardless of the oreder of the daughters' birth. Of course, if Sirius's will name his godson as heir, we'll have the court battle Steve is anticipating--*if* Sirius can be proven dead, which I still think is doubtful. Notice that there's been no public announcement of his death (AFAWK, he's still a wanted fugitive) and no memorial service (that we know of). Carol, who thinks that his death and his innocence will (somehow) be established at the same time after Fudge has left office and the aurors can safely reveal themselves to the Wizengamot as Order members From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 22:33:49 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:33:49 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121707 Carol earlier (snipped by eggplant): > > > Mrs. Figg's (who, if we accept JKR's website > > as canon, did not really see the Dementors > > You have me at a disadvantage, I have always taken it as a given > that Figg did see the Dementors, am I wrong? What exactly did JKR > say? Carol responds: It sounds as if you need to go to JKR's site and read all the interesting stuff there--not exactly canonical, IMO, but helpful in understanding her intentions. (I confess I shared your view of Mrs. Figg's testimony and was very disappointed that she couldn't see Dementors. I had her pegged as the person who would do magic for the first time at an advanced age.) To see the segment on Squibs, including their inability to see Dementors), go to the main page of the site http://www.jkrowling.com/ and click on the cup with the green tea dregs. At the bulletin board, click on the yellow paper that says "Miscellaneous" and then click on "Squibs." Granted, the text itself doesn't lead to this interpretation, but I'm afraid that most readers will take JKR's own interpretation against yours and mine. > Eggplant: > Hermione doesn't need any slack and Percy doesn't deserve any. Carol responds: In *your* view, Eggplant. Not in that of all readers, nor, as far as we know, in JKR's. If you could just use "I think" and "IMO," a lot of us on this list would be happier. I, for one, am still inclined to give Percy the benefit of a doubt and your telling me that he doesn't deserve any does nothing to persuade me to share your view. Carol, taking off her McGonagall hat and square-rimmed glasses From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Jan 11 22:36:39 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:36:39 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121708 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > And if this was not something very very serious why was there a > formal trial held in the largest courtroom by the full Wizengamot, > something that has not happened in many years. This was a criminal > trial not a "disciplinary hearing", Dumbledore specifically said so, > and when people are convicted in a criminal trial they go to jail. > The wizard jail is Azkaban. Hickengruendler: I think nobody denies that the "hearing" was unfair and way to much for such a minor delict. That does not change at all, however, that Azkaban was never mentioned during the whole scene. Again, and although you seem to ignore this point, if Fudge really planned to send Harry to Azkaban, than why doesn't he say so? He never mentioned Azkaban during the whole hearing, if he expects to sentence Harry to some time in prison, than he surely must demande it. And even if it was secretly his plan, there's no proof that Percy knew about it. He's his under-secretary, but that doesn't mean that he has to know everything that goes on in Fudge's head. You do have a point in saying that the first owl told of a hearing in addition to Harry being expelled anyway. But anyway, it's just speculation that a) Fudge ordered this hearing to send Harry to Azkaban and b), if Fudge really did, that Percy knew about it. Remember that the whole incident happened in the late evening, when Percy might have been back home. And later the possibility of Harry being sent to Azkaban was never discussed, that's a fact. Not even as a worry from the other Order members. > > Percy was in his element and in a very good mood when it looked like > Harry would end up in Azkaban, laughing on cue at Fudge's bad jokes > (very good minister!) and looking smug. > It was only when Harry won > his freedom that Percy became morose. Hickengruendler: In fact, Percy didn't do anything at all during the hearing. The only reaction of him that was mentioned, was when he nodded solemly, after Fudge said, that the more impressive Harry's spell was, the worse, since the danger of a muggel seeing something was even higher. And you have to admit, Fudge did have a point there, therefore Percy agreeing with him there doesn't make him evil. Of course both later ignored some clear evidence, like Arabella Figg's testimony, which makes them blind and foolish, but not Voldemort-like evil. The exact same thing happened > later when it looked like Dumbledore would go to Azkaban, except > then it was even more blatant. Hickengruendler: Yes, but like I said, that was after both, Percy and Fudge, thought they have found some proove for their wild theories. After Dumbledore's confession, they thought he was a dangerous criminal, and therefore being glad that he's sent to Azkaban doesn't make Percy evil. (Note that I'm playing devil's advocate here, I immensly disliked Percy in this chapter, but nonetheless I can see where he's coming from and do not think that he's irredeemably evil). > > > Mrs. Figg's (who, if we accept JKR's website > > as canon, did not really see the Dementors > > You have me at a disadvantage, I have always taken it as a given > that Figg did see the Dementors, am I wrong? What exactly did JKR > say? Hickengruendler: She said that Mrs Figg did not see the Dementors, but knew enough about them, that she was able to guess the situation correctly. (In other words, like Dudley, she probably felt them). > > > we have canon for Percy's good side, > > what appears to be a genuine affection, > > if not love, for his brother Ron, as > > evidenced by his wading into the water > > after the Second Task in GoF after > > fearing that Ron would drown. > > Yes that was good I can't deny it, but it's interesting, whenever > somebody wants to show Percy's good side they always come up with > that exact same example and I think I know why; in 5 long books that > one short sentence pretty much exhausts Percy's entire good side. > It seems to be the only good thing he did in his life. Hickengruendler: - He also showed some concern for Ginny in book 2. In fact, he was the only Weasley brother who realized that something was wrong with her. He wanted to give her some medicine. Granted, it was described as "bullying", but nonetheless he obviously was afraid for her health. - He also was horrified after the monster petrified Penelope, and as we later learn, it's not because she's a prefect, but because she's his girlfriend. - He fought the Death Eaters after the Quidditch Worldcup (!!!). - He helped searching the castle for Sirius after the attack on the First Lady. Hickengruendler From ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 23:11:29 2005 From: ohneill_2001 at yahoo.com (ohneill_2001) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:11:29 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121709 pippin_999 wrote: > > > There are supposed to be around a > > thousand students at Hogwarts, and > > only 28 or so were in the DA. Are > > you saying everyone else was a coward or an Umbridge toady? Eggplant wrote: > Yes, if they knew about the meeting and refused to come. > Now Cory: I think that's a bit simplistic, don't you? Remember, at its inception, the DA really was little more than a study group -- a group to allow people who wanted to study practical DADA to do so. Are you seriously suggesting that it is unfathomable to you that a student, although neither a coward nor an Umbridge toady, might choose not to join a DADA practice group? Sure, some people probably didn't go because they were afraid of Umbridge, but don't you think it's possible that a lot of the school didn't go because they're just not that interested in studying DADA? --Cory From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 23:30:45 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:30:45 -0000 Subject: Satellite!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121710 Carol earlier: > Interesting theory . But there's a simpler explanation. Maybe Baby Harry received some but not all of Voldemort's powers (the only one he's displayed so far is Parseltongue) and Voldemort didn't lose his powers per se but only the ability to use them. > > Snow: > > Thank you for your response, Carol, but how would you account for Voldemort's quote that "only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others." Is this just the uttering of a former vapor-self who was unable to use his abilities if so why is Voldemort capable of using a power (parceltongue) which we know has been permanently transferred to Harry? If Harry is in possession of the ability, transferred to him through Voldemort, to speak parceltongue, how can baby!Voldy or any form of Voldemort speak parceltongue when it is no longer in his possession, unless he has access to it? > Voldemort's powers are very much alive in Harry and accessible through Harry even when he was Vapormort but Harry's scar response to the use of the powers Voldemort is accessing only grew with Voldemort's physical formation. It was only when Voldy became Baby! mort (a real physical substance) that Harry was capable of actually viewing Voldemort's schemes through his accessed powers, which intensified Harry's scar pain. > Carol responds: I guess my explanation wasn't clear. I think that the powers reside in Voldemort's spirit but he's unable to use them when he doesn't have a body because he can't speak or use a wand. (He can still possess other beings because this power doesn't require a body.) When he possesses a person he can use his powers through that person-- possessed!Quirrell is presumably stronger than Quirrell in his normal state. When Voldemort has a body, even a baby's body, he can use the powers still within him that require the use of a voice or a wand. I don't think Parseltongue "permanently resides" in Harry. I think that the two now *share* that power, and probably other powers that haven't been identified yet, for example Legilimency. Voldemort "marked [Harry] as his equal" by giving him access to some of his own powers. That doesn't mean that Voldemort himself permanently lost them. He simply *couldn't use them* because he had no body. I do agree that Harry has become more sensitive to the pain in his scar, or rather, the pain is more intense and he's more sensitive to Voldemort's moods (pretty much a given in OoP) but that can easily be explained by the increase in Voldemort's power now that he has a body of his own. And that strength apparently makes Harry "alive" to Voldemort's anger, which he sometimes feels as his own, and which may have been acquired along with the powers as part of the legacy of Godric's Hollow. Voldemort certainly did not lose his anger and give it to Harry; IMO, he kept it, along with the Parseltongue and the Legilimency and the ability to use an Unforgiveable Curse, but could not use it or manifest it in any way until he had a body. The stronger the body, the stronger his own powers and the stronger the connection with Harry. Snow wrote: > The worst properties of the powers that Harry has unknowingly > acquired from Voldemort is exactly what makes Harry's statement at > the end of OOP so utterly ironic: > > "But I don't!" said Harry in a strangled voice. "I haven't any powers he hasn't got. I couldn't fight the way he did tonight, I can't possess people?or kill them?" > > Harry has never acquired the power to possess people; this statement came from Voldy himself; so Harry defiantly is correct that he does not have the power to possess people. > Why can Harry not use an unforgivable curse because,like Dumbledore, he is too noble to use them or to understand that he has the power to use them via the Voldemort legacy unknowingly bestowed on him. Carol responds: I certainly agree that the statement is ironic, one more example of Harry not knowing the full truth of his situation. He *has* acquired powers from Voldemort despite his denial of the situation; we just don't know which ones. (And his acquisition of those powers in no way implies that Voldemort doesn't also have them.) We can't really say that the power to possess people is definitely not one of the powers that was transferred to Harry at GH. I think you're assuming that because it was the one power Voldemort still had while he was without a body. But he regained the others later, or rather the ability to use them, so he never really lost them, either. We don't *know* that Harry doesn't have that power. He certainly thought he did when he dreamed that he, as the snake, was biting Mr. Weasley. I'll reserve judgment on that one, though I certainly hope he doesn't have, or use, that power. It's hard to see how it could be used for good except against Voldemort himself. However, I don't think the ability to use an Unforgiveable Curse was transferred to Harry. I think that's something that the individual wizard has to acquire through a desire to do harm or violate the mind or body of another human being. Barty Jr. acquired it. So did Bellatrix and most of the other DEs. None of them received powers from Voldemort at Godric's Hollow or anywhere else. They just used their own power and their own evil will to perform spells that Harry is not yet powerful and certainly not evil enough to perform. (If he ever succeeds in performing one, the WW is in trouble because its savior is heading down Tom Riddle's path.) I think that the powers Harry acquired are probably those peculiar to Voldemort, not shared by most other wizards (Parseltongue, Legilimency, and possibly possession among them). Most other wizard powers he would already have inherited from his parents--the ability to fly (and play Quidditch) being the most obvious example. I'm not by any means saying that I'm right, only that there are other ways to look at the situation than the one you're proposing. And we don't disagree on all points, only on the idea that Voldemort actually *lost* all but one of his powers and now has to channel them back through Harry's scar. I agree that Harry has (shares) *some* of Voldemort's powers and that his denial that he shares any powers with Voldemort is ironic. But I don't think that the powers "reside" in Harry and that Voldemort has to get them back. They will be *equals*, per the Prophecy, when they meet for that final battle. IOW, Harry will have the same powers as Voldemort, some acquired at GH and some native to him at his birth. > Snow?who occasionally wishes this were a chat room instead of an > adult forum No offence to you Carol Carol responds: No offense taken. But anyone who's seen me attempt chat knows I'm better at lists that allow me detailed (and proofread!) replies than at short, quick responses, especially for complicated questions like this one. Carol, hoping that her position is clearer this time around From pegruppel at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 23:49:03 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:49:03 -0000 Subject: Trelawney was wrong, she spoke of Snape, but thought it was Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121711 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "LadyOfThePensieve" wrote: > So while she believed she was talking of Harry (she wasn?t ideed), we > can now be sure maybe 85 percent it was Snape she was speaking of, > even she didn?t know it , of course. We couldn?t know it, because we > hadn?t no clue Snape was born in Midwinter and as capricorn and under > Saturn?s rule. > > What do you think of it? I like the idea that Trelawney is picking up on someone else, but I suspect she's actually picking up on Harry's connection to LV. Giving us Snape's birthdate could be just a bit more of the misdirection that she's so good at. In CoS, Tom Riddle is described as dark-haired. Some board members have suggested that Tom is Harry or vice versa, but I'm not buying that one. Their lives are linked by the failed AK, which leads to a lot of odd effects (that we've all seen up close and personal in OotP). I thik Trelawney picked up on the "vibes" from the curse, and assumed, quite naturally, the vibes were Harry's. Why should she think otherwise? Although she has no recollection of her previous two prophecies about Harry and LV, she's still a witch and has *some* skills as a seer, although they're not quite as good as she thinks they are, and her real powers don't seem to be under her conscious control. Yes, I know that LV is tall, but I suspect the "mean stature" bit is probably just Sybil being Sybil. I do think she at least clued in on the connection with LV. JKR said we'll learn more about Tom Riddle's childhood later in the series. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's the one born in midwinter. Peg--who's getting back into the swing of this with HBP coming up! From trekkie at stofanet.dk Tue Jan 11 21:03:54 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:03:54 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) References: Message-ID: <002701c4f821$0f776a70$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 121712 Nora, watching the snow come down: > I agree that we need a positive Slytherin; but I think that person(s) > will have to disavow the ideology of the current reigning clique in > the House. But isn't Snape a positive Slytherin? In spite of his hatred towards Harry, he still saves his life over and over. And I don't believe for a second that he sent the DE's to MoM. I still believe that whatever reason Dumbledore has to trust him, it's a good one. Sure Dumbledore has been wrong on other occasions, but he did bring (or accept) Snape back on Hogwarts, and he must have had a pretty strong reason for doing so. ~Trekkie From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 21:04:20 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:04:20 -0000 Subject: Draco, no longer Harry's antagonist? -Money is the Key Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121713 bboyminn writes: >Here is my theory on the possibility of a redeemable Draco. I think >at >some point Draco could realize that if Voldemort wins, it won't be >good for business. Bad business means little or no money, and Draco >can abide and endure a lot of things but little or no money, and >therefore power, is not one of them. Lucius seems to me to be quite a bit brighter than his golden child, and if Draco could come to this conclusion, surely Lucius would have. I think Lucius (and some of the other DEs) can see the economic ruin that LV's reign with bring about, but I think they also plan to be there to pick up the pieces. After LV runs amok and kills off all of their opposition, who will be left to run things? LV certainly won't have a bit of interest in building business and making money (any ideas what he WILL want to do after he's "running the world"?) so he will most likely leave the mundane tasks like that to his underlings. Money can buy power, but more often, power can lead to money. Nicky Joe From ryokas at hotmail.com Tue Jan 11 23:53:11 2005 From: ryokas at hotmail.com (kizor0) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:53:11 -0000 Subject: Complete and utter derail In-Reply-To: <20050111164244.28037.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121714 > Hans: > That's NOT funny! > > I'll tell you why. Because that is precisely how "The Alchemical Wedding of > Christian Rosycross" ends! (Snip) *Blink* *Blink* Oookay... that's certainly on the freaky side of coincidences. Don't go accusing Snow, though, as I'm pretty sure that she only meant open-endedness. Certainly I was taking a metaphor seriously in my last post. I am not familiar with The Alchemical Wedding beyond the bits and pieces that have been referred to here, and wasn't aware of this at all. I'm sorry for any negative emotions roused as that surely enough wasn't my intention. > Kizor: > This has been your late-night Kizor hour. It's like comedy, only > without all the funny parts. > > Hans: > You can say that again! *Sticks out tongue* - Kizor From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 23:53:14 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:53:14 -0000 Subject: Trelawney was wrong, she spoke of Snape, but thought it was Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121715 LadyOfThePensieve wrote: > since we know Snape was born at January, 9th, we know he is a > capricorn and the capricorn is astrologically ruled by STATURN (by the way the 7.planet in our solsystem) > > In GoF, chapter 13 (Mad Eye Moody) she [Trelawney] teaches the studenst to interprate the constellation of the planets. > 'I was saying, my dear, that you were clearly born under the baleful > influence of Saturn,' said Professor Trelawney, a faint note of > resentment in her voice at the fact that he had obviously not been > hanging on her words. > > 'Born under - what, sorry?' said Harry. > > 'Saturn, dear, the planet Saturn!' said Professor Trelawney, sounding definitely irritated that he wasn't riveted by this news. 'I was saying that Saturn was surely in a position of power in the heavens at the moment of your birth...Your dark hair...your mean stature...tragic losses so young in life...I think I am right in saying, my dear, that you were born in midwinter?' > > 'No,' said Harry, 'I was born in July.' > So while she believed she was talking of Harry (she wasn?t ideed), we can now be sure maybe 85 percent it was Snape she was speaking of, even she didn?t know it , of course. We couldn?t know it, because we hadn?t no clue Snape was born in Midwinter and as capricorn and under Saturn?s rule. > > What do you think of it? Carol responds: I proposed something similar earlier: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121474 Snape was born if not in midwinter, at least in what *seems* like midwinter in England, he has dark hair, and he had an unhappy 9and perhaps literally tragic) childhood. Potioncat and others have noted that this description might also apply to Tom Riddle and Sirius Black, since we don't know when they were born, but neither of them can be considered to be of "mean" stature--both are described as tall. And while Snape is never described as short (he's clearly taller than Harry even in OoP), he's shorter than Sirius and described in several places as thin, so he could conceivably be 5'7" or so with a small frame--not tiny like Flitwick but still rather small for a man. At any rate, I immediately thought of Snape when I first read Trelawney's description and have been expecting to discover that he had a winter or midwinter birthday ever since. As noted previously, I've been watching the birthdays on JKR's site since bleak and dreary November with Severus in mind, but the Capricorn sign is more appropriate with regard to the influence of Saturn in Trelawney's description, as is the Janus symbolism we discussed in the "Happy birthday, Severus Snape" thread. So Trelawney, as usual, is not so much wrong as misreading the information available to her, just as she misreads the dog in the crystal ball as a Grim. Carol From cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 21:10:12 2005 From: cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com (David & Laura) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:10:12 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121716 Eggplant wrote: > "If Marietta didn't know that would get her "friends" in trouble then > she shouldn't be at Hogwarts, she should be in a special school for > the mentally challenged. " Del replies: > May I suggest we send, say, Harry, to that school for mentally > challenged too? After all, he was "stupid" enough to think that the > two most wanted wizards in Britain could just walk right into the most > secret department of the MoM in the middle of the afternoon on a > workday... David: Hesitating to jump in on this thing you and Egg have going, but here goes. Marietta ratted out her friends, knowing of the decree. She had to know they at least faced expulsion, if caught. Maybe she didn't care for everyone else, but Cho was supposedly her friend. In my world you quit the club or stop going, but you never go to the authorities over a club meeting. There is no defense for what Marietta did, so yes I find her incredibly stupid. As to Harry's decision, rash yes, but no where comparable to Marietta's transgression. All Harry knew was that he was somehow receiving emotions and visions from V'mort. He had seen Bryce die and Arthur attacked. He had no reason to doubt these visions. They tried to check on Sirius. When Kreacher lied, why would he doubt Sirius was a prisoner. Harry knows wizards apparate in/out of the MOM. He only knows no one besides DD could stop V'mort if he went after the 'power' in the MOM with Sirius as a prisoner. I wish he would of thought of the mirror, but he was in a panic. From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 21:24:33 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:24:33 -0000 Subject: How could Slytherin House have helped Harry? Snape? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121717 >Del writes: >So could it be that Snape was what the Sorting Hat had in mind when it told Harry that Slytherin could help him on his way to greatness? When I read this, it immediately brought to mind the wand scene in PS/SS when Ollivander mentioned that Voldemort had achieved "great things" with his wand. "Terrible, but great." Both Ollivander and the Sorting Hat (being rather neutral parties when it comes to their jobs) were referring to the definition of greatness as "big, impressive, remarkable, prodigious" not "heroic, noble, distinguished." In Slytherin, I'm sure Harry would have achieved impressive stature. In Gryffindor, he certainly bends the rules whenever he sees fit in order to attain his own ends. In Slytherin, that rule bending would have been even easier, because it's likely there would be no Neville protesting that he was breaking the rules. More likely he'd have little Slytherin friends egging him on. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 21:32:09 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:32:09 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121718 >Potioncat writes: >But I'll throw this out in honesty. If for some reason >Snape had been the one to teach Harry the Patronus charm, he would >no doubt have tossed a bucket of water on him, ordered him to stand >up and opened up the cabinet again. (Nothing more than "that wasn't >as bad as it might have been" and certainly no chocolate) Brilliant analysis! I've been reading the Good Snape/Bad Snape threads and while I really want to believe that there is some good in Snape buried down under the loads of slime, I keep coming back to the scene in GoF where Malfoy's spell deflects and hits Hermione, causing her teeth to grow and grow. When they are past her chest, they force Hermione to show them to Snape and he coldly says, "I see no difference." That pretty much summed up Snape's personality, in my opinion. He'd been mean to Hermione before that, but that comment was downright EVIL. For a person who was teased and taunted as teenager and therefore had to know the sheer agony of it to come out with a comment that blatantly cruel was, to me, unforgiveable. If he plans on being redeemed in the end, he'd better get on with it, because he has a massive amount of meanness to make up for. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 21:43:11 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:43:11 -0000 Subject: Question? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121719 >Craig writes: >Okay, at the end of GOF Harry Potter gets into the horseless >carriages that take him and the other students to the train. Now in >the begininng of Order of The Phoenix he sees Thesterals pulling the >carriages. It's explained to him that he sees them because he >witnessed someone dying. Now why did he not see them at the end of >GOF? He had already seen Cedric die, he should of seen them then, >right? I finished reading GoF last night and this was bugging me, also. I kept waiting for him to notice the thestrels. The realistic answer to this is: JKR didn't think of the thestrels until she was writing book five. The fantastical answer to this is: It doesn't say Harry "didn't" see the thestrels. Therefore, I decided he DID notice the thestrels, he was just so out of it and depressed they didn't register as an oddity until much later. Much much later. A whole lot later. Does anyone else have a better fantastical answer? Please? Nicky Joe From spaebrun at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 23:47:49 2005 From: spaebrun at yahoo.com (spaebrun) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:47:49 -0000 Subject: JKR and Occlumency lessons (was Re: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121720 Potioncat wrote: > There have been countless discussions about Occlumency lessons, and > I've participated in quite a few of them. We can argue whether it > was DD's mistake or Snape's fault or Harry's distrust....or > something else instead. And we all tend to get very emotional about > it. > > But really, what was JKR intending when she wrote these classes? > What are we learning from them? How did they affect the characters? Reed: I think the reason JKR invented those Occlumency lessons was to show what happens if Harry and Snape are paired together - not as teacher and student, which is still a comparatively distant relationship, but only the two of them, forced to cooperate on an important and very difficult, emotionally challenging task. The occlumeny lesson setup made for very interesting scenes that showed the characters' struggle to deal with their mutual dislike to serve the cause. (I know, I can't tell for sure what Snape was thinking, but I tend to think he honestly tried to do what Dumbledore asked of him.) JKR created a lot of tension by giving glimpses of hope that their relationship might improve and then dramatically shattering these hopes by the pensieve disaster that ended the lessons. Perhaps it is true that from a rational point of view it's somewhat problematic to fully justify Dumbledore's decision to pick Snape of all people to teach Harry, but from a narrative point of view this constellation is great! If you'd had someone else, say Lupin, to teach Harry, the focus of the scenes would have to be an entirely different one - probably more on the difficulty of occlumency itself than on the difficulty of cooperating with the person you hate most. For I think that *this* is what the lesson setup is all about. I think that Harry's relationship to Snape and their ability to work together will be crucial to rest of the story and that the occlumency lessons were a narrative tool to elaborate this thread and bring it into focus. And btw: I, for my part, thought Occlumeny with Snape made some of the most exciting scenes in book 5 :-). Reed From rsteph1981 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 00:09:04 2005 From: rsteph1981 at yahoo.com (Rebecca Stephens) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:09:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Arabella Fibb WAS: Re: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050112000904.79710.qmail@web20024.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121721 --- justcarol67 wrote: > > > Carol earlier (snipped by eggplant): > > > > > Mrs. Figg's (who, if we accept JKR's website > > > as canon, did not really see the Dementors > > > > You have me at a disadvantage, I have always taken > it as a given > > that Figg did see the Dementors, am I wrong? What > exactly did JKR > > say? > > Carol responds: > It sounds as if you need to go to JKR's site and > read all the > interesting stuff there--not exactly canonical, IMO, > but helpful in > understanding her intentions. (I confess I shared > your view of Mrs. > Figg's testimony and was very disappointed that she > couldn't see > Dementors. I had her pegged as the person who would > do magic for the > first time at an advanced age.) > Call me odd - I never for one moment considered that she was telling the truth. ===== http://wychlaran.tripod.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From tiggers_disco at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 11 18:46:27 2005 From: tiggers_disco at yahoo.co.uk (Tristan) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:46:27 -0000 Subject: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: <20050111172135.42247.qmail@web25101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121722 Very Interesting, I didn't know that about the origins of the dark mark. The only thing that baffler me is that every little thing in HP seems to have been stolen from something else. Aragog: The scientific name for a spider is ARAneae, which happens to be the first three letters of Aragog's name. Since Aragog is a spider, that makes perfect sense! Azkaban: This is really doesn't explain the meaning of Azkaban, but it's pretty interesting. Someone (Mitchell) told me that Azkaban and Alacatraz are both similar because they're both prisons on islands, and they're both 3-syllable words that sound the same. Alcatraz is a famous prison off the California coast that used to jail members of the Mob, but is now closed. Today, you can tour it though, that is if you're crazy enough to. :) Beauxbaton: "Beaux-Baton"="Beautiful Stick" in French! Black, Sirius: Sirius, also called the Dog Star, is the brightest star in the sky! Delacour, Fleur: Fleur Delacour is a girl from Beauxbatons. Fleur-de-la-Cour, it means "Flower of the court" in French! Dumbledore, Albus: Dumbledore=bumblebee in Old English! J.K. Rowling says that it "seemed to suit the headmaster, because one of his passions is music and I imagined him walking around humming to himself." Albus also means "white" in latin. Maybe because he has a white beard? Or maybe "white" means that he's a white wizard, in other words, a good wizard. Fawkes: I looked this up the dictionary myself, and it actually had it in there...kinda. It had "Guy Fawkes" in the dictionary, and he was an English conspirator who was executed for his involvement in the Gunpowder Plot (1605), which was an attempt to blow up King James I and the Houses of Parliament with shells and fireworks. Since Fawkes is a phoenix, which according to mythology bursts into flames every hundred years or so, and then rises from its ashes to take the form of the phoenix once again. See the connection? Gunpowder, shells, fireworks and ashes, fire, flames???? Maybe JK Rowling named Fawkes after Guy Fawkes? Filch, Argus: Argus is a creature from Greek Mythology who has a hundred eyes and is very watchful. (Wow! So is our Argus, never misses a thing that happens at Hogwarts.) To filch is to steal (usually something small). That makes sense, Filch likes to take things from students who get in trouble, i.e. The Marauder Map. Granger, Hermione: J.K. Rowling says that she wanted Hermione (Her-my-uh-nee) to have an odd name so that real-life little girls who share the name Hermione wouldn`t be teased because they were know-it-alls. Hagrid, Rubeus: If you were "Hagrid" in old English, it means that you're having a bad night. Since Hagrid is a big drinker, he must have had tons bad nights. Hedwig: In a recent interview, Mrs. Rowling said that Hedwig is the name of a medieval saint. Someone e-mailed me this very helpful site that has very good info on St. Hedwig. (Thanx!) St. Hedwig had seven children and was married several times. She cared for the sick and supported the poor. There's a school named for her, this school provides education for abandoned and orphaned children. Do you see a connection here? Hedwig, the owl, cares for Harry who is orphaned, and this school named after St. Hedwig cares for the orphaned. Hermes: Percy`s owl, Hermes is also the name of the Greek messenger God to the Gods! Knockturn Alley: Knockturn Alley=nocturnally. Well, to be nocturnal is to be active during the night, so since many of the Dark Arts are performed during the night, it seems reasonble that JK Rowling named it Knockturn Alley. This is so cool! I discovered the definition of this myself! Lockhart, Gilderoy: Lockhart is an Australian town near Wagga Wagga, remember, Lockhart defeated a werewolf? "Composed a poem about my defeat of the Wagga Wagga Werewolf" Lupin, Remus: Stories said that there was a boy named Remus who was abandoned when he was just a baby, (aww) but was found by wolves who nursed him and raised him. Also Lupin means wolf-like in Latin. Malfoy, Draco: 1.)In ancient Greek days, Draco was a cruel Athenian lawmaker. That's how we get the expression "draconian laws", meaning unnecessarily harsh laws. Also, 'Mal foi' means 'bad faith' in French. 2.)Draco in Latin means "Snake" or "Dragon" both of which are very devious creatures - A Dragon (in mythology) lulls you with it's voice so you'll tell it any thing and it will usually extract important secrets from you. Snakes - A serpent is the Slytherin mascot and snakes were evil and cunning creatures - A basilisk is a snake and it's very deadly. Malfoy, Narcissa: (She's the mother of Draco Malfoy) Her name is pretty similar to the term narcissism which means "self-love" or people who think that they are more important and superior than other people. So could this be a description of her character? McGonagall, Minerva: Minerva is the name of the Roman goddess of Wisdom. Can that mean that our strict transfiguration teacher is also wise??? Mirror of Erised: "erised stra ehru oyt ube cafru oyt on wohsi" if you read the inscription backwards it's "I show not your face but your heart's desire" Neat huh? Peeves: To peeve is to irritate or annoy. (Doesn't that sound like our Peeves, he sure does get on everyone's nerves!) Riddle, Marvolo Tom: If you rearrange all the words in "Tom Marvolo Riddle", you get...what else?? "I am Lord Voldemort"!! Snape, Severus: Severus, maybe he's so severe to his students, (especially Harry) that J.K. Rowling named him Severus. Sprout: This is kinda obvious, she's the Herbology professor who teaches about plants, which "sprout". Veritaserum: In the fourth book, it was the potion that Snape threatened to use on Harry and Dumbledore also gave the potion to Mr. Crouch's son at the end. Well, I did some research, I found that "Verity" means truth and "serum" means fluid. So Veritaserum is a fluid that makes people tell the truth. You get it? Voldemort: There are many rumors saying that the name Voldemort came from an evil wizard named Voldermortist, which means "Lord of Evil" or "Dark Lord". They even went far on to say that Voldemort once tried to kill Merlin, but was caught and fed to a monster with many heads. -OR- Lord Voldemort may be taken from Edgar Allan Poe's character M. Valdemar, who died under hypnosis and came back as a squishy mass of rotting flesh, which is what Voldermort was like, until he regained his human form in the 4th book. NOTE: "Vol de mort" means "Flight of Death" in French. But.......J.K. Rowling said that she made the name up! Weasley, Arthur : Maybe J.K Rowling named him after King Arthur of Camelot??? Weasley, Ron : Ron Weasley, in another language, is called "Running Weasel." Running Weasel was a warlord in the 6th Dynasty. He was a stratigist, and never lost a game of chess!! (That sounds just like Ron!) Unfortunately, he died when a rat that had been dyed yellow (Scabbers!!) by his soldiers for fun, knocked over a lamp in his palace, burning it to the ground, and killing Running Weasel. Charms Accio: Comes from the Latin word 'accipio' which means 'receive'. Used to force an object to come to you. Avada Kedavra: Arabic for 'let the things be destroyed', led to the saying of Abra Kadabra. It's one of the deadiliest curse known, causes the instant death of a living thing. It was the curse used by Voldemort to kill Harry's parents. Here's another explanation, Avada-could be a change from "Verde", which is Green in Spanish. This would explain the green flash of light. Kedavra could be releated to the English word "Cedaverm" which is a dead body. Which would explain why they die when it's cast. Expecto Patronum: It comes from the Latin word, "expecto", which means to throw out, and "patronus" in Latin means guardian. So it literally means "throw out a guardian!", hehe. Expelliarmus (disarming charm): 'expel' means to force out, and 'armus' means arms or weapons. This curse forces the wand out of someone else's hands. Fidelius Charm: Comes from the Latin word, "fidelus", which means faithful and trustworthy. This spell is used to place a secret in another trusted person. Lumos: 'light' in Latin. Used to ignite fire at the tip of one's wand to provide light. Counter-charm of Nox. Nox: 'night' in Latin. Used to extinguish fire at the tip of one's wand. Counter-charm of Lumos. Prior Incantatem: 'prior' means prior or previous in Latin, and 'incantatem' means spell in Latin, that makes sense because it's used to reveal the previous spell casted by a wand. Sonorus: To have a sonorous voice is to have a voice that is powerful, impressive, full, and rich in quality. Although sonorus and sonorous are spelt differently, they mean the same thing. The 'Sonorus' charm is used to amplify one's voice. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 12 00:25:55 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:25:55 -0000 Subject: More About Snape and Occlumency (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121723 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "inkling108" > Hello, Inkling here: > Okay, it's a branch of magic. Now, all the branches of magic we have encountered so far use specific techniques and incantations to do the job (with the exception of potions, where you don't need incantations). So you might expect occlumency to feature these as well.< Pippin: Not so. It does not take any incantation to resist Imperius. We don't know what the orthodox techniques are, but Harry is supposed to, because Moody assigned it as reading- ch 15 GoF. He did this *after* Harry had already resisted the curse successfully in class, so what do you want to bet Harry never did the reading at all? And he didn't take the exams that year, so he wasn't tested on it either. Thus, JKR has made sure she alone knows whether Harry's method of resisting Imperius is orthodox. But it does seem that the orthodox method doesn't require an incantation, or Hermione would have remarked on it. Comparing this to the technique for conjuring a patronus is apples and oranges. It's a bit of a stretch to assign Snape's white and shaky demeanor to his surprise that Harry used 'Protego' when Snape had just had some traumatic childhood memories unearthed. We've seen he doesn't take well to that. I agree that Harry's "You're not telling me how!" is a legitimate complaint, but I've had teachers who refuse to go over material the student is supposed to know already and I highly doubt they were servants of Voldemort. If the usual technique for resisting Imperius involves clearing your mind, then Snape has to assume that Harry knows how, in detail,since Harry has successfully resisted Imperius. We mustn't discount Draco's intrusion as a reason the lessons weren't resumed. Once Draco had reported that Potter was getting Remedial Potions, and Umbridge had had her spat with McGonagall over Harry's future, ( only a week or two after the lessons were discontinued) Umbridge would have found a way to interfere. Pippin From legacylady at prodigy.net Tue Jan 11 19:12:51 2005 From: legacylady at prodigy.net (LegacyLady) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:12:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore next MoM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050111191251.52810.qmail@web80206.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121724 Personally, I think that - although Dumbledore is CERTAINLY qualified to be the next MoM - he wouldn't accept that position as he is needed at Hogwarts. Hogwarts seems to be "safe" with him there and Harry needs all the protection he can get. Good thought though! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 00:26:59 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:26:59 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121725 >> Nora: >We didn't see any hints of outrage amongst the Slytherin team when Draco uses 'Mudblood', while the Gryffindor reaction is BOTH "don't say that about our house member" and "dude, that's just not right"-- it's categorically unacceptable. I think noting who will say that word and who won't is a shorthand for a whole big set'o'attitudes. >>Betsy: >In some ways this is an unfair example though. We have two teams that are almost fanatically competetive with each other. We have an exchange of insults that quickly spiral into personal attacks (and it's Hermione, interestingly enough, who gets in a particularly cruel dig) and then a truly nasty name is used. Immediately words are exchanged for wands and fists (and it's the Gryffindors who have two burly beaters leaping onto a small boy two years their junior), Flint protects his Seeker, Ron curses Malfoy, it backfires, Ron spits up slugs, and the Slytherins laugh. When exactly were the Slytherins supposed to stand aside and scold Draco for using a bad word?< >>Alla: >Ummmm, the moment Draco said that word? How about Flint saying something for example? How about ANYBODY in the Slytherin team? Surely, they don't think that competitiveness is a justification for racism or (as I consider it a stronger parallel) antisemitism for example.< Betsy: I'm not suggesting that the Slytherin team thinks racism is justified. Actually, what I'm trying to suggest is that they a) didn't have time to react to the word, and b) wouldn't dress down a teammate in front of the opposition if they could help it anyway. What I tried to point out is that things happened quickly. Flint didn't have time to chastise Draco because he was too busy protecting him from Fred and George. (Who had no qualms in ganging up on a much smaller and younger boy, I point out. Again) >>Betsy: >The use of 'mudblood' *is* shorthand for a set of attitudes. But do you really think Slytherin is the only House with such attitudes? >>Alla: >Actually.... yes. Since I don't see ANY student from any other House using this word. Does not mean that it is a complete picture, but that IS the picture so far.< Betsy: But we don't really know all that much, do we? As per Harry, all of Slytherin are bullies, braggarts, and bigots (takes a moment to bask in her alliteration skills ). But can Slytherin possibly be that evil? Is all that's wrong with the WW the cause of one single House? For one, it flies against everything else JKR has done. There's not a single institution that she's painted as perfectly Good or perfectly Evil. For another, if Slytherin is so completely and fantastically bad, why does the Sorting Hat say that *all* the Houses must join together? >>Potioncat (in message # 121669): >The author could be writing a story in which part of what she does is show the value of courage and the danger of ambition. She does that by having the Gryffindors be kind and good and victorious in all they do while the Slytherins are cruel and slimey and generally defeated in their efforts. (I'm over simplifying this) >Or the author could be showing us the dangers of stereotyping a group by setting us up to think the Slytherins are all bad, but then has someone surprising or several someones show up as not what we expected.< Betsy: Or, she could be doing a bit of both. Ambitious Percy has certainly appeared bad in OotP (please let him be SuperSpy!Percy) and he's not in Slytherin. So there may be hope for the "stereotyping bad!" lesson with Slytherin yet! ::crosses fingers and counts down the months to July:: Betsy, who's slowly coming to the conclusion that she doesn't want *anyone* to be bad. :) From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 11 21:13:16 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:13:16 -0000 Subject: More mysteries, minor and major: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121726 Jim Flanagan wrote: > Why was it necessary to have such an elaborate plot to transport > Harry to Voldemort in GoF? It took nearly the whole school year, and > there were many opportunities for a slip-up along the way. Couldn't > the ersatz Moody have kidnaped him by force, or slipped him a > disguised portkey in a much easier, and more certain, way? >>Amosdiggory99 suggests: >>As others have said in other forums, it is likely that Voldemort >>used this method so he and his followers could return to Hogwarts >>after killing Harry, have a major wizarding audience, and kill or >>terrorize them (just a thought). I personally thought the portkey was a brilliant idea, because it got Harry into LVs clutches, but still left LV's mole back at Hogwarts. If undiscovered, who knows what kind of havoc Crouch!Moody could have caused? I actually felt bad for Voldemort when Crouch!Moody had to reveal himself because of Harry's inconvenient return. I thought, "Damn, he lost his most excellent spy!" Nicky Joe From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 00:43:20 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:43:20 -0000 Subject: JKR and Occlumency lessons (was Re: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121727 Reed wrote: Reed: I think the reason JKR invented those Occlumency lessons was to show what happens if Harry and Snape are paired together - not as teacher and student, which is still a comparatively distant relationship, but only the two of them, forced to cooperate on an important and very difficult,emotionally challenging task. The occlumeny lesson setup made for very interesting scenes that showed the characters' struggle to deal with their mutual dislike to serve the cause. (I know, I can't tell for sure what Snape was thinking, but I tend to think he honestly tried to do what Dumbledore asked of him.) JKR created a lot of tension by giving glimpses of hope that their relationship might improve and then dramatically shattering these hopes by the pensieve disaster that ended the lessons. vmonte responds: I think that JKR added the occlumency lessons for a different reason. I think that she needed a way to show a flashback of the past. (She used TR's diary, Harry's dementor attack in PoA, Moody's photograph, and DD's penseive memories in this manner before. I also think that she is probably going to use Ron's brain attack to give more information about the past in book 6). I think there is something important about the scene where James and gang torture Snape (Snape's Worst Memory). There is something we were supposed to notice in that scene (aside from the obvious). I also think that that is the night that Snape was almost killed by Lupin. (Harry notices that Lupin looks strange in Snape's penseive memory, and wondered whether the full moon was approaching.) From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 00:49:10 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:49:10 -0000 Subject: JKR and Occlumency lessons (was Re: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121728 vmonte again: Page 642, US edition, OOTP "Harry's stomach gave another pleasurable squirm?was Remus Lupin. He looked rather pale and peaky (was the full moon approaching?) and was absorbed in the exam " I think that the prank against Snape happened that night, after the OWL examinations. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 01:00:37 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:00:37 -0000 Subject: Suggestions please: Mysteries In-Reply-To: <20050111041716.98089.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121729 Carol earlier: > ...edited... > > > And for all we know, Winky in her mistaken kindness to poor young Master let Barty Jr. practice magic under the cover of his invisibility cloak. We know that he had periods when the Imperius Curse was weak, and the Imperius Curse didn't prevent him from maturing physically, so probably it didn't prevent the natural maturation of his magical powers, either. > > Juli: > > But I don't think Barty Jr did any magic while under > the Imperius curse, here's the quote from GoF, Ch 35 > > "But Winky didn't know that I was growing stronger. I > was starting to fight my father's Imperius Curse. > There were times when I was almost myself again. There > were brief periods when I seemed outside his control. > It happened, there, in the Top Box. It was like waking > from a deep sleep. I found myself out in public, in > the > middle of the match, and I saw, in front of me, a wand > sticking out of a boys pocket. I had not been allowed > a wand since before Azkaban. I stole it. Winky > didn't know. > > This means he didn't do any magic, at least any > wand-magic, he could have done some wandless, but I > doubt it. Barty must have learned the Dark Arts when > he joined the DEs, afterwards he was sent to jail, > then imperio'd by his father, then he went to Hogwarts > as Moody so this doesn't leave much time to learn much > magic. > > Juli Carol responds: If you look back at the part of my argument that you snipped, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121641 you'll see that this is exactly what I was saying. Barty Jr. must have learned the Unforgiveable Curses as a DE--witness his Crucioing the Longbottoms with the Lestranges--and would have learned the Imperio he used on Krum and the AK he used on his father during his DE days as well. I wasn't saying that he *learned* any new curses while he was under Winky's care, only that his physical strength and probably his magical strength had time to mature despite his bing under the Imperius curse. You're right, though, that he didn't have a wand so he couldn't have practiced the curses even when the Imperius Curse was at his weakest. It must have been his memory, his intelligence, and the strength of his will--his devotion to Voldemort and his resentment of the Death Eaters that walked free--that enabled him to make his presence known to Voldemort through the Morsmordre and work with him and Wormtail to subdue the real Moody. By that time, Barty Jr. had his full strength back and was quite able to use the curses he'd learned as a DE as well as the potions (Polyjuice) and Transfiguration (Draco into ferret) that he'd presumably learned at Hogwarts. All of which was stated in the snipped portion of my original post. The portion you quoted was just a small concession to the previous poster, not my main point, which was the same as yours--he learned the Unforgiveables as a DE. (Good canon, though. It destroys the Winky subpoint, which is unneeded anyway with the strong will and high intelligence arguments explaining why he didn't forget what he had learned earlier after thirteen years of being under the Imperius Curse.) Carol From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 01:05:56 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:05:56 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121730 >>Betsy: >Out of curiosity - has any Slytherin other than Draco been heard to use that word?< >>Nora: >Young!Snape, in the Pensieve scene. And while yes, he was under distress there, I think that JKR is broadly drawing our attention to a distinction between those who will use it, and those who won't. >I agree that we need a positive Slytherin; but I think that person (s) will have to disavow the ideology of the current reigning clique in the House.< Betsy: I agree that the "good" Slytherin will have to disavow the pureblood ideology as Snape has done, but they cannot disavow their House. Otherwise, what would be the point? I have to admit though, I'm starting to come round in my thinking a bit. Perhaps Slytherin *does* represent what's wrong in the WW. I cannot see the House as totally evil, but perhaps it is where the healing or cleansing needs to start. Perhaps, because Salazar left the school, his House took his ideals and twisted them, just a bit at first, but as the centuries passed they got twisted more and more, until you ended up with Voldemort. As you pointed out in an earlier post, twisting Salazar's caution of outsiders (if that was what it was) wouldn't be too hard to do. I still feel that Salazar himself was not evil. I just cannot see it in a founder of Hogwarts. Of course, if Slytherin needs to be healed, purified, whatever, that does give Draco Malfoy a better place in the running for "good" Slytherin. After all, he'd need to be changed or whatever (I cannot think of a word that doesn't have blood-bigotry written all over it!) himself - so he really could symbolize the "new and improved" Slytherin. (Plus, if Snape was able to get over his issues, why can't Draco?) Betsy From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 01:17:35 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:17:35 -0000 Subject: Flashbacks don't always tell the truth (JKR and Occlumency lessons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121731 vmonte: I think that JKR added the occlumency lessons for a different reason. I think that she needed a way to show a flashback of the past. (She used TR's diary, Harry's dementor attack in PoA, Moody's photograph, and DD's penseive memories in this manner before. I also think that she is probably going to use Ron's brain attack to give more information about the past in book 6). I think there is something important about the scene where James and gang torture Snape (Snape's Worst Memory). There is something we were supposed to notice in that scene (aside from the obvious). I also think that that is the night that Snape was almost killed by Lupin. (Harry notices that Lupin looks strange in Snape's penseive memory, and wondered whether the full moon was approaching.) vmonte again: I just realized something. In Tom Riddle's diary we at first think that TR is a good kid and that Hagrid let the monster loose. In Dumbledore's penseive memories (regarding the DE trials), we at first believe that Crouch Jr. was perhaps innocent and that his father was the bad guy for disowning him. Is JKR telling us not to take what we see (read) at face value? How about Moody's picture? Who is Aberforth? (I know this next part is irrelevant but why can't Aberforth read? Dumbledore is obviously educated. Why would his brother be illiterate?) Maybe the voice Harry hears in PoA isn't his father either. Maybe it's ESE!Lupin or someone else. Maybe Snape isn't the victim we are lead to believe in OOTP either. vmonte From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Jan 12 01:28:02 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:28:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Flashbacks don't always tell the truth (JKR and Occlumency lessons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00ea01c4f845$f5f6a370$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 121732 vmonte said: Snipping most of excellent post here ... Maybe Snape isn't the victim we are lead to believe in OOTP either. vmonte Sherry now: This is something I've always wondered about the Snape's worst memory chapter. After all, we are only seeing it from Snape's point of view and in a memory that is long past. It is proven psychologically, that we modify our memories a bit to fit a reality we want. Not totally, not in a delusional manner, but we all do it. We don't know enough about the pensive to know how it shows the memory. Does it show exactly what happened, or Does it only show how someone remembers what happened? This could be an important distinction. That's why I'm not in a hurry to judge anyone in that scene, not the marauders, not Snape nor Lily. I just think we don't know enough yet, and probably, if there's anything significant about that scene, it won't be something we expect. In true JKR style! Sherry G From mcdee1980 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 01:29:34 2005 From: mcdee1980 at yahoo.com (mcdee1980) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:29:34 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121733 Just out of curiosity but, . . . the hlaf blood prince storyline was originally part of COS, so has anyone thought about the possibiity that Salazar Slytherin is in fact the half blood prince we've been wondering about? From jennifer_maccherone at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 01:44:37 2005 From: jennifer_maccherone at yahoo.com (nifferhpfan) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 01:44:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore next MoM? In-Reply-To: <20050111191251.52810.qmail@web80206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121734 LegacyLady wrote: > Personally, I think that - although Dumbledore is CERTAINLY qualified to be the next MoM - he wouldn't accept that position as he is needed at Hogwarts. > Hogwarts seems to be "safe" with him there and Harry needs all the protection he can get. > Niffer writes: I agree that Hogwarts won't be as safe. But, I got the feeling when both Dumbledore and Hagrid left Hogwarts that they felt they needed to be doing more important things at the moment. Dumbledore says (in the Centaur and the Sneak): "I am not leaving to go into hiding. Fudge will soon wish he'd never dislodged me from Hogwarts, I promise you..." Hagrid says (in Grawp): "It's not the end o' the world, I'll be able ter help Dumbledore once I'm outta here, I can be useful ter the Order." From hitokiri.dragonfly at gmail.com Wed Jan 12 01:29:13 2005 From: hitokiri.dragonfly at gmail.com (Magnus) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:29:13 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore next MoM? Message-ID: <886a4f5405011117292ee89fca@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121735 Niffer Said: I know that Dumbledore turned down the MoM position in the past. Do you think that after Fudge's mishandling of LV's return that he might be willing to take the position now? Magnus replies: I very seriously doubt that. I know from what I have read of him that Dumbledore is much like any great leader in that he does his best work outside of the limelight. Bear in mind also that Dumbledore is far too fond of his position at Hogwarts to go anywhere else. I could only see him leaving Hogwarts in a coffin if he has his way about it. ~Magnus~ From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 01:35:37 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:35:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050112013537.34619.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121736 --- mcdee1980 wrote: > > Just out of curiosity but, . . . the hlaf blood > prince storyline was > originally part of COS, so has anyone thought about > the possibiity > that Salazar Slytherin is in fact the half blood > prince we've been > wondering about? > Juli: I doubt Salazar could be the Half-Blood Prince. He believes in the purity of blood, himself being pure-blood (at least I believe so), so he can't be both half-blood (one muggle parent or grandparent) and pure-blood, both at the same time. If he is half-blood or muggle blood, then why would he care so much for the purity of blood? Just my thoughts Juli From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 02:01:45 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:01:45 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: <20050112013537.34619.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121737 Juli wrote: "I doubt Salazar could be the Half-Blood Prince. He believes in the purity of blood, himself being pure-blood (at least I believe so)" Del replies: LV is a half-blood who believes in the purity of blood. In fact, it would make some poetic sense that Salazar Slytherin's rightful heir be a half-blood like Old Salazar himself. Juli wrote: "If he is half-blood or muggle blood, then why would he care so much for the purity of blood? " Del replies: There's one easy explanation that has been shadowed by other cases in the HP books: - IIRC Seamus's father wasn't too happy to learn that his wife was a witch. - According to LV, his father left his mother when he learned she was a witch. So could it be that Salazar's Muggle parent betrayed his magical parent, who maybe got killed as a result? It sure would explain why Salazar wanted to teach only purebloods : because this way there was no risk of a Muggle parent betraying the wizard community. Del From candlekicks at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 12 02:04:05 2005 From: candlekicks at yahoo.ca (candlekicks) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:04:05 -0000 Subject: Question? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121738 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "xcpublishing" wrote: > > > >Craig writes: > >Okay, at the end of GOF Harry Potter gets into the horseless > >carriages that take him and the other students to the train. Now in > >the begininng of Order of The Phoenix he sees Thesterals pulling the > >carriages. It's explained to him that he sees them because he > >witnessed someone dying. Now why did he not see them at the end of > >GOF? He had already seen Cedric die, he should of seen them then, > >right? > > I finished reading GoF last night and this was bugging me, also. I > kept waiting for him to notice the thestrels. The realistic answer > to this is: JKR didn't think of the thestrels until she was writing > book five. The fantastical answer to this is: It doesn't say > Harry "didn't" see the thestrels. Therefore, I decided he DID notice > the thestrels, he was just so out of it and depressed they didn't > register as an oddity until much later. Much much later. A whole > lot later. Does anyone else have a better fantastical answer? > Please? > > Nicky Joe Linda: JKR, herself, says on her site something to the effect of.... Harry could not see the thestrals at the end of GOF because it takes time to register that you have witnessed death and only someone who understands the ramifications of what they have seen can see them. She also says that she has always known that the thestrals were pulling the coaches but felt it would be strange for them to be introduced at the end of the book without Harry, and us, being able to find out about them until the next school year. Hope this helps, Linda From candlekicks at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 12 02:07:25 2005 From: candlekicks at yahoo.ca (candlekicks) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:07:25 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: <20050112013537.34619.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121739 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > --- mcdee1980 wrote: > > > > > Just out of curiosity but, . . . the hlaf blood > > prince storyline was > > originally part of COS, so has anyone thought about > > the possibiity > > that Salazar Slytherin is in fact the half blood > > prince we've been > > wondering about? > > > Juli: > I doubt Salazar could be the Half-Blood Prince. He > believes in the purity of blood, snip If he is half-blood > or muggle blood, then why would he care so much for > the purity of blood? > > Just my thoughts > > Juli Linda: This would be a good question to ask LV..... As a half-blood, why does he care so much for the purity of blood?? The answer to that question could lead to the answers to many other questions. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 02:16:43 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:16:43 -0000 Subject: JKR and Occlumency lessons (was Re: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121740 Reed: I think the reason JKR invented those Occlumency lessons was to show what happens if Harry and Snape are paired together - not as teacher and student, which is still a comparatively distant relationship, but only the two of them, forced to cooperate on an important and very difficult, emotionally challenging task. The occlumeny lesson setup made for very interesting scenes that showed the characters' struggle to deal with their mutual dislike to serve the cause. (I know, I can't tell for sure what Snape was thinking, but I tend to think he honestly tried to do what Dumbledore asked of him.) JKR created a lot of tension by giving glimpses of hope that their relationship might improve and then dramatically shattering these hopes by the pensieve disaster that ended the lessons. Perhaps it is true that from a rational point of view it's somewhat problematic to fully justify Dumbledore's decision to pick Snape of all people to teach Harry, but from a narrative point of view this constellation is great! snip. And btw: I, for my part, thought Occlumeny >with Snape made some of the most exciting scenes in book 5 :-). Alla: >From this POV I have no choice but to agree with you. Of course, Occlumency scenes make for EXCELLENT read, no question about it and of course when I look at the story from outside, I acknowledge that picking Snape as a teacher was perfect choice in order to maintain dramatic tension and to add more Harry!angst in the story (as if we did not have enough already). Numerous problems start (and of course I am only speaking for myself) when we look at the story from within, THEN I start ranting at the said choice of the teacher. Just my opinion, Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 02:32:43 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:32:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar , vulnerability, and Occlumency (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121741 Note to Alla: I'm responding to your questions as well as to Finwitch in this post. C. Finwitch wrote: > > You know, I think that, with both Snape (via eye-contact and a spell) and Voldemort (via the scar) attacking Harry's mind, well... It's like well, a door or a wall or fence between Harry&Tom. The scar is a hole in it, and Snape's attacks were tearing it apart, seeking > Harry's secrets/bad moments/whatever... Occasionally, Snape's > Legilimency got Tom instead of Harry trough the hole (seeing the > corridor), and his awareness made Harry aware of Tom's thoughts... > (honest, *HARRY* didn't think of the corridor until Snape began > Occlumency, did he?) Carol responds: Thanks for your thoughts on the frontal lobe, which I snipped but hope someone else will find interesting. I just want to mention here that Harry has been dreaming of the corridor long before he begins Occlumency lessons. After he sees the memory of Uncle Vernon hammering the letter box shut and the Dementors and himslef running along the windowless corridor with Mr. Weasley--a real event related to the underage magic hearing--he has "moment of blinding realization": "He had been dreaming about a windowless corridor ending in a locked door *for months* without once realizing taht it was a real place. Now, seeing the memory again, he knew that all along he had been dreaming about the corridor down which he had run with mr. Weasley on the twelfth of August. . . . It was the corridor leading to the Department of Mysteries, and Mr. Weasley had been there the night that he had been attacked by Voldemort's snake." Harry asks Snape, "What's in the Department of Mysteries?" and Snape quietly asks, "What did you say?" Harry notes with satisfaction that Snape is "unnerved." Harry repeats his question with a snide "sir" which Snape ignores. Snape replies "slowly," indicating that he's exercising great self-control, "And why would you ask such a thing?" Harry responds, "Because that corridor that I've just seen--I've been dreaming about it *for months*--I've just recognized it--It leads to the Department of Mysteries. . . . and I think Voldemort wants something from--" (Harry's scar "sears" at this point and Snape is sidetracked on avoiding Voldemort's name. Snape calms himself, "sound[ing] as if he was trying to appear cool and unconcerned," and tells Harry, "There are many things, in the Department of Mysteries, Potter, few of which you would understand and none of which concern you." The second half of the statement is not true, of course, but it's clear that Snape *does not want* Harry to have these dreams, of which he has known nothing to this point. And it was not his Legilimency spell that caused the corridor *dream* to be revealed. It showed only the *real* memory of Harry running down the corridor with Mr. Weasley. Alla in an other post (which I can't go back to and copy without losing this one--Yahoomort will eat it, you know) argued that the Occlumency lessons were *causing* Harry to be more vulnerable to Voldemort, but I think he was already vulnerable. The dreams predate the Occlumency lessons by several months, Harry feels the urge to bite Dumbledore almost immediately after the *real* incident with Mr. Weasley just before Christmas time, which predates the Occlumency lessons and may be the reason Dumbledore arranges them. Granted, he feels a pain in his head soon after the Occlumency lessons, but this results from something Voldemort is feeling and not from the lesson itself, which has not *directly* revealed anything related to Voldemort. It has only led Harry to figure out what his dreams are about, putting two and two together as Snape would do. His scar still hurts from that moment of realization and it's true that he's white and shaky, but this could be as much from the *realization* that he's been dreaming about something Voldemort wants as from the lessons themselves. I don't remember a similar reaction after other lessons, but I could be wrong. (Alla, Hermione's remark that "I expect anyone would feel that way after they'd had their mind attacked over and over again" is just a friend's sympathy--note "I expect." She doesn't *know.* She hasn't looked up the effects of Occlumency in a book. And even if it does result from the lesson, as I pointed out in another post, we can't assume that Harry's reaction is normal, since he's the first and only person with a mind-link to Voldemort. And Snape didn't see his reaction, which occurs after Harry has gone with Ron and Hermione to the library.) He does not actually feel sick (as he did before the vision of the snake) and feel excruciating pain in his scar (as he always does when Voldemort is feeling strong emotions) until he goes upstairs, and the cause of this pain is not the Occlumency lessons but Voldemort feeling "jubilant, ecstatic, triumphant" (OoP am. ed. 541). Ron and Hermione *assume* that Harry's defenses will be low "after Snape's been fiddling around with your mind" (542), but in fact this reaction is no different from previous scar attacks except that it's the first time that Voldemort has been happy. And the cause of that happiness is almost certainly the escape of the Death Eaters from Azkaban in the next chapter. Conclusion: Snape is *not* trying to open up Harry's mind to Voldemort. He does *not* want him to know about the Prophecy orb in the Department of Ministries, he did *not* cause the dreams of the corridor, and he did *not* cause the sickness and pain Harry felt the night after the lessons. Voldemort's joy has nothing to do with Harry or Occlumency, which there is no reason to assume that he knows about. It has to do with his own life and goals. And Harry's pains and illness after that first Occlumency lesson are no different than they've been throughout OoP. As far as I can determine from the available evidence, Harry's increased vulnerability *throughout* OoP relates to Voldemort's increased power after regaining his body, not to any action or intention of Snape's. Carol, apologizing for answering Alla's post from memory and combining it with this one to make the List Elves happy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 03:33:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 03:33:30 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin(was Re: Draco and Slytherin House (was: Harsh Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121742 Alla: I have a feeling that Theo will be Slytherin from core to core, just more independent thinker than many and that is what IMO we need for Slytherin, someone not to follow the croud. Potioncat: I snipped a very interesting conversation. Do go upthread and read it if you haven't. Alla, are you saying Theo will be as "bad" as the other Slytherins, just more independent or are you saying he won't hold the Pure-blood ideology? My thoughts on Slytherin House....taking several steps back and looking at this as a work of fiction, OK? The author could be writing a story in which part of what she does is show the value of courage and the danger of ambition. She does that by having the Gryffindors be kind and good and victorious in all they do while the Slytherins are cruel and slimey and generally defeated in their efforts. (I'm over simplifying this) Or the author could be showing us the dangers of stereotyping a group by setting us up to think the Slytherins are all bad, but then has someone surprising or several someones show up as not what we expected. And given that most of JKR's characters are teens and teens often sort others into groups, this could be what she is doing. After all, did anyone expect the Hogwarts champion to come from Hufflepuff? Alla: Hmmm, what I meant by Theo being independent is that he will be smart enough to think for himself and yes, figuring out that "we are better because we have better blood in our veins than some other people" may not be the best way to go in life for the decent person. Him being Slytherin from core to core can mean that he WAS following Slytherin ideology before, but decided to reassess his life ambitions. Going to your point about what kind of story JKR writes. I sincerely hope that it is the second - the danger of stereotyping. After all - the stereotype "Gryffindors are all good" was destroyed quite effectively wasn't it by appearance of Peter (unless you believe in good Peter of course, which I don't) in PoA. But it was done in book 3, right? We already had five books to go, so if JKR plans on destroying "Slytherins are all bad" stereotype she better hurry up.(NO, I don't think that their ideology is bad can be considered stereotype, because IMO it smells very badly) But people in that House surely cannot be all idiots who blindly follow the path of Malfoys and the likes of them? That bit about Theo not following the croud on her site gives me some hope. I do think though as I stated a few times that putting aside "pureblood ideology" JKR simply dislikes ambition as character trait, which if it is true, is a bit dissapointing, because I think fo her as a very ambitious lady in a very best sense of this word. Remember which trait she values the most? Courage, not ambition, not anything else, courage. Again, I think Houses will dissappear at the end, because I simply don't see her putting Slytherin on equal footing with anybody else, even if they will let go of their "purebloodness' thing. Just my opinion, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 12 04:20:23 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 04:20:23 -0000 Subject: Trelawney was wrong, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121743 Potioncat is snipping several comments: Carol wrote: > So Trelawney, as usual, is not so much wrong as misreading the > information available to her, just as she misreads the dog in the > crystal ball as a Grim. Potioncat: To keep us all balanced here I have some observations and questions. The Lexicon describes Snape as tall. But I don't see their source. Does anyone know of any canon for Snape's height? (Oop does have him as "rather shorter" than Sirius.) But I don't recall Harry as ever thinking of Snape as short so he must be at least of average height. (Although I'm reminded of Dustin Hoffman, as Hook saying, "To a ten- year-old I'm huge.") Trelawney was using Harry's physical description and personal past to determine his sign. Well, if a short dark person is really associated with Capricorn, Trelawney was correct....and obviously Harry was defiant enough to be born on the wrong date! (I don't know, is it correct?) All kidding aside, not all the short dark wizards can be Capricorns. And the only way Trelawney could be correctly reading Snape's sign at that moment was if something of Snape was in Harry. Which is the logic for it being Tom Riddle's sign she was predicting. So I don't think it was Snape she was talking about. Unless of course, it's a bit of Snape that was transferred to Harry and that would open a whole new set of good/Snape bad/Snape posts.... Potioncat From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Jan 12 05:29:34 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:29:34 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Half Blood Prince Message-ID: <85.1ed4ac67.2f160fbe@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121744 --- mcdee1980 wrote: Just out of curiosity bu t has anyone thought about the possibiity that Salazar Slytherin is in fact the half blood prince we've been wondering about? ********************************************************* Juli: I doubt Salazar could be the If he is half-blood or muggle blood, then why would he care so much for the purity of blood? Just my thoughts Juli ****************************************************** Chancie: Well just because Slytherin believes in the pure blood philosophy, doesn't mean that he is infact a pure blood himself. Voldemort is Half-Blood, and yet he is the leader in the pure blood movement so to speak. Slytherin IMO has just as good a chance of being the HBP as anyone else. Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 05:52:00 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 05:52:00 -0000 Subject: Fleur Delacour & Half Blood Prince Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121745 If Fleur de la cour means "flower of the court", is she a connection to the prince? Court has to do with royality. I don't know if there is any other meaning for the word. In England is means Court of the King doesn't it? What do the rest of you think?? Tonks_op From chrissilein at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 07:20:28 2005 From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (LadyOfThePensieve) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:20:28 -0000 Subject: Trelawney was wrong, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121746 Hello, if you read the description of Snivelly?s physical appereance in book 5 you get indeed the impression he was mean. As a boy he looked roundshouldred, he went in a twiching manner and he wore "mean" cloths, too. Everybody should really clean the mind of our ideas of him. Book Snape is no Alan Rickman. He simply doesn?t look good. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Potioncat is snipping several comments: > Carol wrote: > > So Trelawney, as usual, is not so much wrong as misreading the > > information available to her, just as she misreads the dog in the > > crystal ball as a Grim. > > Potioncat: > To keep us all balanced here I have some observations and questions. > > The Lexicon describes Snape as tall. But I don't see their source. > Does anyone know of any canon for Snape's height? (Oop does have him > as "rather shorter" than Sirius.) But I don't recall Harry as ever > thinking of Snape as short so he must be at least of average height. > (Although I'm reminded of Dustin Hoffman, as Hook saying, "To a ten- > year-old I'm huge.") > > Trelawney was using Harry's physical description and personal past > to determine his sign. Well, if a short dark person is really > associated with Capricorn, Trelawney was correct....and obviously > Harry was defiant enough to be born on the wrong date! (I don't > know, is it correct?) > > All kidding aside, not all the short dark wizards can be > Capricorns. And the only way Trelawney could be correctly reading > Snape's sign at that moment was if something of Snape was in Harry. > Which is the logic for it being Tom Riddle's sign she was > predicting. > > So I don't think it was Snape she was talking about. Unless of > course, it's a bit of Snape that was transferred to Harry and that > would open a whole new set of good/Snape bad/Snape posts.... > Potioncat From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 12 07:50:47 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:50:47 -0000 Subject: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121747 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tristan" wrote: > Geoff: An interesting summary pullng together information we've culled over the years. One of two extra thoughts..... Tristan: > Aragog: > The scientific name for a spider is ARAneae, which happens to be > the first three letters of Aragog's name. Since Aragog is a spider, > that makes perfect sense! Geoff: JKR isn't the only one who does this. In LOTR Shelob, the giant spider is derived from "she" + "Lob" whici is an Old English word for spider. Tristan: > Beauxbaton: > "Beaux-Baton"="Beautiful Stick" in French! Geoff: This could be also accurately translated as "beautiful wands" - a little more apt perhaps. Tristan: > Fawkes: > I looked this up the dictionary myself, and it actually had it in > there...kinda. It had "Guy Fawkes" in the dictionary, and he was an > English conspirator who was executed for his involvement in the > Gunpowder Plot (1605), which was an attempt to blow up King James I > and the Houses of Parliament with shells and fireworks. Since Fawkes > is a phoenix, which according to mythology bursts into flames every > hundred years or so, and then rises from its ashes to take the form of > the phoenix once again. See the connection? Gunpowder, shells, > fireworks and ashes, fire, flames???? Maybe JK Rowling named Fawkes > after Guy Fawkes? Geoff: Which is why we in the UK have Bonfire Night, a big celebration, every 5th November - and why of course all English readers would latch onto JKR's allusion. Tristan: > Knockturn Alley: > Knockturn Alley=nocturnally. Well, to be nocturnal is to be active > during the night, so since many of the Dark Arts are performed during > the night, it seems reasonble that JK Rowling named it Knockturn > Alley. This is so cool! I discovered the definition of this myself! Geoff; This is one of JKR's well-known wordplays. Others in the same frame might include Diagon Alley = "diagonally" and Grimmauld Place = "grim old place". "Auld" ia Scots dialect word for "old". The Scottish capital, Edinburgh is sometimes called "Auld Reekie" a combination of old and "reek." Tristan: > Lupin, Remus: > Stories said that there was a boy named Remus who was abandoned > when he was just a baby, (aww) but was found by wolves who nursed him > and raised him. Also Lupin means wolf-like in Latin. >> snakes were evil and cunning creatures - A basilisk is a snake and > it's very deadly. Geoff: This is the story of Romulus and Remus who were raised by wolves. Rome was named after the first brother after they fought about it. Even Star Trek got in on that one :-) > Riddle, Marvolo Tom: > If you rearrange all the words in "Tom Marvolo Riddle", you > get...what else?? "I am Lord Voldemort"!! Geoff: Well, yes. Tom demonstrated that himself in COS. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 07:55:06 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:55:06 -0000 Subject: Trelawney was wrong, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121748 Carol earlier: > > So Trelawney, as usual, is not so much wrong as misreading the > > information available to her, just as she misreads the dog in the > > crystal ball as a Grim. > > Potioncat: > To keep us all balanced here I have some observations and questions. > > The Lexicon describes Snape as tall. But I don't see their source. > Does anyone know of any canon for Snape's height? (Oop does have him > as "rather shorter" than Sirius.) But I don't recall Harry as ever > thinking of Snape as short so he must be at least of average height. > (Although I'm reminded of Dustin Hoffman, as Hook saying, "To a ten- > year-old I'm huge.") > > Trelawney was using Harry's physical description and personal past > to determine his sign. Well, if a short dark person is really > associated with Capricorn, Trelawney was correct....and obviously > Harry was defiant enough to be born on the wrong date! (I don't > know, is it correct?) > > All kidding aside, not all the short dark wizards can be > Capricorns. And the only way Trelawney could be correctly reading > Snape's sign at that moment was if something of Snape was in Harry. > Which is the logic for it being Tom Riddle's sign she was > predicting. > > So I don't think it was Snape she was talking about. Unless of > course, it's a bit of Snape that was transferred to Harry and that > would open a whole new set of good/Snape bad/Snape posts.... > Potioncat Carol responds: Potioncat, you're taking this too seriously! I don't mean that Trelawney was describing Snape specifically. I think she was describing the traits (ostensibly) belonging to a person born under Saturn, a Capricorn if you will, and thinking that they applied to Harry. Snape wasn't there. She wasn't talking about him. *I'm* talking about him, and so was the other person (sorry, cant remember who) who brought up Trelawney's description of Harry and applied it to Snape. There's nothing to indicate that she's sensing an "aura" in Harry, as someone else suggested, only that she assumes from what she knows about him or sees in him that he was born under Saturn. But the traits she sees in him are similar to those we see in Snape (if we stretch the definitions of "mean stature" and "tragic early life a bit," as I've already indicated). Obviously, all short, dark wizards can't be born in Capricorn or vice versa, and Snape isn't actually short, just shorter than Sirius, as you've said. It's just that Trelawney's association of those traits with a midwinter birth turns out to be (sort of) true for at least one person, but that person turns out to be Snape, not Harry. (If she were looking at Snape and knew of his rather miserable childhood, she might well have arrived at the same conclusion, and she would have been correct. Now we just have to ask whether she could have deduced that the Weasley twins were born in Aries. ;-) ) So I was half-jokingly stating that Trelawney was correct in her information but wrong in her interpretation, just as she was with the black dog in the crystal ball, which she really saw but misinterpreted as a Grim. As I said before, when I read her description (it's not a prediction or a prophecy) of a person born under Saturn, I immediately thought of Snape. And voile! It turns out that birth date fits. So even though *she* wasn't referring to Snape, some *readers* were able to apply her information to him and correctly guess that he was born in midwinter. Just possibly JKR had Sevvie in mind when she wrote that description of a person born under Saturn. At any rate, I think she chose his birthday carefully. Saturnine disposition, anybody? Carol, who never intended this as a serious argument and does not believe in astrology but does think that poor Sibyl has powers she's not credited with if she only knew how to direct and interpret them From allthingshp at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 03:20:10 2005 From: allthingshp at yahoo.com (allthingshp) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 03:20:10 -0000 Subject: Flashbacks don't always tell the truth (JKR and Occlumency lessons) In-Reply-To: <00ea01c4f845$f5f6a370$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121749 Sherry: > > This is something I've always wondered about the Snape's worst memory > chapter. After all, we are only seeing it from Snape's point of view and in > a memory that is long past. It is proven psychologically, that we modify > our memories a bit to fit a reality we want. Not totally, not in a > delusional manner, but we all do it. We don't know enough about the pensive > to know how it shows the memory. Does it show exactly what happened, or > Does it only show how someone remembers what happened? This could be an > important distinction. That's why I'm not in a hurry to judge anyone in > that scene, not the marauders, not Snape nor Lily. I just think we don't > know enough yet, and probably, if there's anything significant about that > scene, it won't be something we expect. In true JKR style! Absolutely its true that our memories are not a picture perfect representation of past events and we most certainly manipulate them both consciously and unconsciously...However when Harry speaks to Lupin and Sirius neither of them deny the scene in the pensive. While all may not be as it seems in that scene I don't think we should bend backwards looking for ways to absolve the marauders for their cruelty. Rather I think its critical that Harry recognize that his father had faults and that good and evil are not black and white distinctions....That seems to me to jive with one of the central themes of the book-it is not enough to be a "good guy", goodness is in the actions of your everyday. just a thought... allthinghp From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 07:23:50 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (arynnoctavia) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:23:50 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121750 I will address some of the points I've seen brought up about Lupin here. First of all I deeply identify with him. We are both highly empathic and nurturing. Both of us have traits about us which alienate us from the rest of the world, (Him: werewolf, half-blood, poor; Me: Mental illness, Religious minority, and Homosexual)ergo, we are both desperate to be liked. I cannot see Lupin as evil for a number of reasons. Since one of JKR's main points of the books(so far)is that discrimination is bad, I doubt she would introduce us to his plight, just to prove to us that the general wizarding population was right about mistrusting werewolves. She has said he is one of her favourite characters, would she say that about an evil guy? I have seen it suggested that Lupin might be hiding Pedophiliac tendencies. The evidence that the person used to substantiate these claims seemed to me to show something else. When Harry is talking about his parents, Lupin appears to want to make a move to touch Harry's shoulder, then decides not to and pulls away. Not because he's attracted to him, but because he's nurturing. If your deceased best friend's son was confiding in you about his death, wouldn't you comfort him? But he was trying to keep that fact that he and James were friends under wraps, so such an obvious display of affection would be odd. I would love a Sirius/Remus SHIP, but I doubt JKR would ever explicitly go into that. I think that Black is sort of hinted at as being gay, as evidence by the fact that girl(s) are staring at him hopefully and he ignores this and pays more attention to his James. And Lupin's persecution could be paralleled to a man who is gay and/or HIV +. The only way JKR would write in a gay character would be if it wouldn't take focus off the main plot. But, sadly in this day and age if she were to write in a gay character, that would be the whole focus of the book. Maybe 50 years from now... --Arynn Octavia (a Lupin Lover) From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 07:51:07 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (arynnoctavia) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:51:07 -0000 Subject: Harry shouldn't see Thestrals Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121751 It says in book 5 that Harry can see the Thestrals because he saw Cedric die, but if you look in book 4 that isn't true. When Harry and Cedric arrive in the cemetery Harry's scar hurts him and he puts his hands over his face and falls to the ground. Direct quote: "he was on the ground and he could see nothing at all; his head was about to split open." GOF pg.638 While down on the ground he hears "Kill the spare" A blast of green light blazes through his eyelids, and he hears something heavy fall beside him. He opens his eyes, barfs then turns his head and sees Cedric dead. So he didn't see him actually die. He only sees the body afterward. But, according to Hagrid and Umbridge you have to witness someone die, not see their dead body. I have seen dead people (within half a minute after death, but have never actually watched someone die, which (I assume) is a very different experience. Any thoughts? --Arynn Octavia From HxM_fan at hotmail.com Tue Jan 11 19:08:14 2005 From: HxM_fan at hotmail.com (plumkey308) Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:08:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore next MoM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121752 Niffer: > > I know that Dumbledore turned down the MoM position in the past. Do > you think that after Fudge's mishandling of LV's return that he > might be willing to take the position now? Valy: Why not? There was this hint! So why not? He surely would do great things towards muggles and all, and of course, help on Voldy's fall! But this maybe would constitute a big change in the WW. DD as MoM!!!!! Valy. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 09:07:57 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:07:57 -0000 Subject: Harry shouldn't see Thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121753 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arynnoctavia" wrote: > > > It says in book 5 that Harry can see the Thestrals because he saw > Cedric die, but if you look in book 4 that isn't true. ... > > ...edited... So he didn't see him actually die. He only sees the > body afterward. But, according to Hagrid and Umbridge you have to > witness someone die, not see their dead body. I have seen dead > people (within half a minute after death), but have never actually > watched someone die, which (I assume) is a very different > experience. Any thoughts? > > --Arynn Octavia bboyminn: I think if you re-read the various passages in the books regarding this subject, you will find a different way to interpret them. I think you don't have to have seen /dying/, you have to have seen /death/ to see the Thestral. You have to have seen and deal with the death of a person, but not necessarily having to see the actual death/dying itself. Note that when Harry leaves school at the end of the year, he doesn't see the Thestrals pulling the carriages. He only saw them when he returned to Hogwarts the next September. JKR said that is because a person needs time to process death, time to internalize it, time to full comprehend and accept it. In a sense, Harry was still in a state of shock when he left school. Only when he recovered and psychologically processed that death was he able to see the Thestrals. So, while many people initially interpreted seeing the Thestrals in the same manner that you did. There is another way to interpret it, and evidence to support that alternate interpretation. For example, Luna Lovegood didn't see her mother die, she found her mother dead, and was able to see the Thestrals. That first-hand up-close and personal experience with death gave her and Harry a perspective on life and death that others don't have. It is this new experience and perspective that opens their eyes to the Thestrals. Or at least, that's the way I see it. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From pfsch at gmx.de Wed Jan 12 09:28:44 2005 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:28:44 -0000 Subject: Harry shouldn't see Thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121754 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arynnoctavia" wrote: > It says in book 5 that Harry can see the Thestrals because he saw > Cedric die, but if you look in book 4 that isn't true. > [...] > While down on the ground he hears "Kill the spare" A blast of green > light blazes through his eyelids, and he hears something heavy fall > beside him. So he witnessed Cedric dying, in a manner of speaking. He heard him dying, though perhaps he didn't *see* him. He may not be an eye-witness, but certainly an "ear-witness" (if there's such a word). Besides, Harry might have been able still to reckognize shapes so he saw him in some way. Goodbite setrok (Peter) From beatnik24601 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 10:09:43 2005 From: beatnik24601 at yahoo.com (beatnik24601) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:09:43 -0000 Subject: Pensieve and Prank (was: Snape and Occlumency) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121755 vmonte says: Page 642, US edition, OOTP "Harry's stomach gave another pleasurable squirm?was Remus Lupin. He looked rather pale and peaky (was the full moon approaching?) and was absorbed in the exam " I think that the prank against Snape happened that night, after the OWL examinations. beatnik de-lurks: I'm annoyed to say that this can't be the case. The prank could not have occured that night, because it wasn't full moon, and ergo, Lupin was not a werewolf. We know this because later in the scene from which you quoted Sirius expresses regret there's not a full moon. "'I'm bored,' said Sirius. 'Wish it was full moon." 'You might,' said Lupin darkly from behind his book..." (p.645) Darn! Beatnik (who grumbles and goes back to wondering why the pensieve scene really is Snape's *worst* memory...hm, might have to pick up one of those LOLLIPOPS on the way out) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Jan 12 11:39:23 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:39:23 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore, Snape and the scar :Was Harry's scar (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121756 I do think that the importance of Harry's scar is well known to the Order of the Phoenix. The OOTP know the fulll prophecy and exactly how Harry will be able to defeat Voldemort. Let's assume that the ability of Harry to defeat the Dark Lord is to do with the connection that can be made between them via the scar. Now let's look at the two most interesting members of the OOTP. 1. Dumbledore - DD knows that Harry will have to face Voldemort at some point in the future, and at that point the future of the WW will depend on Harry winning that battle. This is why he has allowed Harry to be exposed to Voldemort as often as he has. However, he is also aware that because of the scar, Voldemort may be able to access Harry's thoughts. This is why DD is incredibly careful what he tells Harry e.g. he never reveals the reason for the glint in is eye at the end of GOF. DD is incredibly careful when telling Harry about the Prophecy. He realises that he has to tell Harry something but is sufficiently vague so as not to alert Voldemort. The only extra bit of info that Voldemort could learn is that Harry 'has powers the Dark Lord knows not' - something I am sure he has already figured out. 2. Snape - As a member of the OOTP, Snape must know about the scar and the prophecy. However we also know that he does not rate Harry as a wizard at all. I think Snape is astonished by DD's faith in Harry. He is also prejudiced due to his hatred of James. All Snape can see is that at some point Voldemort will be able to use Harry for his own purposes, and that HArry's arrogance will probably speed up this process. In this situation, DD's faith in HArry becomes positively dangerous! Therefore, in conclusion; DD has faith is Harry and thinks that Harry will defeat Voldemort in the end. This why DD exposes Harry to Voldemort, and occasionally gives hime some relevant information. Snape thinks that there is no way someone as untalented as Harry can beat Voldemort (and Snape has first hand experience of his power). Therefore placing your trust in Harry, who not only can't beat Voldemort but can probably be used as a weapon against the OOTP, is suicidal! From inkling108 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 11:58:20 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:58:20 -0000 Subject: More About Snape and Occlumency (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Not so. It does not take any incantation to resist Imperius. We > don't know what the orthodox techniques are, but Harry is > supposed to, because Moody assigned it as reading- ch 15 GoF. > He did this *after* Harry had already resisted the curse > successfully in class, so what do you want to bet Harry never did > the reading at all? > > And he didn't take the exams that year, so he wasn't tested on it > either. Thus, JKR has made sure she alone knows whether > Harry's method of resisting Imperius is orthodox. But it does > seem that the orthodox method doesn't require an incantation, or > Hermione would have remarked on it. Comparing this to the > technique for conjuring a patronus is apples and oranges. My point was a general one -- that branches of magic that employ the mind to change things or to resist attack usually use incantations. Resisting the Imperius curse is not really a branch of magic. It's a subset of DADA, as is the Patronus Charm. In those magical arts that don't use incantations, such as potions or herbology, method is all important. It just seems strange that there would be a whole "branch of magic" (to use Snape's words) that uses neither. Not impossible, but strange. > > It's a bit of a stretch to assign Snape's white and shaky > demeanor to his surprise that Harry used 'Protego' when Snape > had just had some traumatic childhood memories unearthed. > We've seen he doesn't take well to that. Yes that's definitely part of what's causing his reaction, and I shouldn't have implied otherwise. Only there's a tendency to assume here, as with the pensieve scene, that emotions are the whole story, whereas they may be only part of the story, and not even the most important part. > I agree that Harry's "You're not telling me how!" is a legitimate > complaint, but I've had teachers who refuse to go over material > the student is supposed to know already and I highly doubt they > were servants of Voldemort. If the usual technique for resisting > Imperius involves clearing your mind, then Snape has to > assume that Harry knows how, in detail,since Harry has > successfully resisted Imperius. But I don't know why Snape would assume that resisting the Imperius requires clearing the mind. Here's a question: has Snape himself ever experienced the Imperius curse? Was he able to resist it? As a death eater, did he ever perform it on someone (probably, it's one of their favorite curses). When he says that occlumency requires similar skills, what exactly does he mean? If he was present at the graveyard resurrection (under a mask obviously), he may have seen Harry resisting the Imperius curse. Maybe the reason he is being so vaugue is that what he really wants to say, but cannot, is "Do whatever it was you did then, it really worked." > > We mustn't discount Draco's intrusion as a reason the lessons > weren't resumed. Once Draco had reported that Potter was > getting Remedial Potions, and Umbridge had had her spat with > McGonagall over Harry's future, ( only a week or two after the > lessons were discontinued) Umbridge would have found a way > to interfere. Maybe, but she was a bit overextended what with swamps in the corridor and such! Yes, Draco's intrusion does not seem staged. This is the flaw in the theory that Snape set up the pensieve scene to rid himself of Harry. What I think is that Snape was determined to find some pretext or other to stop lessons. Harry, ironically, helped him out by looking in the pensieve. He gave him an pretext (emotion) acceptable to the compassionate and understanding Dumbledore. Inkling From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 12 12:28:01 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:28:01 -0000 Subject: Trelawney was wrong, In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121758 > Carol responds: > Potioncat, you're taking this too seriously! Potioncat: Well, you would too if suddenly, in your mind's eye, you went from Rickman!Sape to Lord Farquand!Snape. Carol: I don't mean that > Trelawney was describing Snape specifically. > snip > At any rate, I think she chose his birthday carefully. Saturnine disposition, anybody? snip > Carol, who never intended this as a serious argument and does not > believe in astrology but does think that poor Sibyl has powers she's not credited with if she only knew how to direct and interpret them Potioncat: Agreed. Capricorn (as Trelawney and another post descibed it) fits Snape and I think we should look closely at the goofy things Trelawney says because neither we or she knows when something will be correct! From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Jan 12 14:51:54 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:51:54 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Flashbacks don't always tell the truth (JKR and Occlumency lessons) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001d01c4f8b6$42853920$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 121759 Sherry: > > This is something I've always wondered about the Snape's worst memory > chapter. After all, we are only seeing it from Snape's point of view and in > a memory that is long past. It is proven psychologically, that we modify > our memories a bit to fit a reality we want. Not totally, not in a > delusional manner, but we all do it. We don't know enough about the pensive > to know how it shows the memory. Does it show exactly what happened, or > Does it only show how someone remembers what happened? This could be an > important distinction. That's why I'm not in a hurry to judge anyone in > that scene, not the marauders, not Snape nor Lily. I just think we don't > know enough yet, and probably, if there's anything significant about that > scene, it won't be something we expect. In true JKR style! Absolutely its true that our memories are not a picture perfect representation of past events and we most certainly manipulate them both consciously and unconsciously...However when Harry speaks to Lupin and Sirius neither of them deny the scene in the pensive. While all may not be as it seems in that scene I don't think we should bend backwards looking for ways to absolve the marauders for their cruelty. Rather I think its critical that Harry recognize that his father had faults and that good and evil are not black and white distinctions....That seems to me to jive with one of the central themes of the book-it is not enough to be a "good guy", goodness is in the actions of your everyday. just a thought... allthinghp Sherry again: Actually, I agree with that. I realize my first message could have seemed to imply that I think the marauders were blameless, which I certainly do not. Having had a dad who was a wonderful loving and generally good guy, but who also had some definite faults--married five times in his life--I don't think James or Sirius were angels any time, and certainly not in the pensive scene. I just think it's possible there's more behind it than we know. There's some history that we don't know. I imagine that the truth is somewhere in the middle--the marauders weren't as bad as the pensive scene would have us believe, and the marauders weren't nice wonderful boys all the time either. Sherry From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 16:55:44 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:55:44 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121760 Del, wrote earlier: >>>why compare Hermione's range of action >>>with the range of actions of >>>the secret services during the Cold War " Me: > A great riddle >> Del replies: >> A riddle? I see no riddle here. I can't see the riddle either but I thought you could; I confess to being a little disappointed, I was all ready to hear a brilliant answer. > It's very obvious to me that those 2 > things are not really comparable. I must agree. > You're the one who made the comparison I made no such comparison; I didn't even come close to making such a comparison, I wasn't even in the same universe. > so it's your job to explain why it's valid. That quite simply is . untrue.., I can think of another word, quite a few actually but I'm trying to keep my temper and be polite. I said that even the CIA and KGB had not found a universal cure for betrayal during the cold war, nor had anybody else for that matter. I stand by my statement; I still think it is 100% true, but if you want to argue against it be my guest, I'm ready. Eggplant From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 12 17:15:55 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:15:55 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121761 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arynnoctavia" wrote: > > > I will address some of the points I've seen brought up about Lupin here. First of all I deeply identify with him. We are both highly empathic and nurturing. Both of us have traits about us which alienate us from the rest of the world, (Him: werewolf, half-blood, poor; Me: Mental illness, Religious minority, and Homosexual)ergo, we are both desperate to be liked. < Pippin: Hi Arynn! You are not the first to raise points in Lupin's defense. I understand that lots of people identify with him -- thanks for not taking my theories personally! Arynn: > > I cannot see Lupin as evil for a number of reasons. Since one of JKR's main points of the books(so far)is that discrimination is bad, I doubt she would introduce us to his plight, just to prove to us that the general wizarding population was right about mistrusting werewolves.< Pippin: I think what JKR plans to prove is that werewolves should be judged by their choices, like everyone else. And like everyone else, they can make bad ones. I think we are beginning to see, as with Dobby, Kreacher and Marietta, that limiting people's choices in an attempt to force them to make good ones is a route to disaster. I think we will see that the WW is not protecting themselves by mistrusting werewolves, they are only giving werewolves a reason to mistrust them. I wonder if JKR is planning to show people in the WW who identify with Lupin too, and deal with their possible disillusionment, if he turns out to be evil. There's an Agatha Christie story where the murderer turns out to be the head of a respected clinic who was campaigning against the stigma of mental illness. The denouement revolved around neutralizing this person without discrediting his work and his clinic. I can see the Trio struggling with a similar dilemma. The choice before Harry might be to let Sirius go down in history as a traitor after all, rather than exposing Lupin publically as a DE. Arynn: > She has said he is one of her favourite characters, would she say that about an evil guy?< Pippin: It would be easy to create a villain by loading him up with all the characteristics she despises. But I think she has taken a more interesting road and asked herself what would make someone I truly like, who could easily earn my trust, choose the path of evil? Arynn: > I have seen it suggested that Lupin might be hiding Pedophiliac tendencies. Pippin: I don't think that Lupin will display any explicit pedophilia, but I do think the references are there on purpose. Most children have been told that adults might try to win their trust by giving them candy and that adults should not touch them in inappropriate way. Suggesting that Lupin might do these things could be a way of dropping a hint that like some real world adults who seem to be helpful and friendly, he can't be trusted. I think Lupin's sexuality will remain ambiguous. It wouldn't surprise me if he took up with Tonks, but I'm afraid it would mean curtains for her. There's a possible progression which the theologically oriented fans can chew over, with Lupin betraying his old friend in Book Five, his lover in Book Six, and finally his savior, Harry, in Book Seven. Pippin From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 17:33:30 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:33:30 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121762 "xcpublishing" wrote: > I keep coming back to the scene in GoF > where Malfoy's spell deflects and hits > Hermione, causing her teeth to grow and > grow. When they are past her chest, they > force Hermione to show them to Snape and > he coldly says, "I see no difference." > That pretty much summed up Snape's > personality, in my opinion. He'd been > mean to Hermione before that, but that > comment was downright EVIL. For me the point of no return for Snape was at the very end of book 5. After Harry suffered the tortures of the dammed and the death of his beloved Godfather Snape showed up, talking to Harry as "coldly as ever" and with "a sneering smile" removed 10 points from Gryffindor.Snape and Malfoy junior both figured that Harry had not suffered enough in the last few days, and that's why there were 2 scumbag in the room that day. Eggplant From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 12 17:55:42 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:55:42 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121763 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > For me the point of no return for Snape was at the very end of book 5. After Harry suffered the tortures of the dammed and the death of his beloved Godfather Snape showed up, talking to Harry as "coldly as ever" and with "a sneering smile" removed 10 points from Gryffindor.< Pippin: "When I told him Voldemort had Sirius, he just sneered at me as usual--" "Harry, you know that Professor Snape had no choice but to pretend not to take you seriously in front of Dolores Umbridge," said Dumbledore steadily. -OOP-37 There you are, canon for OscarWinner!Snape. Not that I think Snape is overflowing with sympathy for Harry or Hermione, but he can't afford to be visibly concerned about them when Draco is around. I agree that Malfoy was out of line, but it is the adults' duty to insist that he should have been reported, not hexed. Pippin From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 18:03:47 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:03:47 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121764 "hickengruendler" wrote: > Azkaban was never mentioned during > the whole scene. Why should it? This was a criminal trail, they were still trying to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant; if found guilty then you start to think about an appropriate punishment. Question: What usually happens to those found guilty in a criminal trial? > even if it was secretly his plan, > there's no proof that > Percy knew about it. Harry certainly thought he could end up in Azkaban, judging from Mr. Weasley's nervousness I believe he thought so too, are you saying the possibility never entered Percy's head. Eggplant From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 12 18:16:46 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:16:46 -0000 Subject: Hexing scene was Re: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121765 > For me the point of no return for Snape was at the very end of book > 5. After Harry suffered the tortures of the dammed and the death of > his beloved Godfather Snape showed up, talking to Harry as "coldly > as ever" and with "a sneering smile" removed 10 points from > Gryffindor.Snape and Malfoy junior both figured that Harry had not > suffered enough in the last few days, and that's why there were 2 > scumbag in the room that day. > Potioncat: This is the WW. It isn't warm and fuzzy. Harry is expected to recover on his own and to behave himself while he goes about it. McGonagall shows up fresh out of St. Mungo's, (carrying her own bags, for Heaven's sake!) and enforces Snape's suggestion without a qualm and with great style! I know, I know, Draco started it. But when has that ever been an acceptable excuse for McGonagall or Snape? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 18:17:22 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:17:22 -0000 Subject: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121766 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tristan" wrote: >Malfoy, Narcissa: >(She's the mother of Draco Malfoy) Her name is pretty similar to the term narcissism which means "self-love" or people who think that they are more important and superior than other people. So could this be a description of her character?< Betsy: Here's another little tid-bit on the "Narcissa" name, that may give some more insight into Mrs. Malfoy's character: "As a Tulipant to the Sun (which our herbalists call Narcissus)when it shines is admirandus flos ad radios solis se pandens, a glorious Flower exposing itself; but when the Sun sets, or a tempest comes, it hides itself, pines away, and hath no pleasure left... do all Enamoratoes to their Mistress." Robert Burton Also, in message # 121706, Carol makes a good argument for Narcissa being the eldest of the Black girls. Which leads me to a question that's been bugging me for a while. Why is Draco an only child? It doesn't make sense for the Malfoy family to have only one heir, especially in those dangerous times. And if Narcissa is about Lucius' age (which puts them in the same age group as Arthur and Molly Weasley, I think) why did they wait so long to have a child? Just some questions I have. Betsy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 18:23:46 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:23:46 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121767 Eggplant, here's the quote from you that started it all : "During the entire cold war neither the CIA nor the KGB ever found something that would make betrayal imposable, do you really want to condemn a 15 year old girl for not finding what they could not?" If you were not comparing Hermione in OoP with the KGB and the CIA during the Cold War, then what were you doing? Del From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Jan 12 18:26:25 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:26:25 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121768 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > Question: What usually happens to those found guilty in a criminal > trial? Hickengruendler: That depends on the deed they have been convicted for. For sure they are not always sent to prison. More than often, they are able to get away with minor punishment (like for example being expelled, in Harry's case). > > > even if it was secretly his plan, > > there's no proof that > > Percy knew about it. > > Harry certainly thought he could end up in Azkaban, judging from Mr. > Weasley's nervousness I believe he thought so too, are you saying > the possibility never entered Percy's head. Hickengruendler: Harry thought he could end up in Azkaban only in the very beginning, after this it never crossed his mind again, not even at the Day of the hearing. And neither of us know, what Arthur thought, but I interpreted his nervousness, that he was worried that Harry would be expelled and not being able to defend himself properly in the fight against Voldemort. And yes, even if Fudge did plan to send Harry to Azkaban (what I really doubt), I can see Percy as naive enough, that the possibility never crossed his mind. Another point: I know it is problematic to consider informations that are not from the book directly. But I do think such informations can at least give us some hints, what will happen in the future books. What I mean is, if Percy were as irredeemably evil, as you think he is, why would JKR wish him a Happy Birthday on her website? So far, neither of her truly evil characters has gotten a Birthday wish. Why should she make an exception for Percy? From bamf505 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 18:32:29 2005 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:32:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry shouldn't see Thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050112183229.59193.qmail@web12309.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121769 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arynnoctavia" > wrote: > > > > > > It says in book 5 that Harry can see the Thestrals > because he saw > > Cedric die, but if you look in book 4 that isn't > true. ... > snip > bboyminn: > I think you don't have to have seen /dying/, you > have to have seen > /death/ to see the Thestral. You have to have seen > and deal with the > death of a person, but not necessarily having to see > the actual > death/dying itself. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) bamf here: I agree with Steve, mainly because that would also explain why Harry hasn't seen them before. He was present when his parents dies, however, he was too young to really have to deal with it. He's grown up without knowing his parents, so their loss is not felt as much as having competed against Cedric in the TWT and for Cho. Ta! bamf ===== "Why, you speak treason!" -Maid Marian "Fluently!" -Robin Hood -The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Cub fans are not normal. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Wed Jan 12 18:33:31 2005 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:33:31 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121770 I'm sailing HMS Wolfstar myself. Lupin's intellect and self-control make him especially fascinating, along with his kindness in spite of the social disdain he's endured. I wish I could say why I like Black. The phrases 'world's coolest godfather' and 'dead sexy' keep floating around my head, but I can't find any justification for them in print. He has gray eyes and sent Harry a Firebolt - that doesn't add up. Maybe I just like Sirius because Remus likes him. However, JKR has made the each of the three remaining Marauders psychologically fragile: Lupin has the werewolf curse, Black seems to be suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome, and Pettigrew is at least a bundle of anxieties. (Any thoughts on why she's doing that?) Neither Lupin or Black ever demonstrated much in the way of affection to Harry or anyone else. Both of them seem to suddenly remember they should respond to Harry emotionally, rather than it being something basic to their natures. IMO, they could both have been more open and comforting to Harry than they were. I don't think the pedophilia references are there on purpose; Harry has enough experience to be wary of adults. I'm pretty sure she means to keep Lupin and Black sexually ambiguous. She knows about the RL/SB SHIPpers since she gave the Immeritus site a fan award, but I doubt she'll give confirmation of it. It might disturb some parents (facepalm), and face it, the cheers from all those aforementioned SHIPpers would be really loud. Lupin's just too old and uptight for Tonks. Pippin's ESE!Lupin theory is very well thought out. I hope it isn't true, but I'd rather see an evil Lupin centerstage than a well- meaning werewolf that's choked out of existence by Pettigrew's silver hand. It seems all the Marauders are doomed to unhappy ends. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 18:36:11 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:36:11 -0000 Subject: Percy Brasco?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121771 Eggplant wrote: "Question: What usually happens to those found guilty in a criminal trial?" Del replies: Interesting question. So tell us : what *usually* happens to those *underage* wizards found guilty in a criminal trial *in the WW* ? Eggplant wrote: "Harry certainly thought he could end up in Azkaban, judging from Mr. Weasley's nervousness I believe he thought so too, are you saying the possibility never entered Percy's head." Del replies: 1. I think that just the prospect of Harry losing his wand and never going back to Hogwarts would be sufficient reason for Arthur to be nervous. No need to drag hypothetical thoughts of Azkaban in the mix. 2. Since when have Percy and Harry thought in similar ways? Not to mention that Harry was the one being tried, so it was quite a human thing for him to do to envision the worst. Del From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 18:38:28 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:38:28 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121772 "delwynmarch" Wrote: > If you were not comparing Hermione in > OoP with the KGB and the CIA during > the Cold War, then what were you doing? Del, a few days ago I said I respect you; I retract that statement. Eggplant From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Wed Jan 12 18:48:01 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:48:01 -0000 Subject: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121773 > > Betsy: > Here's another little tid-bit on the "Narcissa" name, that may give > some more insight into Mrs. Malfoy's character: > > > Also, in message # 121706, Carol makes a good argument for Narcissa > being the eldest of the Black girls. Which leads me to a question > that's been bugging me for a while. Why is Draco an only child? It > doesn't make sense for the Malfoy family to have only one heir, > especially in those dangerous times. And if Narcissa is about > Lucius' age (which puts them in the same age group as Arthur and > Molly Weasley, I think) why did they wait so long to have a child? > Kethryn now - I don't think that Narcissa is the eldest of the Black girls and I think, if the magical world does it the same way we do in real life, the tapestry of the Black family on page 113 of OoTP proves my supposition. In real life family trees, the person to the farthest most left in a group of siblings is the eldest of the siblings. Therefore, Bellatrix must be the eldest, Andromeda in the middle, and Narcissa is the youngest. "He pointed to another small round burn mark between two names, Bellatrix and Narcissa." "Harry, however, did not laugh; he was too busy staring at the names to the right of Andromeda's burn mark. A double line of gold embroidery linked Narcissa Black..." The HP lexicon has Bellatrix tentatively listed as being born in the 50s and going to Hogwarts/graduating in the 70s. Neither Andromeda nor Narcissa have even tentative dates but Tonks, who is Andromeda's daughter, was born in 1973, 13 years after Sirius, and Draco is, of course, a 1980s baby. Therefore, it is not too impossible to imagine that Bellatrix is about Lucius' age, Andromeda is two or three years younger, and then Narcissa is a year or so younger (which would put her at Hogwarts for the last year or two that Lucius was there which lets the two of them at least meet before they got married). That would also help explain why they waited so late for Draco; Narcissa would have been at Hogwarts til she was seventeen and then, knowing the Malfoys and the Blacks, they probably waited a year before having an elaborate wedding. Draco was probably conceived shortly thereafter. So, that's my take on it at any rate and it could be false, of course, if the magical world reads backwards from us but I tend to doubt that. Kethryn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 18:47:42 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:47:42 -0000 Subject: JKR and Occlumency lessons (was Re: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121774 >>Potioncat: >There have been countless discussions about Occlumency lessons, and I've participated in quite a few of them. We can argue whether it was DD's mistake or Snape's fault or Harry's distrust....or something else instead. And we all tend to get very emotional about it. >But really, what was JKR intending when she wrote these classes? What are we learning from them? How did they affect the characters?< >>Reed: (in message #121720) >I think the reason JKR invented those Occlumency lessons was to show what happens if Harry and Snape are paired together - not as teacher and student, which is still a comparatively distant relationship, but only the two of them, forced to cooperate on an important and very difficult,emotionally challenging task.< >>vmonte: (in message #121727) >I think that JKR added the occlumency lessons for a different reason. I think that she needed a way to show a flashback of the past.< Betsy: I agree with both Reed and vmonte that the occlumency lessons were used by JKR to further the plot and do some character exploration as well. Something that struck me while I was reading those scenes (and I agree with Reed that they were damn fun to read) was how alike Snape and Harry are. Here are two introverts, well used to being scorned and mistrusted by their peers, not overly fond of the limelight, gifted with a fairly quick tongue, and not known for their empathy, forced into a reluctant cooperation by someone they both admire and maybe even love, but who does drive them crazy from time to time. I don't think Harry saw it. He may have started to after the pensieve scene, but the battle at the MoM and Sirius' death will have distracted him. Snape, however? He may well have. It will be interesting to see what develops in book 6. But I definitely agree with Reed here: >>Reed: >For I think that *this* is what the lesson setup is all about. I think that Harry's relationship to Snape and their ability to work together will be crucial to rest of the story and that the occlumency lessons were a narrative tool to elaborate this thread and bring it into focus.< Betsy From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 18:51:58 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:51:58 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121775 I, Del, wrote earlier: "If you were not comparing Hermione in OoP with the KGB and the CIA during the Cold War, then what were you doing?" Eggplant answered: "Del, a few days ago I said I respect you; I retract that statement." Del replies: Thanks for the laugh! Honestly : I couldn't care less whether anyone on this list respects me or not. I'm not on this list to gather people who respect, like or admire me. I'm on this list to *discuss* HP. So when someone says something I disagree with, I *discuss* with that person. What are *you* on this list for, since it's obviously not for the friendly or at least civil discussion ? Del From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 12 20:13:44 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:13:44 -0000 Subject: Fleur Delacour & Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121777 Tonks_op wrote: > If Fleur de la cour means "flower of the court", is she a > connection to the prince? Court has to do with royality. I don't > know if there is any other meaning for the word. In England is > means Court of the King doesn't it? What do the rest of you think?? I thought the correct spelling of Fleur's last name was Delacoeur [note the "e"]. That would mean "flower of the *heart,*" not "flower of the court," would it not? Siriusly Snapey Susan From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Jan 12 20:24:14 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:24:14 -0000 Subject: Fleur Delacour & Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121778 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Tonks_op wrote: > > > If Fleur de la cour means "flower of the court", is she a > > connection to the prince? Court has to do with royality. I don't > > know if there is any other meaning for the word. In England is > > means Court of the King doesn't it? What do the rest of you think?? > > > I thought the correct spelling of Fleur's last name was Delacoeur > [note the "e"]. That would mean "flower of the *heart,*" not "flower > of the court," would it not? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Hickengruendler: It would. But the correct spelling is indeed Fleur Delacour, without the "e". Therefore it's flower of the court. From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Jan 12 20:39:46 2005 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:39:46 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Rudeness and insults Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121779 Greetings from Hexquarters! A reminder from the HPfGU List Rules: "We welcome debate, but do not attack or insult other list members." Interpretations and opinions of canon are as varied as our membership; debating and discussing these interpretations and sharing opinions are the reasons for this group's existence. As adults, we expect everyone here to accept that we are all entitled to our opinions, and we expect that people should be able to disagree with one another without being snide or insulting. Please keep your comments and critiques focused to the merits of the argument. Do not attack or insult other list members. If you find yourself losing your temper, don't hit 'Send'. Read your response later and find a way to make your point without attacking others. Please keep it civil. We reserve the right to pull offending threads and to put repeat offenders back on moderated status. Thank you for your cooperation, Merry Elf For the List Admin Team From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 20:46:31 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:46:31 -0000 Subject: Fleur Delacour & Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121780 SSSusan wrote: "I thought the correct spelling of Fleur's last name was Delacoeur [note the "e"]. That would mean "flower of the *heart,*" not "flower of the court," would it not?" Del replies: This is apparently a common HP myth, and I wonder where it comes from. I guess that's because "Flower of the heart" would be immensely more romantic than "Flower of the court". But unfortunately "Flower of the heart" would have been Fleur Ducoeur :-) Oh, by the way, don't let JKR fool you : "cour" doesn't mean only "court" as in royal court. It can also mean "court" as in courtyard, or as in court of law. Just because, IIRC, JKR hinted at the first possible meaning doesn't necessarily mean that's the meaning she used (if any!) in her books. Del From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 20:49:19 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:49:19 -0000 Subject: Fleur Delacour & Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121781 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" > wrote: > > > > Tonks_op wrote: > > > > > If Fleur de la cour means "flower of the court", is she a > > > connection to the prince? Court has to do with royality. snip> > > > I thought the correct spelling of Fleur's last name was Delacoeur [note the "e"]. That would mean "flower of the *heart,*" > not "flower of the court," would it not? > > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan > > Hickengruendler: > > It would. But the correct spelling is indeed Fleur Delacour, without the "e". Therefore it's flower of the court. Tonks here: So how is she connected to the half blood prince? Isn't a court a King's court? Tonks_op From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 12 20:52:03 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:52:03 -0000 Subject: Fleur Delacour & Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121782 SSSusan wrote: > "I thought the correct spelling of Fleur's last name was Delacoeur > [note the "e"]. That would mean "flower of the *heart,*" > not "flower of the court," would it not?" Del replies: > This is apparently a common HP myth, and I wonder where it comes > from. I guess that's because "Flower of the heart" would be > immensely more romantic than "Flower of the court". But > unfortunately "Flower of the heart" would have been Fleur Ducoeur > :-) > > Oh, by the way, don't let JKR fool you : "cour" doesn't mean only > "court" as in royal court. It can also mean "court" as in courtyard, > or as in court of law. Just because, IIRC, JKR hinted at the first > possible meaning doesn't necessarily mean that's the meaning she > used (if any!) in her books. SSSusan: Thank you, Del & Hickengruendler, for pointing out my boo-boo. I am embarrassed and apologize for wasting a post with a mistake I should have caught myself. :-( Clearly, my college French is too far back in history if I didn't recall it would've been du coeur anyway. And thanks, Del, for using your post to introduce some additional info, rather than just shaking your finger at me and saying, "You're wrong!" Siriusly Snapey Susan, simulatenously happy that she's finally caught up and mad at herself for trusting Google results From spaebrun at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 20:13:45 2005 From: spaebrun at yahoo.com (spaebrun) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:13:45 -0000 Subject: JKR and Occlumency lessons (was Re: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121783 Reed wrote earlier: > Perhaps it is true that from a rational point of view it's somewhat > problematic to fully justify Dumbledore's decision to pick Snape > of all people to teach Harry, but from a narrative point of view > this constellation is great! Alla replied: > From this POV I have no choice but to agree with you. Of course, > Occlumency scenes make for EXCELLENT read, no question about it and > of course when I look at the story from outside, I acknowledge that > picking Snape as a teacher was perfect choice in order to maintain > dramatic tension and to add more Harry!angst in the story (as if we > did not have enough already). > > Numerous problems start (and of course I am only speaking for > myself) when we look at the story from within, THEN I start ranting > at the said choice of the teacher. Reed again: I see your point. On the other hand, it *is* a story and isn't there a saying that stories about paradise are boring - whereas stories about hell can turn out great? Quite drastic, I admit, but there's some truth to it. A good story needs conflict and drama - while in real life we hope to get as little of that as possible. (*I* do at least ;-)) So as much as we like book characters, we don't always want things to be good and easy for them. Of course, the need for drama should not ruin the plausibily of the story, but I personally didn't feel that it did in this case. It was clearly wrong of Dumbledore to appoint Snape as Harry's Occlumency teacher, and JKR is well aware of this, as she lets him admit thishimself. For me, it's not so hard to accept that, though Dumbledore knew that Harry and Snape didn't get along well, he misjudged how deep their resentments (especially Snape's) were. He simply hoped they would sort out their issues when faced with this common task. In this book, JKR goes to great pains to establish that Dumbledore is neither omniscient nor infallible and the occlumency lessons are one example of this - so they serve the story in yet another way. You can argue whether we needed this additional bit of drama of course, but IMO it worked well enough - and as I mentioned in my earlier post, I also believe that it was a way to put focus on the relationship between Harry and Snape which I'm expecting to be important in the following books. Reed From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 16:51:57 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:51:57 -0000 Subject: Harry shouldn't see Thestrals Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121784 >Arynn writes: >But, according to Hagrid and Umbridge you have to witness >someone die, not see their dead body. I have seen dead people (within >half a minute after death, but have never actually watched someone >die, which (I assume) is a very different experience. Any thoughts? I never took that to mean they had to witness an actual death. To me, it seemed to mean that there had to be an immediacy to the death - one minute the person was there, living and breathing, the next they were gone. For Luna, even if she walked in on her dead mother hours after she'd died, the shock of it (the immediacy) would be there. Hearing about a death (even a close relative) or seeing the body after hearing the news of the death, would just not have the same feel. I sort of pictured it as the Spectre of Death touching the first witnesses, changing them internally forever (Harry didn't even particularly like Cedric, but witnessing his death has changed him irrevocably) and thereby allowing them to see the thestrals. However, I still don't buy the "Harry was in shock" line. She simply hadn't thought of it in time to get it into the book. The problem with writing serials and publishing them as soon as they're done is that you can't go back and insert something. I'll bet JKR has kicked herself at least twenty times because she would love to go back to book one or two and place a hook or a hint. Too bad she can't rewrite the entire series when she's done. Heck, she could release it as sort of a "Director's Cut" like they do with movies. Should we start lobbying now? Nicky Joe From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 12 20:43:03 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:43:03 -0000 Subject: Harry shouldn't see Thestrals In-Reply-To: <20050112183229.59193.qmail@web12309.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121785 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Metylda wrote: bboyminn: > > > I think you don't have to have seen /dying/, you > > have to have seen > > /death/ to see the Thestral. You have to have seen > > and deal with the > > death of a person, but not necessarily having to see > > the actual > > death/dying itself. bamf: > I agree with Steve, mainly because that would also > explain why Harry hasn't seen them before. He was > present when his parents dies, however, he was too > young to really have to deal with it. He's grown up > without knowing his parents, so their loss is not felt > as much as having competed against Cedric in the TWT > and for Cho. Geoff: Like most threads, history goes in a circle and they have been discussed in one form or another before. There are two occasions I can pin down in my personal archive where we've talked about Thestrals and where there may be relevant comment. A thread "Hagrid and Thestrals" beginning at message 76806, also "Thestrals and seeing death" which began at message 80944. It might be of interest to read them through. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 12 20:52:12 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:52:12 -0000 Subject: Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121786 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > For me the point of no return for Snape was at the very end of book > 5. After Harry suffered the tortures of the dammed and the death of > his beloved Godfather Snape showed up, talking to Harry as "coldly > as ever" and with "a sneering smile" removed 10 points from > Gryffindor.Snape and Malfoy junior both figured that Harry had not > suffered enough in the last few days, and that's why there were 2 > scumbag in the room that day. Well, Harry, at that time the only one with wand in his hand, admitted that he wanted to curse Draco. Even if it had been public knowledge that Harry had lost is godfather (which I assume it was not), cursing a fellow student still would not have been somthing a teacher could allow. I'm not sure Draco knew Sirius was dead. He was just (understandably) angry that his father was in prison, and Harry had caused it. Gerry From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Wed Jan 12 16:00:11 2005 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:00:11 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fleur Delacour & Half Blood Prince Message-ID: <1ed.330b6ef0.2f16a38b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121787 Tonks wrote: If Fleur de la cour means "flower of the court", is she a connection to the prince? Court has to do with royality. I don't know if there is any other meaning for the word. In England is means Court of the King doesn't it? What do the rest of you think?? Kaylee here: Excellent idea, Tonks! We know Fleur has a sister, but what if she also has a brother? It would be an interesting idea, don't you think? And what with all the wedding threads zooming around, if it's Bill/Fleur, Fleur's brother will just HAVE to be there, won't he? Sorry that this is all speculation...*digs for canon* There's one part in GOF somewhere...the Weighing of the Wands, don't have my book on me...she's part Veela, (her grandmother was one) so is she a half-blood? Perhaps her brother, or even her father, is a prince, maybe it's her father who has the Veela blood in him? He could be the half-blood prince, possibly? Quotes from the chapter, anyone? Cheers, Kaylee, hoping this post makes it past the List Elves very much [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From revealme4u at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 11:28:50 2005 From: revealme4u at yahoo.com (revealme4u) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:28:50 -0000 Subject: Magically powerful Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121788 Vivek wrote: I was wondering what being magically powerful means. I mean, everyone (in WW) has magical powers, but still some people are referred to as being magically powerful e.g. Dumbledore, LV, Bartius Crouch Sr. etc, and some are said to be the reverse e.g. Fudge (I think Hagrid or Sirius said that). In a recent chat JKR has said that Harry will become more powerful, so what exactly does being more powerful imply? And how is a person's magical ability measured? I guess at least one of the parameters could be magical knowledge that a person has, but having power without knowing how to use it is useless. So wouldn't Hermione thus be more powerful than Harry? I don't know if this has been discussed before, if it has then please guide me to the suitable post. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 12 20:41:00 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:41:00 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121789 Pippin wrote: > I don't think that Lupin will display any explicit pedophilia, but I > do think the references are there on purpose. Most children have > been told that adults might try to win their trust by giving them > candy and that adults should not touch them in inappropriate > way. Suggesting that Lupin might do these things could be a > way of dropping a hint that like some real world adults who > seem to be helpful and friendly, he can't be trusted. Having reread the scene I can't find anything even remotely hinting at pedophilia or inappropriate touching. Just touching, which in some parts of the world has become suspect by itself. As for Lupin killing Sirius. In book five it explicitely states that only two people were battling, Sirius and Bellatrix. After the second bolt hits him in the chest, she gives a triumphant scream. I cannot see any evidence in that scene it was anybody else other than her who cast the second bolt. Gerry From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 12 21:17:16 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:17:16 -0000 Subject: Magically powerful In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121790 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "revealme4u" wrote: > > Vivek wrote: > I was wondering what being magically powerful means. I mean, everyone > (in WW) has magical powers, but still some people are referred to as > being magically powerful e.g. Dumbledore, LV, Bartius Crouch Sr. etc, > and some are said to be the reverse e.g. Fudge (I think Hagrid or Sirius > said that). Potioncat: We're told that some witches and wizards never master the ability to Apparate. Only a few can perfrom the Patronus or make Wolfsbane Potion. There seems to be a sort of norm for magical power and those who fall above and below. Consider Umbridge on one end and DD on the other. At least that's MHO. Potioncat From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 21:14:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:14:12 -0000 Subject: JKR and Occlumency lessons (was Re: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121791 Alla replied: >From this POV I have no choice but to agree with you. Of course, Occlumency scenes make for EXCELLENT read, no question about it and of course when I look at the story from outside, I acknowledge that picking Snape as a teacher was perfect choice in order to maintain dramatic tension and to add more Harry!angst in the story (as if we did not have enough already). Numerous problems start (and of course I am only speaking for myself) when we look at the story from within, THEN I start ranting at the said choice of the teacher. > Reed again: > I see your point. On the other hand, it *is* a story and isn't there > a saying that stories about paradise are boring - whereas > stories about hell can turn out great? > Quite drastic, I admit, but there's some truth to it. A good story > needs conflict and drama - while in real life we hope to get > as little of that as possible. (*I* do at least ;-)) So as much as we > like book characters, we don't always want things to be good and > easy for them. Alla: Of course. We are talking about the same thing here. By looking at the story from within I meant looking at the characters as if they are real, as if they did not know that they are characters from the book. Yes, for the story not to be boring, Snape is an EXCELLENT choice of the teacher, but as I said many, many times to me for Harry actually LEARN something useful Snape was a HORRIBLE choice . IMO only of course. Reed: > Of course, the need for drama should not ruin the plausibily of the > story, but I personally didn't feel that it did in this case. It was > clearly wrong of Dumbledore to appoint Snape as Harry's > Occlumency teacher, and JKR is well aware of this, as she lets > him admit thishimself. > For me, it's not so hard to accept that, though Dumbledore knew that > Harry and Snape didn't get along well, he misjudged how deep their > resentments (especially Snape's) were. He simply hoped they would > sort out their issues when faced with this common task. > In this book, JKR goes to great pains to establish that Dumbledore > is neither omniscient nor infallible and the occlumency lessons are > one example of this - so they serve the story in yet another way. Alla: I really don't think that you and me have much to argue about. :o) No, it is not hard to accept that Dumbledore wants Snape and Harry to get along. he is like that after all, giving everybody second chances, establishing friendships between old enemies, or at least trying to do so. What IS incredibly hard to accept FOR ME is the the fact that Dumbledore could be so NOT INTELLIGENT and misjudge the extent of Snape' hatred for James and Harry and Harry's hatred for Snape that badly. I did not expect that Dumbledore is infallible, but I absolutely did expect that he is smarter than that. Oh, well. It all worked for the story anyway. Reed: You can argue whether we needed this additional bit of drama of course, but IMO it worked well enough - and as I mentioned in my earlier post, I also believe that it was a way to put focus on the relationship between Harry and Snape which I'm expecting to be important in the following books. Alla: I agree that it worked for the progression of the story. Just my opinion, Alla From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Wed Jan 12 21:33:20 2005 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:33:20 -0000 Subject: Narcissa Malfoy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121792 Betsy wrote (snipped): >Which leads me to a question that's been bugging me for a while. Why >is Draco an only child? It doesn't make sense for the Malfoy family >to have only one heir,especially in those dangerous times. Leah: The little we've seen of Narcissa seems to me to a be a picture of a cold woman. And I imagine the Malfoys marriage to have been more or less arranged, to make sure she didn't go the same way as her sister. So perhaps once the heir had arrived Narcissa wasn't too keen on producing any spare. However, Draco is not alone in being alone. Theo Nott is an only child (of course we don't know when his mother died) and fortunately there don't seem to be hordes of little Crabbes and Goyles. I was wondering whether this lack of progeny had anything to do with being a DE, but in fact, the Weasleys are an exception in the wizarding world in general. Barty Crouch Jnr was an only, so, we assume , was James Potter, Sirius had one brother. We don't get to hear of many older or younger siblings amongst Harry's contemporaries. The effect of this of course, is to make the Weasleys warmer, but one does wonder about the effect of all that pure blood breeding on the genes. Leah From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 21:42:45 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:42:45 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121793 Gerry wrote: "I'm not sure Draco knew Sirius was dead. He was just (understandably) angry that his father was in prison, and Harry had caused it. " Del replies: I'm not even sure Draco ever really understood the relationship between Harry and Sirius. He knew Sirius was Harry's godfather, and he apparently knew that Sirius was around Harry when Harry was in London, but what else would he know? How could he know that Sirius had become Harry's father figure? And as Gerry said, it's highly unlikely he knew that Sirius was dead. So as far as Draco is concerned, Harry put his (Draco's) father in prison, Harry became the hero of the WW yet again, Hogwarts is going back to the old DD-in-power period, and Harry apparently didn't suffer anything in the process (unlike Ron and Hermione who ended up in the hospital wing). No wonder he's mad at Harry. Del, who *knows* Draco is mistaken to think that way, but that's not what she's arguing in this post. From pegruppel at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 21:46:34 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:46:34 -0000 Subject: Magically powerful In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121794 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "revealme4u" > wrote: > > > > Vivek wrote: > > I was wondering what being magically powerful means. I mean, > everyone > > (in WW) has magical powers, but still some people are referred to > as > > being magically powerful e.g. Dumbledore, LV, Bartius Crouch Sr. > etc, > > and some are said to be the reverse e.g. Fudge (I think Hagrid or > Sirius > > said that). > > Potioncat replied: > We're told that some witches and wizards never master the ability to > Apparate. Only a few can perfrom the Patronus or make Wolfsbane > Potion. There seems to be a sort of norm for magical power and > those who fall above and below. Consider Umbridge on one end and DD > on the other. Peg: I'd like to expand a little on what Potioncat says. I think there are a several aspects to magical power, and it's very much like Muggle skills. A person starts with aptitude, and then experience, temperament, and practice come into play. Anyone can be born with an aptitude for, say, music, but if you are never given any instruction (education) in the subject, the aptitude never has a chance to develop. Then, if you don't have the temperament for a subject, you'll have no interest in pursuing it. Musicians need the ability to sit still to work out a problem. They don't need to be deeply introverted, but an extreme extrovert won't be happy to sit down and do the work that it takes to be really good. Finally, there's practice. If you don't use it, you lose it. This is why professional musicians often practice eight hours a day. The skill has to be automatic. Don't get me wrong--education, inclination, and hard work can make up for a lack of natural talent in some fields! The process is just much easier if you have some aptitude to begin with. What I'm getting at is that the same thing applies to magic in the Potterverse. I'll pick on Harry and his flying ability. He's got the aptitude--he just gets on the broom and flies. It feels like second nature to him. Then he gets education--mostly, it seems, from his teammates, since we never hear about any more formal flying lessons from Madam Hooch after the first one. He reads books on Quidditch and broomsticks, so he's exposed to other people's thoughts on the subject. He's got the temperament to go ahead and fly in all sorts of weather when "sensible" people would be inside with a cup of tea and a good book. And he gets practice--flying all weather, on beasts as well as brooms. Before I get any more pedantic, I'll let it go . . . Peg From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 21:51:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:51:06 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121795 Gerry wrote: "I'm not sure Draco knew Sirius was dead. He was just (understandably) angry that his father was in prison, and Harry had caused it. " Del replies: snip. So as far as Draco is concerned, Harry put his (Draco's) father in prison, Harry became the hero of the WW yet again, Hogwarts is going back to the old DD-in-power period, and Harry apparently didn't suffer anything in the process (unlike Ron and Hermione who ended up in the hospital wing). No wonder he's mad at Harry. Del, who *knows* Draco is mistaken to think that way, but that's not what she's arguing in this post. Alla: I have no gripes with Draco's behaviour at this point. I mean he was being his usual self, but indeed, his father is in prison and he is always mad at Harry anyway. :o) I think though that original point was that Snape should have behaved as half decent human being and give Harry a little break. Since he knew EXACTLY what Harry went through just recently. If that was the original poster point (was it Eggplant?) then unfortunately I have to agree with it. If I misunderstood the said point, I am sorry. Alla From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 22:09:19 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:09:19 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121797 Alla wrote: "I think though that original point was that Snape should have behaved as half decent human being and give Harry a little break. Since he knew EXACTLY what Harry went through just recently. If that was the original poster point (was it Eggplant?) then unfortunately I have to agree with it." Del replies: Actually, Gerry reacted when Eggplant put Snape and Draco in the same bag, and I followed. I completely agree that Snape was wrong to be mean to Harry. But he was being his usual Snape : decidedly unconcerned with Harry's emotional state. He never cared before, I didn't hold any hope that he would care now. Especially since, for all we know, he might actually have danced a little victory dance when he learned that Sirius was dead... After all, in his eyes, Harry was wrong to care about Sirius to start with... Let's be honest : how many of us are sorry for Draco because his dad is in prison? And yet, isn't it a terrible thing for a teenager to see his adored father sent to prison? But many of us don't care, because we don't like Draco. And so it is for Snape with Harry. Snape doesn't care about Harry, so when Sirius died, Snape probably only saw his own interest : Sirius is dead, yeah!! (Next on the list would be Lupin, I guess) Snape doesn't care about Harry, many of us don't care about Draco, that's life : we tend to cry only with the people we didn't dislike before tragedy hit them. I suppose it makes us all wrong... Del From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 12 22:10:06 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:10:06 -0000 Subject: Harry shouldn't see Thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121798 Nicky Joe: > However, I still don't buy the "Harry was in shock" line. She > simply hadn't thought of it in time to get it into the book. The > problem with writing serials and publishing them as soon as > they're done is that you can't go back and insert something. I'll > bet JKR has kicked herself at least twenty times because she would > love to go back to book one or two and place a hook or a hint. SSSusan: Actually, no, unless you're saying that you think JKR is lying, it's not that she didn't think of it in time. Rather, she said it didn't seem fair to introduce them at the END of a book -- which is when it would have had to have happened, since Harry'd just experienced the death -- but decided to require a "sinking in" period so that it could more easily and sensibly be introduced at the beginning of the next year. Here is the quote from the Royal Albert Hall appearance in 2003: JKR: I knew I was going to get that one. That is an excellent question and here is the truth. As you know at the end of Goblet Of Fire we sent Harry home more depressed than he's ever been really leaving Hogwarts. Now I knew that the Thestrals were coming because, I can prove that because they're in the book I produced for Comic Relief - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - these unlucky black winged horses. However if Harry sees them then and we hadn't explained them then I thought that that would be rather a cheat on the reader that he suddenly sees these monsters but we don't go anywhere with that story line so I thought well to explain that to myself I decided that you had to have seen the death and allowed it to sink in a little bit before slowly these creatures became solid in front of you so that's how I'm going to sneak past that one Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 22:25:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:25:36 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121799 Del replies: snip. Let's be honest : how many of us are sorry for Draco because his dad is in prison? And yet, isn't it a terrible thing for a teenager to see his adored father sent to prison? But many of us don't care, because we don't like Draco. And so it is for Snape with Harry. Snape doesn't care about Harry, so when Sirius died, Snape probably only saw his own interest : Sirius is dead, yeah!! (Next on the list would be Lupin, I guess) Alla: Ummm, yes, I don't care MUCH, but at the same time the intellectual part of my mind completely understands that this is a terrible thing for teenager to live with, even such rotten as Draco. BUT I don't care much mainly not because I don't like Draco, but because I think that Lucius where he deserves to be - namely in prison. And yes, I am pretty sure that Snape did a victory dance when Sirius died, I still think that he should ahve let this one go. You know, just IGNORE Harry for once, not comfort him or anything, I would not expect him to go THAT far. Del: Snape doesn't care about Harry, many of us don't care about Draco, that's life : we tend to cry only with the people we didn't dislike before tragedy hit them. I suppose it makes us all wrong... Alla: I think this statement is too general, Del. I am not sure I will cry with the person I dislike before when such person experienced the tragedy, but to some degree I would definitely empathicize with such person. I am also not sure how it relates to the criticism of Snape. He was WRONG, IMO only. Just my opinion, Alla From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Jan 12 22:36:40 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:36:40 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121800 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > Pippin wrote: > > > I don't think that Lupin will display any explicit pedophilia, but I > > do think the references are there on purpose. Most children have > > been told that adults might try to win their trust by giving them > > candy and that adults should not touch them in inappropriate > > way. Suggesting that Lupin might do these things could be a > > way of dropping a hint that like some real world adults who > > seem to be helpful and friendly, he can't be trusted. > Gerry: > Having reread the scene I can't find anything even remotely hinting at > pedophilia or inappropriate touching. Just touching, which in some > parts of the world has become suspect by itself. > Renee: No, I don't see it either - that is to say, not in the book; there, it struck me as typical behaviour for a traditional Northwestern European male teacher approaching middle age, especially as Lupin did *not* touch Harry, after all. No pedophilia there. But I have to admit I did see it in the movie the second time around, without any outside prompting. I even think the repeated "people like me" remark at the end, by many interpreted as reference to gays, is actually a hint at pedophilia. Like werewolves, and unlike gay people in general, pedophiles *are* a threat to children. If it was meant to be in the movie, though, it disturbs me a little, and not just because as a warning, it is a failure. (As it would be in the PoA book, because it had no immediate consequences there, and the message would be lost on children if it stretched over three or four books/six to eight years. But as I said, I don't see it there.) My main problem is that JKR said that she'd like Lupin to be her daughter's teacher. Now I know that Pippin believes JKR deliberately misleads us in her interviews at times. But if this is one of her "misleading statements", it wouldn't just be a tasteless joke, it would be disturbing. I wouldn't like to think JKR would mention her own child in such a context. So no, in the book Lupin is not meant to be a metaphor for pedophilia and his dealing chocolate is not a warning, not even an ineffective one. And if JKR was aware that he could be seen as such in the movie, she probably decided to ignore it. Renee who hopes she didn't talk too much about the Medium-That-Must-Not-Be- Named From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Wed Jan 12 22:29:52 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:29:52 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More About Snape and Occlumency (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <79F1A3E2-64E9-11D9-B4C9-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 121801 In OotP, Hermione is blasted by a slash of purple fire and seriously injured - and the spell was cast by someone who couldn't speak at the time. (page 698 in my copy) I suspect that this is advanced magic, which Harry (and we with him) are unlikely to encounter at school. Nevertheless it seems to exist. Jocelyn ---------- On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, at 10:58 pm, inkling108 wrote: > In those magical arts that don't use incantations, such as potions > or herbology, method is all important. It just seems strange that > there would be a whole "branch of magic" (to use Snape's words) that > uses neither. Not impossible, but strange. > Inkling From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 22:51:53 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:51:53 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121802 Alla wrote: "Ummm, yes, I don't care MUCH, but at the same time the intellectual part of my mind completely understands that this is a terrible thing for teenager to live with, even such rotten as Draco." Del replies: Exactly. Now add in the amazing difference in empathy, care and concern for others (*all* others) that there's between you and Snape. You, as a "normally" caring human being, would maybe allow yourself to turn this intellectual understanding of the pain of someone such as Draco into an emotional support. But Snape, who is emotionally crippled and whose empathy is light-years behind yours, simply won't take that step. His understanding, if there's any, will remain intellectual, because his heart qualities have been squashed (both by himself and others IMO) throughout his life. It's Harry who went through a life-changing experience in the DoM, not Snape. Snape is still exactly the same Snape he was a few days before. The same Snape who could take out his hate of the father on the *orphaned* son. Not-nice Snape. Expecting Snape to react differently because *Harry* went through a terrible ordeal isn't very realistic IMO. Alla wrote: "BUT I don't care much mainly not because I don't like Draco, but because I think that Lucius where he deserves to be - namely in prison." Del replies: This is similar to what I said that one reason Snape doesn't care about Harry's pain over Sirius's death could be because Snape is happy with Sirius being dead. This feeling of things being right where Sirius is concerned could prevent Snape from genuinely seeing Harry's pain. Don't you think that if you liked Draco and disliked Lucius, you wouldn't care a bit more about Draco's distress, no matter how happy you would be that Lucius finally got what he deserves? Alla wrote: "And yes, I am pretty sure that Snape did a victory dance when Sirius died, I still think that he should ahve let this one go. You know, just IGNORE Harry for once, not comfort him or anything, I would not expect him to go THAT far." Del replies: I understand. But Snape did catch Harry with his wand pointed at an unarmed Draco and with a full intention of hexing him. As a teacher, and possibly as a spy, he had to be seen doing *something*. And we don't know how he would have resolved the problem of there being no more points to take away from Gryffindor. Maybe he would have given a detention to Harry, only to have it annulled later? (I'm not putting much hope into that one, but we never know :-) Alla wrote: "I am not sure I will cry with the person I dislike before when such person experienced the tragedy, but to some degree I would definitely empathicize with such person." Del replies: Good for you! It's just that I've seen too many people rigidly refuse to grant one bit of compassion to people they don't like, even in the face of the greatest tragedy... And since we are not in Snape's heart, I can always argue that maybe he did feel some compassion for Harry, but that his temper took the best of him when he saw Harry menacing Draco (one of his own students, who also deserved some compassion). Who knows, apart from JKR? Alla wrote: "I am also not sure how it relates to the criticism of Snape. He was WRONG, IMO only." Del replies: And I said that I think so too, in my previous post. Del From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 23:06:26 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:06:26 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121803 >>Alla wrote: >I think though that original point was that Snape should have behaved as half decent human being and give Harry a little break. Since he knew EXACTLY what Harry went through just recently. >If that was the original poster point (was it Eggplant?) then unfortunately I have to agree with it." >>Del replied: >Actually, Gerry reacted when Eggplant put Snape and Draco in the same bag, and I followed. >I completely agree that Snape was wrong to be mean to Harry.< Betsy: I think Snape was absolutely correct to chastise Harry, and take away points. No matter the circumstances, you cannot allow students to curse other students. Something Harry was perfectly honest about doing. Allowing Harry to get away with that type of behavior is not being kind to him. And in that scene, Snape was actually being nice, for Snape. No sneering commentary on Harry's character, no excessive point- reduction (ten points for an attempted curse seems fairly small to me). Snape wasn't being mean, he was being a professor. Betsy From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 22:09:11 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:09:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050112220911.3117.qmail@web61205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121804 >mzstorge Says: >Pippin's ESE!Lupin theory is very well thought out. I hope it isn't >true, but I'd rather see an evil Lupin centerstage than a well- >meaning werewolf that's choked out of existence by Pettigrew's >silver hand. Arynn replies: I don't have my book in front of me, but I didn't infer that the hand was made of silver, just that it was silver coloured. Plus, does silver affect werewolves in HPverse? I have Fantastic Beasts in front of me and it doesn't mention it. (You'd think it would) That would mean he couln't handle Sickles either. Just a thought. --Arynn Octavia From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 12 23:25:35 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:25:35 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121805 > Renee: > No, I don't see it either - that is to say, not in the book; there, > it struck me as typical behaviour for a traditional Northwestern > European male teacher approaching middle age, especially as Lupin did *not* touch Harry, after all. No pedophilia there. > If it was meant to be in the movie, though, it disturbs me a little, > and not just because as a warning, it is a failure. (As it would be in the PoA book, because it had no immediate consequences there, and the message would be lost on children if it stretched over three or four books/six to eight years. But as I said, I don't see it there.) < Pippin: You could just as well say that all the death omens linked to Sirius in PoA were a failure, since they had no consequences there, and children would be unlikely to remember them until OOP. JKR obviously means the books to be re-read. She often makes cross-references from book to book that a child might not notice -- for example,the way the obstacles from the first book echo the themes of the succeeding volumes. Renee: > My main problem is that JKR said that she'd like Lupin to be her daughter's teacher. < Pippin: I think JKR genuinely wishes Lupin could escape from the doom she has laid out for him, just as she wished Sirius could. I suspect she sees ESE!Lupin as making choices that seem the best available to him. In a world where there was no werewolf prejudice, and no Voldemort, and where he was allowed to do what he was obviously born to do, there would be little to fear from him. He, like Kreacher, is what the WW has made him, a product of other people's choices as well as his own. ESE!Lupin is a metaphor for what happens if you, unlike Snape, are too afraid of the consequences to confess and seek pardon. ESE!Lupin, like many on the list, thinks all werewolves will be judged by his actions, and that there is no way Dumbledore would pardon him if he knew what Lupin had done. This is where the pedophilia comes in, IMO, as a metaphor, and *only* as a metaphor, for the unforgivable. Instead of confessing and asking for a second chance as Snape did, ESE!Lupin keeps trying to cover up what he has done and commits more and more crimes in the process. He isn't doing all this evil because he was a bad person from the beginning, or even a weak one-- it was because he had no faith, not even in Dumbledore. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 23:32:13 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:32:13 -0000 Subject: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121806 Kethryn wrote: Therefore, it is not too impossible to imagine > that Bellatrix is about Lucius' age, Carol responds: We know, however, that Sirius last saw Bellatrix when he was about the age Harry is when he first comes to Grimmauld Place (between his fourth and fifth years). Therefore it makes sense that her seventh year corresponded with his fourth, which would make her three years older than MWPP and Snape and two years younger than Lucius, who is 41 at the end of GoF as compared with Snape's 36. If I'm right about her age, then she must be younger than Andromeda, who has to be at least four or five years older than Sirius to have given birth to Tonks after Hogwarts. But we know that JKR isn't good with "maths" and may not have given much thought to the question. In any case, if Draco is the heir to the Black estate through an entail on the estate (Jane Austen, anyone?), the birth order of the sisters won't matter. Carol From eliasheldon at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 23:43:59 2005 From: eliasheldon at yahoo.com (eliasheldon at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:43:59 +0000 Subject: Extended Mail System Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121807 For further details see the attachment. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 12 23:56:08 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:56:08 -0000 Subject: Fleur Delacour & Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121808 SSSusan wrote: > "I thought the correct spelling of Fleur's last name was Delacoeur > [note the "e"]. That would mean "flower of the *heart,*" not "flower of the court," would it not?" > > Del replies: > This is apparently a common HP myth, and I wonder where it comes from. I guess that's because "Flower of the heart" would be immensely more romantic than "Flower of the court". But unfortunately "Flower of the heart" would have been Fleur Ducoeur :-) > > Oh, by the way, don't let JKR fool you : "cour" doesn't mean only "court" as in royal court. It can also mean "court" as in courtyard, as in court of law. Just because, IIRC, JKR hinted at the first possible meaning doesn't necessarily mean that's the meaning she used (if any!) in her books. Carol notes: SSS, you're not the only one who's made this mistake. JKR addresses it in one of her interviews: Q: Is there a reason Fleur's name means "flower of the heart"? JKR: Ah, Narri, you're nearly there... in fact, it means "flower of the court," like a noblewoman. Heart is "coeur." (I used to be a French teacher, sorry.) http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-livechat-aol.html Re the meaning of "court," I do think it suggests a royal court rather than a court of law. Fleur certainly expects to be treated like royalty, at least before Harry rescues little Gabrielle in the Second Task. Also note the description of Draco in OoP (I think) "holding court" at the Slytherin table. I think we can pretty much infer that he's behaving like a prince or king rather than a judge--as befits a descendant of "nature's nobility," the Black family. And of course Fleur is a descendant of a Veela. (Still don't understand how you can be "part" Veela if the father has to be human. Wouldn't all Veelas marry wizards and have only full-blooded Veela children? Unless there are male Veelas, which doesn't fit the mythological background.) And Del, I know this is OT, but can you explain (maybe offlist) why it would be "du" instead of "de la" if her name meant "of the heart" instead of "of the court"? Carol, who has a remote ancestor named de la Motte (of the moat)? From barbara_mbowen at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 00:03:34 2005 From: barbara_mbowen at yahoo.com (barbara_mbowen) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:03:34 -0000 Subject: JKR and Occlumency lessons (was Re: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121809 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Marmelade Mom snipping here, snipping there: > Reed wrote: > > > Of course, the need for drama should not ruin the plausibily of the > > story, but I personally didn't feel that it did in this case. It was > > clearly wrong of Dumbledore to appoint Snape as Harry's > > Occlumency teacher, and JKR is well aware of this, as she lets > > him admit thishimself. > > For me, it's not so hard to accept that, though Dumbledore knew > that > > Harry and Snape didn't get along well, he misjudged how deep their > > resentments (especially Snape's) were. He simply hoped they would > > sort out their issues when faced with this common task. > > In this book, JKR goes to great pains to establish that Dumbledore > > is neither omniscient nor infallible and the occlumency lessons are > > one example of this - so they serve the story in yet another way. > > Alla: > >SNIP! > > What IS incredibly hard to accept FOR ME is the the fact that > Dumbledore could be so NOT INTELLIGENT and misjudge the extent of > Snape' hatred for James and Harry and Harry's hatred for Snape that > badly. > > Reed: > > You can argue whether we needed this additional bit of drama of > course, but IMO it worked well enough - and as I mentioned in > my earlier post, I also believe that it was a way to put focus on the > relationship between Harry and Snape which I'm expecting to be > important in the following books. Now Marmelade Mom: Yes, Reed, I think you're right. This is an interesting thread, and one that goes with my own sense that something is very much up with Harry and Snape in Book Six. I think both Dumbledore (and JKR) used Occlumency lessons to give Snape and Harry a chance to understand each other: for Snape to learn that Harry is not the "pampered prince" he thinks James' son must be, and for Harry to see Snape as something more than Hogwart's version of Vernon Dursley, out to crush his spirit from sheer malice. To be fair to both DD and JKR, it nearly happens. And I admire how artfully she did it, because Snape learns from repeated incursions into Harry's memories just how abused and horrible a childhood he had. Here is Snape's chance to understand and form a new opinion of Harry. I think (though I have no canon yet to prove it) that the reason the members of the Order talk to the Dursleys at the end of OOP is because Snape said something to DD to the effect of: "Did you have any idea how badly the Dursleys have abused Harry? Including starving him?" But how to have Harry learn enough about Snape for this to go both ways? He can break through once, but not enough to get the full picture; he's the pupil, not the master. So JKR has Snape leave memories in a penseive, and Harry breaks into them. A nice turn, this, because Harry's opinion of Snape is almost totally overthrown. "I never thought I'd feel sorry for Snape" he says, and he demands an accounting from his father's friends. To Harry's credit, he sees just how wrong James and Sirius were, he sympathizes with SNape--but the very act of finding out about Snape has angered and alienated Snape. Failure on one side. Then the debacle at the MoM, and Sirius' death. Harry's new understanding of Snape is destroyed by his bitterness over Sirius' death. We are left with each of them hating the other all the more. Which, to me, is very tragic, because both were *so* close to understanding/sympathizing with each other. And it's a very powerful lead up to what has got to be happening in the next book(s): a big, explosive confrontation between Harry and Snape in the context of the war against Voldemort. In the last scene between the two of them in OoP, Harry is openly defiant for the first time; he does *not* put his wand away when Snape tells him to. Only McGonagle's appearance defuses the confrontation and only when she tells him to, does Harry put away his wand. I'm dying to see what will go on in Potions in Book six! Marmelade Mom From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 00:19:13 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:19:13 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121810 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Renee: > > No, I don't see it either - that is to say, not in the book; there, it struck me as typical behaviour for a traditional Northwestern European male teacher approaching middle age, especially as Lupin did *not* touch Harry, after all. No pedophilia there. > Pippin: snip> > ESE!Lupin is a metaphor for what happens if you, unlike Snape, > are too afraid of the consequences to confess and seek pardon. > ESE!Lupin, like many on the list, thinks all werewolves will be > judged by his actions, and that there is no way Dumbledore > would pardon him if he knew what Lupin had done. > > This is where the pedophilia comes in, IMO, as a metaphor, and > *only* as a metaphor, for the unforgivable. Instead of > confessing and asking for a second chance as Snape did, > ESE!Lupin keeps trying to cover up what he has done and > commits more and more crimes in the process. He isn't doing > all this evil because he was a bad person from the beginning, or > even a weak one-- it was because he had no faith, not even in > Dumbledore. > > Pippin Tonks here: I agree with Renee and disagree with Pippin. (sorry Pippin.) Lupin is a very compassionate, caring person. He is male and males in that society (as in ours until a few years ago) did not touch each other. Also not touching is a very English thing to do. So Lupin wants to comfort Harry, but the Macho code comes in. Lupin is not gay, and not a pedophile!!! And he is not evil. There is not even one hint of his being an evil person in the books. I certainly never read it that way. As to the other media, any reference to *people like me* is to werewolves, nothing more. I think too many people today, in the U.S. (I don't know about other countries) read far too much into things and see *gay* everywhere. I can't even go places with my best female friend without some young person asking if she is my lover. Good heavens!!! As they say sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a werewolf is just a werewolf. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 00:21:53 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:21:53 -0000 Subject: Fleur Delacour & Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: <1ed.330b6ef0.2f16a38b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121811 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, fuzzlebub85 at a... wrote: > > > Tonks wrote: > If Fleur de la cour means "flower of the court", is she a connection > to the prince? Court has to do with royality. I don't know if there > is any other meaning for the word. In England is means Court of the > King doesn't it? What do the rest of you think?? > > > Kaylee here: > Excellent idea, Tonks! We know Fleur has a sister, but what if > she also has a brother? It would be an interesting idea, don't you think? And > what with all the wedding threads zooming around, if it's Bill/Fleur, Fleur's > brother will just HAVE to be there, won't he? > > Sorry that this is all speculation...*digs for canon* There's one part in GOF > somewhere...the Weighing of the Wands, don't have my book on me...she's part > Veela, (her grandmother was one) so is she a half-blood? Perhaps her brother, > or even her father, is a prince, maybe it's her father who has the Veela blood > in him? He could be the half-blood prince, possibly? Quotes from the chapter, > anyone? > > Cheers, > > Kaylee, hoping this post makes it past the List Elves very much "Half-blood" means half wizard and half-muggle or half-pureblood and half-muggleborn, like Harry, who has two wizard and two Muggle grandparents just as Seamus or Tom Riddle does. Someone like Hagrid, on the other hand, is (forgive the term, I know it's not PC) a "half breed," since one parent is a wizard and the other is a member of another species (I forget whether the MoM classifies giants as creatures or beings). Veelas, too, are somewhere between a creature and a being since they can turn into birds (they remind me of Harpies), but they aren't in FBWTF so they must be classified as beings. Still, though, I think Fleur's mother (who must be half-Veela since Fleur is one quarter and her "grandmuzzer" is a Veela) would be considered a "half-breed." Where that leaves Fleur, I'm not sure, but certainly not a Half-blood as JKR has defined the term. I've already asked about the parentage of Veelas in a post responding to a message which for some reason was not threaded to this one. Good old Yahoo. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 00:58:20 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:58:20 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121812 Juli wrote: > "I doubt Salazar could be the Half-Blood Prince. He believes in the > purity of blood, himself being pure-blood (at least I believe so)" > > Del replies: > LV is a half-blood who believes in the purity of blood. In fact, it > would make some poetic sense that Salazar Slytherin's rightful heir be a half-blood like Old Salazar himself. > > Juli wrote: > "If he is half-blood or muggle blood, then why would he care so much > for the purity of blood? " > > Del replies: > So could it be that Salazar's Muggle parent betrayed his magical > parent, who maybe got killed as a result? > > It sure would explain why Salazar wanted to teach only purebloods : > because this way there was no risk of a Muggle parent betraying the > wizard community. Carol responds: Unless we doubt the Sorting Hat, Salazar Slytherin was a pureblood: "For instance, Slytherin Took only pure-blood wizards Of great cunning, just like him." (OoP Am. ed. 205) Despite the line break, it's clear that "just like him" applies to the entire phrase, "pure-blood wizards of great cunning." Also it seems unlikely that he would have set criteria for choosing wizards that would have excluded himself. Your point about Muggle parents not betraying the wizard community would still apply. Carol, who thinks that Muggle Studies should be a required subject for all Hogwarts students since the prejudice against Muggles (as opposed to Muggleborns) is not confined to Slytherin From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 13 01:24:40 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:24:40 -0000 Subject: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121813 > Carol responds: > We know, however, that Sirius last saw Bellatrix when he was about the > age Harry is when he first comes to Grimmauld Place (between his > fourth and fifth years). Therefore it makes sense that her seventh > year corresponded with his fourth, which would make her three years > older than MWPP and Snape and two years younger than Lucius, who is 41 at the end of GoF as compared with Snape's 36. If I'm right about her age, then she must be younger than Andromeda, who has to be at least four or five years older than Sirius to have given birth to Tonks after Hogwarts. snip Potioncat: I never gave the ages of these three sisters (weird sisters?) any thought. But if Nacissa is as young as someone upthread suggested, then she was in Slytherin with Snape and at Hogwarts at the same time as the Marauders and Lily. I wonder if there is any back story to that? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 01:27:47 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:27:47 -0000 Subject: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121814 Tristan wrote: > Hagrid, Rubeus: > If you were "Hagrid" in old English, it means that you're having a > bad night. Since Hagrid is a big drinker, he must have had tons bad > nights. Carol adds: Interestingly, Hagrid literally means "hagridden"--ridden by hags, a metaphorical way of saying harassed or tormented. Since Hagrid doesn't appear, in general, to be a tormented character (unless he's being betrayed by Tom Riddle or deprived of one of his "interestin' creatures"), I suppose we could account for the name with the hangovers. It never seemed appropriate to me. Tristan wrote: > Malfoy, Draco: > 1.)In ancient Greek days, Draco was a cruel Athenian lawmaker. > That's how we get the expression "draconian laws", meaning > unnecessarily harsh laws. Carol adds: As countless posters have pointed out, Draco is also a star and constellation (the Dragon), in keeping with the Black family tradition. (His mother, though named after a flower, is a Black.) Compare Bellatrix, Andromeda, Sirius, and Regulus, all either constellations or stars or both. Sirius, of course, is the Dog Star, Andromeda was a queen and Regulus means "little king," in keeping with the idea that the Blacks considered themselves to be royalty, and Bellatrix means "woman warrior" (Amazon). Various people have commented on the star/constellation connection though I don't recall any posts on the topic in the last six months or so. If anyone's interested and has the patience to spend an hour with Yahoomort, you can find the posts there. Carol Carol From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 01:37:30 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:37:30 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince( was Re: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121815 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol adds: > As countless posters have pointed out, Draco is also a star and > constellation (the Dragon), in keeping with the Black family > tradition. (His mother, though named after a flower, is a Black.) > Compare Bellatrix, Andromeda, Sirius, and Regulus, all either > constellations or stars or both. Sirius, of course, is the Dog Star, Andromeda was a queen and Regulus means "little king," in keeping with the idea that the Blacks considered themselves to be royalty, snip > Carol Oh my god... I had a terrable thought. Do you think that as they start exploring the Black family line during the estate, they discover... gasp! that Draco is the Half Blood Prince?? I hope not!! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 02:31:41 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:31:41 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121816 Alla wrote: > And yes, I am pretty sure that Snape did a victory dance when Sirius > died, I still think that he should ahve let this one go. You know, > just IGNORE Harry for once, not comfort him or anything, I would not > expect him to go THAT far. Carol responds: Unfortunately, grief is no excuse for bad behavior, whether for Draco or for Harry. And Harry admits, quite calmly, that he was considering what hex to hit Draco with. Snape as a teacher can't let this go. He has to follow standard procedure and deduct house points. We then get the nice little scene in which McGonagall returns, Snape welcomes her back with what seems like genuine good feeling, she add house points (including, with some reluctance, fifty for Ravenclaw), and then *herself* deducts the ten points for Harry's misbehavior even though she, like Snape, is almost certainly aware of Harry's loss. And Snape quietly accepts the 250 points she has added for Gryffindor. His behavior on his occasion either exhibits remarkable self-control or a genuine recognition that the Gryffindors (and Luna) deserve those points. None of which takes away from the fact that Harry, having broken the rules, deserves the standard punishment. Moreover, Snape would have had to explain to Draco and the Slytherins why Harry wasn't punished for an overt infraction of the rules. As someone else said, this is the WW, and the rules don't change if you've lost a godparent. (I once had a student who pleaded the loss of her grandmother as a reason for plagiarizing a paper. I failed the paper--but chose not to have her expelled, as I could have done.) A teacher who bends the rules out of sympathy for a student, especially uncharacteristically as would have been the case with Snape, is likely to lose the respect of students who expect the rules to be enforced. Snape would have his hands ful with unruly Slytherins had he allowed Harry to go unpunished. And it wouldn't have increased Harry's respect for him to do so, either. Carol, who thinks that Snape is a product of his upbringing and that we can't reasonably pass judgment on him for not being a modern Muggle teacher brimming with concern for students' self-esteem From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 02:59:40 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:59:40 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121817 Carol wrote: "Unless we doubt the Sorting Hat, Salazar Slytherin was a pureblood: "For instance, Slytherin Took only pure-blood wizards Of great cunning, just like him." (OoP Am. ed. 205)" Del replies: Ah :-) I'd forgotten about that one. Anyway, as I said, I mostly thought it would have been nicely, poetically ironic if both Salazar and his Heir had been half-bloods. But it is *still* sadly ironic that pure-blood-Salazar's true heir turned out to be a half-blood! Carol wrote: "Also it seems unlikely that he would have set criteria for choosing wizards that would have excluded himself." Del replies: Logic isn't necessarily a strong point for some tyrants. There was one in the 20th century who claimed that the higher race was composed only of big, blonde, blue-eyed people, when he himself was a dark-haired, dark-eyed (I think) runt... Carol signed: "Carol, who thinks that Muggle Studies should be a required subject for all Hogwarts students since the prejudice against Muggles (as opposed to Muggleborns) is not confined to Slytherin" Del replies: Agreed! Unfortunately, considering the way they seem to teach things in Muggle studies (basically, how those poor unfortunate Muggles try to compensate for their lack of magic), I'm not sure it would help much... Del From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 03:06:23 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:06:23 -0000 Subject: Dolohov's curse (Was: More About Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: <79F1A3E2-64E9-11D9-B4C9-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121818 Jocelyn wrote: > In OotP, Hermione is blasted by a slash of purple fire and seriously injured - and the spell was cast by someone who couldn't speak at the time. (page 698 in my copy) > > I suspect that this is advanced magic, which Harry (and we with him) are unlikely to encounter at school. Nevertheless it seems to exist. Carol responds: As I understand it, this particular curse was the result of a whispered spell which would have been stronger (and possibly fatal) if Dolohov had been able to speak it aloud. I don't think it's *advanced* magic so much as *Dark* magic performed by a powerful and evil wizard who can cast the spell even though he can't speak it. (Snape frequently Evanescoes spills without speaking the spell; I think that powerful wizards can perform spells without speaking them, especially if they have wands that suit them well--which raises the point of where the DEs who escaped from Azkaban got wands and whether they might have been more effective had their own wands not been confiscated.) At any rate, I expect that we'll hear more about this slashing spell that produces purple light. Maybe Hermione will investigate it in HBP since it produced her injuries. And we may hear more of Dolohov, too. He's the one who was convicted for "the brutal murders of Gideon and Fabian Prewett" (OoP Am. ed. 543) and just possibly he used this spell to kill them rather than an AK, which is swift and painless and would probably not be described as "brutal." Dumbledore says that some of the DEs in VW1 were nearly as terrible as Voldemort, and Dolohov seems to me to fit this description as well as anyone we've seen. BTW, you must be using the British edition since p. 698 in my edition is in the "Grawp" chapter. Carol, who wants to learn more about this particular spell, which I very much doubt is taught at Hogwarts From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 01:01:54 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:01:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050113010154.47671.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121819 Tonks wrote: ...edited... >>Lupin is a very compassionate, caring person. He is male and males in that society (as in ours until a few years ago) did not touch each other. Also not touching is a very English thing to do. So Lupin wants to comfort Harry, but the Macho code comes in. Lupin is not gay, and not a pedophile!!! And he is not evil. There is not even one hint of his being an evil person in the books. I certainly never read it that way. As to the other media, any reference to *people like me* is to werewolves, nothing more. I think too many people today, in the U.S. (I don't know about other countries) read far too much into things and see *gay* everywhere. I can't even go places with my best female friend without some young person asking if she is my lover. << Juli now: I agree 100% with you Tonks, I've read all five books about a million times and I never thought of Remus as gay, much less a pedophile. The scene I think you're talking about is during the Patronus class, right? I always believed that Remus just didn't Harry to know how much he cared for James, that's just my opinion. Juli From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 03:18:06 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:18:06 -0000 Subject: Satellite!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121820 > Carol responds: > I guess my explanation wasn't clear. I think that the powers reside in > Voldemort's spirit but he's unable to use them when he doesn't have a > body because he can't speak or use a wand. (He can still possess other > beings because this power doesn't require a body.) When he possesses a > person he can use his powers through that person-- possessed! Quirrell > is presumably stronger than Quirrell in his normal state. When > Voldemort has a body, even a baby's body, he can use the powers still > within him that require the use of a voice or a wand. I don't think > Parseltongue "permanently resides" in Harry. I think that the two now > *share* that power, and probably other powers that haven't been > identified yet, for example Legilimency. Voldemort "marked [Harry] as > his equal" by giving him access to some of his own powers. That > doesn't mean that Voldemort himself permanently lost them. He simply > *couldn't use them* because he had no body. > > I do agree that Harry has become more sensitive to the pain in his > scar, or rather, the pain is more intense and he's more sensitive to > Voldemort's moods (pretty much a given in OoP) but that can easily be > explained by the increase in Voldemort's power now that he has a body > of his own. And that strength apparently makes Harry "alive" to > Voldemort's anger, which he sometimes feels as his own, and which may > have been acquired along with the powers as part of the legacy of > Godric's Hollow. Voldemort certainly did not lose his anger and give > it to Harry; IMO, he kept it, along with the Parseltongue and the > Legilimency and the ability to use an Unforgiveable Curse, but could > not use it or manifest it in any way until he had a body. The stronger > the body, the stronger his own powers and the stronger the connection > with Harry. > > Snow wrote previously: > > The worst properties of the powers that Harry has unknowingly > > acquired from Voldemort is exactly what makes Harry's statement at > > the end of OOP so utterly ironic: > > > > "But I don't!" said Harry in a strangled voice. "I haven't any > powers he hasn't got. I couldn't fight the way he did tonight, I can't > possess people?or kill them?" > > > > Harry has never acquired the power to possess people; this statement > came from Voldy himself; so Harry defiantly is correct that he does > not have the power to possess people. > > Why can Harry not use an unforgivable curse because,like Dumbledore, > he is too noble to use them or to understand that he has the power to > use them via the Voldemort legacy unknowingly bestowed on him. > > Carol responds: > I certainly agree that the statement is ironic, one more example of > Harry not knowing the full truth of his situation. He *has* acquired > powers from Voldemort despite his denial of the situation; we just > don't know which ones. (And his acquisition of those powers in no way > implies that Voldemort doesn't also have them.) > > We can't really say that the power to possess people is definitely not > one of the powers that was transferred to Harry at GH. I think you're > assuming that because it was the one power Voldemort still had while > he was without a body. But he regained the others later, or rather the > ability to use them, so he never really lost them, either. We don't > *know* that Harry doesn't have that power. He certainly thought he did > when he dreamed that he, as the snake, was biting Mr. Weasley. I'll > reserve judgment on that one, though I certainly hope he doesn't have, > or use, that power. It's hard to see how it could be used for good > except against Voldemort himself. > > However, I don't think the ability to use an Unforgiveable Curse was > transferred to Harry. I think that's something that the individual > wizard has to acquire through a desire to do harm or violate the mind > or body of another human being. Barty Jr. acquired it. So did > Bellatrix and most of the other DEs. None of them received powers from > Voldemort at Godric's Hollow or anywhere else. They just used their > own power and their own evil will to perform spells that Harry is not > yet powerful and certainly not evil enough to perform. (If he ever > succeeds in performing one, the WW is in trouble because its savior is > heading down Tom Riddle's path.) > > I think that the powers Harry acquired are probably those peculiar to > Voldemort, not shared by most other wizards (Parseltongue, > Legilimency, and possibly possession among them). Most other wizard > powers he would already have inherited from his parents--the ability > to fly (and play Quidditch) being the most obvious example. > > I'm not by any means saying that I'm right, only that there are other > ways to look at the situation than the one you're proposing. And we > don't disagree on all points, only on the idea that Voldemort actually > *lost* all but one of his powers and now has to channel them back > through Harry's scar. I agree that Harry has (shares) *some* of > Voldemort's powers and that his denial that he shares any powers with > Voldemort is ironic. But I don't think that the powers "reside" in > Harry and that Voldemort has to get them back. They will be *equals*, > per the Prophecy, when they meet for that final battle. IOW, Harry > will have the same powers as Voldemort, some acquired at GH and some > native to him at his birth. Snow continuing to make her point a bit more clear: You make a very good argument for your point of view, Carol. I understand the way in which you are looking at the transference of power(s) from Voldy to Harry. To use a computer as an analogy to some up what I believe you are saying, it would be like transferring a file from your pc to disk. Although you transferred the information to disk, it also remains on the pc. This is what I assumed to be correct also until I connected the fact that every time Voldemort uses any of his powers (other than the one remaining power he speaks of in GOF) Harry either views Voldemort and/or experiences pain in his scar. Voldemort did not use `his' powers that we are aware of until he was in the room with Frank Bryce, which is the first connection Harry has alerted us to where he feels a burning in his scar and also has the capacity to view a real time occurrence. You could argue that Voldemort used his powers to aid Quirrell in his attempts to steal the stone but Voldemort could also have been using the powers that Quirrell has with Voldemort's own understanding of magical use. Bertha is another point that could be argued but we have not actually been told whether Voldemort used the wand himself on Bertha or instructed Pettigrew to do it for him. Here's a question for you: if Pettigrew had the dark mark on his arm when he first met back up with Voldemort in Albania, why didn't Voldemort just touch the mark and have all his death eaters at his disposal; unless of course he didn't have the babymort body yet, in which case he couldn't have performed the spells on Bertha either because he was ill-equipped to hold a wand and Voldy therefore would not have accessed any powers at this time to alert Harry's sensitive scar. Harry accounts for each instance that we are aware of babymort using any of his powers. The first time was in the old Riddle manor when Voldemort killed Frank Bryce?we know that Voldemort actually killed Frank himself. The next time was when Harry viewed Wormtail being reprimanded by Voldemort for the escape of Crouch Sr. Harry tells Dumbledore about the dream he had and his scar hurting in the Pencieve chapter of GOF. Dumbledore asks Harry at this time if his scar had hurt at any other time this year other than the time it woke him up in the summer and Harry said "no". Dumbledore also asks Harry if he saw Voldemort and Harry said no, just the back of his chair but then comes to the conclusion he must have had a body to be able to use a wand. The whole point is Harry did not feel immense pain in his scar until babymort actually used magic of some kind himself. Vapormort had transformed to a babymort condition at some time before Harry had actually witnessed him at the Riddle manor so it wasn't just the fact that Voldemort had returned to a physical state that caused Harry to view Voldemort. It was when Voldemort actually used the AK on Frank Bryce that Harry's scar responded. Harry's recollection of the dream of this event only had to deal with the actual killing of Frank Bryce, which required Voldemort accessing his power. Harry had not viewed the entire occurrence that we had during this episode only the part where Voldemort used magical power. After Voldemort is reincarnated using Harry's blood the situation becomes much more intense. Harry's scar hurts quite a bit more often and Harry views more situations with Voldemort. Here is the real clincher to me though, that made me think that Voldemort is only accessing his powers through Harry, Voldemort possessing Nagini. The one power that Harry had not been made custodian over (possession) is the very instance where Voldemort becomes aware of Harry's presence. It was only when Harry viewed Voldemort through the one power that was left with Voldemort after Godric's Hollow that he became aware of Harry's presence, up until this point Voldemort was simply unaware. It would make sense, using my theory that Voldemort is only accessing his old abilities through Harry making his scar hurt with each occurrence, for Voldemort to recognize Harry's presence during the possession because Harry is now on Voldy's turf. Harry is actually accessing Voldemort's power of possession and so the reverse happens; Voldemort sees Harry for once. Every other time it is Harry being able to view Voldemort. As far as the prophecy is concerned where it says that Voldemort marks Harry as his equal, it is only true in one aspect Harry and Voldemort are equal only in the abilities that they share. But as I pointed out previously Harry has one power that Voldemort knows not, therefore when they meet at the end, Harry is one up on Voldemort because Harry's one power is something Voldemort can't or won't access. I could defiantly be wrong about this theory, Carol, but I think for now I'm going to stick by it even if it is all by myself. It isn't the first time I've felt like a solitary theory hugger. I've felt like I was the only one who saw Trelawney as an actual seer for?a long, long time, although I'm starting to see a few more people lately board at least the walkway to that particular boat. Thanks for listening to my ravings, Carol, and participating. This forum would be absolutely worthless without a skillful and respectful adversary. Snow From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Thu Jan 13 01:02:24 2005 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:02:24 EST Subject: All about Lupin Message-ID: <1df.32d0cd68.2f1722a0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121821 > Tonks here: > > I agree with Renee and disagree with Pippin. (sorry Pippin.) Lupin > is a very compassionate, caring person. He is male and males in that > society (as in ours until a few years ago) did not touch each other. > Also not touching is a very English thing to do. So Lupin wants to > comfort Harry, but the Macho code comes in. Lupin is not gay, and > not a pedophile!!! And he is not evil. There is not even one hint of > his being an evil person in the books. I certainly never read it > that way. As to the other media, any reference to *people like me* > is to werewolves, nothing more. I think too many people today, in > the U.S. (I don't know about other countries) read far too much into > things and see *gay* everywhere. Kaylee here: Tonks makes some great points, and I agree completely with her and Renee. Especially about the "gay" thing being everywhere...and I don't believe Remus is a pedophile. Males have a "do not touch" thing, that is true. I never read any evilness either...I wonder where all this idea of ESE!Lupin came from. Could anyone direct me to whoever began that thread? Kaylee, hoping no one thwaps her for a "me too" post, but also hoping it doesn't get rejected From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 01:23:55 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:23:55 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's 1st prediction Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121822 Near the end of OoTP, DD tells us the contents of Trelawney's 1st prediction, which there has already been much debate about. However, he also tells us that someone was eavesdropping on his meeting and told LV the contents of the 1st half of the prediction. I'd be intested to hear views on who that might have been. I wondered myself if it was Snape (seeing as how he has some large debt to pay, I wondered if this might be it). Becky From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 01:28:24 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (arynnoctavia) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:28:24 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121823 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > any reference to *people like me* is to werewolves, nothing more. Arynn replies: JKR said she intended him as a metophor for a person with a contagious illness with a lot of stigma attached to it. You have to admit this sounds like AIDS. "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." -- JKR Royal Albert Hall June 26, 2003 Does this sound Evil? He may be over-lenient, but not evil. If every person with character flaws was evil then Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, Hagrid, all of you and I would all be ESE. --Arynn Octavia From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 01:50:05 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 01:50:05 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince -- Draco? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121824 Tonks: > Oh my god... I had a terrable thought. Do you think that as they > start exploring the Black family line during the estate, they > discover... gasp! That Draco is the Half Blood Prince?? I hope > not!! Eugh! There's an awful thought! But also, I don't see that that's possible. Sirius makes it perfectly clear that Draco is pure blood when he is talking to Harry about his family tree in OOTP. Sirius's mother would have removed his family from the tree if he was anything BUT pure blood. As he remains, I think it's fair to say the HBP is not Draco. (I hope not anyway!) Becky From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 03:40:44 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:40:44 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121825 > Carol responds: Unfortunately, grief is no excuse for bad behavior, whether for Draco or for Harry. And Harry admits, quite calmly, that he was considering what hex to hit Draco with. Snape as a teacher can't let this go. He has to follow standard procedure and deduct house points. Alla: OK, let's for the sake of argument assume that I agree that Snape did that for the sake of maintaining standard procedure. Why didn't he punish Draco then? Although I guess you can argue that he did not see that Draco started all this. IMO, Snape saw the whole scene and either chose to be nice to Draco because of his grief or was just being his usual nasty self to Harry. JMO, of course. Carol: We then get the nice little scene in which McGonagall returns, Snape welcomes her back with what seems like genuine good feeling, she add house points (including, with some reluctance, fifty for Ravenclaw), and then *herself* deducts the ten points for Harry's misbehavior even though she, like Snape, is almost certainly aware of Harry's loss. And Snape quietly accepts the 250 points she has added for Gryffindor. His behavior on his occasion either exhibits remarkable self-control or a genuine recognition that the Gryffindors (and Luna) deserve those points. None of which takes away from the fact that Harry, having broken the rules, deserves the standard punishment. Moreover, Snape would have had to explain to Draco and the Slytherins why Harry wasn't punished for an overt infraction of the rules. Alla: Mcgonagall does not speak ill of her colleagues, ever. Unless it is Umbridge, of course. :o) She did a very professional thing and may I ask how Snape could NOT to accept the points? I believe what one teacher deducts or gives stands that way(Correct me if I am wrong) Of course he could have deducted 250 points I suppose, but I suspect that he did not want to look like an idiot in front of Minerva, whom again I suspect he genuinely respects. Carol: A teacher who bends the rules out of sympathy for a student, especially uncharacteristically as would have been the case with Snape, is likely to lose the respect of students who expect the rules to be enforced. Snape would have his hands ful with unruly Slytherins had he allowed Harry to go unpunished. And it wouldn't have increased Harry's respect for him to do so, either. Alla: Same question - why didn't he punish Draco then? And since Harry respect for him is close to nonexistent, I don't think it would have mattered much one way or another. I wanted to see Snape do a decent thing for Snape's sake , not Harry's, I doubt anything would have changed in Harry's mood that instant in regards to Snape. Just my opinion, Alla From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jan 13 03:56:24 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:56:24 EST Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121826 > Betsy: > I think Snape was absolutely correct to chastise Harry, and take away > points. No matter the circumstances, you cannot allow students to > curse other students. Something Harry was perfectly honest about > doing. Allowing Harry to get away with that type of behavior is not > being kind to him. > > And in that scene, Snape was actually being nice, for Snape. No > sneering commentary on Harry's character, no excessive point- > reduction (ten points for an attempted curse seems fairly small to > me). Snape wasn't being mean, he was being a professor. > > Betsy Julie says: I don't know about nice, but I do agree that Snape's nastiness was pretty mild in this instance. (Remember, you can't compare Snape's behavior to a normal person's behavior, only to behavior that is typical for him). His mild response could even pass for a brief moment of compassion, *coming* from Snape. He could have come down a lot harder and justified it by Harry's behavior, but he didn't. (And given Harry's mood at the moment, he would still view anything Snape did through the darkest lens possible, for instance, Snape talking "coldly as ever" and his "sneering smile"). I also agree that he was being a professor here. What would McGonagall do if she came upon Harry attempting to curse Draco? She would be stern with him and probably take those same 10 points away. The difference is she would afterwards take Harry aside and offer some measure of sympathy, while still letting him know his behavior was unacceptable. Snape won't. The best he'll do is moderate the invective of his response. Julie, who finds Snape in OotP the closest he's yet gotten to treating Harry "nicely"--both in the above confrontation and during the Occlumency lessons when he said Harry's performance was passable. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 13 04:10:39 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:10:39 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121827 Julie: > I also agree that he was being a professor here. What would > McGonagall do if she came upon Harry attempting to curse > Draco? She would be stern with him and probably take those > same 10 points away. The difference is she would afterwards > take Harry aside and offer some measure of sympathy, while > still letting him know his behavior was unacceptable. Snape > won't. The best he'll do is moderate the invective of his response. Potioncat: Well, she did take the 10 points, but we never saw her taking Harry aside and offering sympathy. > Julie, > who finds Snape in OotP the closest he's yet gotten to treating > Harry "nicely"--both in the above confrontation and during the > Occlumency lessons when he said Harry's performance was > passable. Potioncat: I agree. I'd love to know what Snape was going to say before McGonagall walked in. I'd like to add that I do not think Snape celebrated Black's death. Snape tried to keep Black out of the fray, in my opinion both because he was needed and because he was in no condition to go on the mission. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 04:25:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:25:03 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121828 Julie: I also agree that he was being a professor here. What would McGonagall do if she came upon Harry attempting to curse Draco? She would be stern with him and probably take those same 10 points away. The difference is she would afterwards take Harry aside and offer some measure of sympathy, while still letting him know his behavior was unacceptable. Snape won't. The best he'll do is moderate the invective of his response. Potioncat: Well, she did take the 10 points, but we never saw her taking Harry aside and offering sympathy. Alla: She did not, IMO. She only ennforced what Snape already did and I think her giving house points, albeit deserved ones were very nice way of offering sympathy too. Potioncat: I'd like to add that I do not think Snape celebrated Black's death. Snape tried to keep Black out of the fray, in my opinion both because he was needed and because he was in no condition to go on the mission. Alla: Allow me to disagree. I can see Snape being incredibly happy because of the occasion based on theri fighting in Grimmauld place and even though I would love him to forgive Sirius ( I told you that Snape and Sirius is my favourite SHIP ;o)), I cannot blame him much, but I can't be very sympathetic either. Just my opinion, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 13 04:56:50 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 04:56:50 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121829 > Potioncat: Well, she did take the 10 points, but we never saw her taking Harry aside and offering sympathy. > Alla: > She did not, IMO. She only ennforced what Snape already did and I > think her giving house points, albeit deserved ones were very nice > way of offering sympathy too. Potioncat: Hi Alla! I think the house points that McGonagall gave out were earned and deserved and had nothing to do with sympathy. Snape agreed, even though doing so in front of Draco may have been unwise. Keep in mind that in CoS, when Snape suggested that Harry be removed from the Quidditch team until he told the truth, McGonagall nipped the idea in the bud. Of course, that probably had more to do with Quidditch than with discipline. (By both professors.) McGonagall supports Snape several times. This one. And in career advice (indirectly) but, although she doesn't speak frankly about Trelawney or Umbridge, she makes her lack of respect for them very clear. She never does that about Snape. > Alla: > Allow me to disagree. I can see Snape being incredibly happy becauseof the occasion based on theri fighting in Grimmauld place and even though I would love him to forgive Sirius ( I told you that Snape and Sirius is my favourite SHIP ;o)), I cannot blame him much, but I can't be very sympathetic either. Potioncat: I wonder if JKR will reveal Snape's reaction to Black's death? Until she does, you have my permission to disagree. I must admit, your view is as valid as mine. From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Thu Jan 13 05:37:36 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:37:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? References: Message-ID: <007801c4f932$018e4ac0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121830 > Kethryn wrote: > > Therefore, it is not too impossible to imagine > > that Bellatrix is about Lucius' age, > > > Carol responds: > We know, however, that Sirius last saw Bellatrix when he was about the > age Harry is when he first comes to Grimmauld Place (between his > fourth and fifth years). Therefore it makes sense that her seventh > year corresponded with his fourth, which would make her three years > older than MWPP and Snape and two years younger than Lucius, who is 41 > at the end of GoF as compared with Snape's 36. If I'm right about her > age, then she must be younger than Andromeda, who has to be at least > four or five years older than Sirius to have given birth to Tonks > after Hogwarts. But we know that JKR isn't good with "maths" and may > not have given much thought to the question. In any case, if Draco is > the heir to the Black estate through an entail on the estate (Jane > Austen, anyone?), the birth order of the sisters won't matter. Kethryn again - I think that is assuming too much, to tell you the truth. I can't find that particular quote that you are referring to, do you by chance have a page number? I am only asking because I did not read Sirius' statement to mean that the last time he saw Bella was at Hogwarts and I distinctly remember thinking at the time that he could have been at her wedding which makes the rest of his statement infinitly more believable. After Bella married whichever Lestrange it was, she would have moved into his house/their new home and Sirius (who wasn't all that fond of Bella or the Lestranges) would not have gone to visit. Not that I am saying that it was a wedding, for all I know, they ran into each other at a garden party. Kethryn who hopes that makes sense...it is very late for me. From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Thu Jan 13 05:45:44 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:45:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? References: <007801c4f932$018e4ac0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: <00b601c4f933$22911bc0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121831 > > Kethryn wrote: > > > > Therefore, it is not too impossible to imagine > > > that Bellatrix is about Lucius' age, > > > > > > Carol responds: > > We know, however, that Sirius last saw Bellatrix when he was about the > > age Harry is when he first comes to Grimmauld Place (between his > > fourth and fifth years). Therefore it makes sense that her seventh > > year corresponded with his fourth, which would make her three years > > older than MWPP and Snape and two years younger than Lucius, who is 41 > > at the end of GoF as compared with Snape's 36. If I'm right about her > > age, then she must be younger than Andromeda, who has to be at least > > four or five years older than Sirius to have given birth to Tonks > > after Hogwarts. But we know that JKR isn't good with "maths" and may > > not have given much thought to the question. In any case, if Draco is > > the heir to the Black estate through an entail on the estate (Jane > > Austen, anyone?), the birth order of the sisters won't matter. > > Kethryn again - > > I think that is assuming too much, to tell you the truth. I can't find that > particular quote that you are referring to, do you by chance have a page > number? I am only asking because I did not read Sirius' statement to mean > that the last time he saw Bella was at Hogwarts and I distinctly remember > thinking at the time that he could have been at her wedding which makes the > rest of his statement infinitly more believable. After Bella married > whichever Lestrange it was, she would have moved into his house/their new > home and Sirius (who wasn't all that fond of Bella or the Lestranges) would > not have gone to visit. Not that I am saying that it was a wedding, for all > I know, they ran into each other at a garden party. > > Kethryn who hopes that makes sense...it is very late for me. > Kethryn one more time - Sorry, brain flash just before I logged for the night. Wasn't that also the summer that Sirius basically told the family to take a long walk off a short pier? So it would make sense if Bella was in and out of the family house (regardless of her marital status) all the time... Keth From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jan 13 05:14:54 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 05:14:54 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121832 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > ESE!Lupin is a metaphor for what happens if you, unlike Snape, > are too afraid of the consequences to confess and seek pardon. > ESE!Lupin, like many on the list, thinks all werewolves will be > judged by his actions, and that there is no way Dumbledore > would pardon him if he knew what Lupin had done. OK, I can't follow this at all. What's it that Lupin is supposed to have done that needs confessing and needs pardonning? I see Lupin as someone who faces consequences, not someone who tries to escape them. Gerry From Jen at alveymedia.com Thu Jan 13 05:53:26 2005 From: Jen at alveymedia.com (Jennifer Nielsen) Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:53:26 -0700 Subject: Half Blood Prince -- Draco? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121833 > Becky: > Eugh! There's an awful thought! But also, I don't see that that's > possible. Sirius makes it perfectly clear that Draco is pure blood > when he is talking to Harry about his family tree in OOTP. Sirius's > mother would have removed his family from the tree if he was > anything BUT pure blood. As he remains, I think it's fair to say the > HBP is not Draco. (I hope not anyway!) I don't know if the HBP would be Draco although I think it would be interesting if an "error" or a "coverup" were discovered in his family tree. But I think there's a good chance that the HBP is in LV's camp. After all, Harry is the central hero of the story. It seems to me that if the HBP is a good guy, that he would overshadow Harry. But a good story needs conflict, and having the HBP be a bad guy creates that conflict in a great way. Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 06:53:38 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 06:53:38 -0000 Subject: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: <007801c4f932$018e4ac0$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121834 Carol earlier: > > We know, however, that Sirius last saw Bellatrix when he was about the age Harry is when he first comes to Grimmauld Place (between his fourth and fifth years). Therefore it makes sense that her seventh year corresponded with his fourth, which would make her three years older than MWPP and Snape and two years younger than Lucius, who is 41 at the end of GoF as compared with Snape's 36. Kethryn responded: > > I can't find that particular quote that you are referring to, do you by chance have a page number? I am only asking because I did not read Sirius' statement to mean that the last time he saw Bella was at Hogwarts and I distinctly remember thinking at the time that he could have been at her wedding which makes the rest of his statement infinitly more believable. After Bella married whichever Lestrange it was, she would have moved into his house/their new home and Sirius (who wasn't all that fond of Bella or the Lestranges) would not have gone to visit. Not that I am saying that it was a wedding, for all > I know, they ran into each other at a garden party. Carol responds: I doubt very much that Sirius would have attended Bellatrix's wedding, especially since he was estranged from his family from the time he was sixteen. We do know that Bellatrix was part of the gang of Slytherins so her school years overlapped with Sirius's, but neither she nor any of the other gang members were present in the Pensieve scene, an indication that they were all older than Severus and MWPP and had left school. At any rate, it makes sense to me that the last time he saw her was her last day at Hogwarts at the end of her seventh year, and since Sirius says he was about Harry's age (Harry has recently completed his fourth year), it would seem that Sirius and Bellatrix are three years apart. Here's the quote, from "The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black" in OoP: "Does it matter if she's my cousin?" snapped Sirius. "As far as I'm concerned, they're not my family. *She's* certainly not my family. I haven't seen her since I was your age, unless you count a glimpse of her coming in to Azkaban. Do you think I'm proud of having relatives like her?" (OoP Am. ed. 114) Doesn't sound to me as if he attended her wedding or had anything to do with her outside a few inevitable sightings at school. BTW, she married Rodolphus, but his brother Rabastan seems to be their inseparable follower. (I'm curious about him, but I seem to be the only one who is.) Carol From betsymarie123 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 13 02:51:49 2005 From: betsymarie123 at hotmail.com (Betsy Corts) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 02:51:49 +0000 Subject: Harry shouldn't see Thestrals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121835 Arynn Octavia: >It says in book 5 that Harry can see the Thestrals because he saw >Cedric die, but if you look in book 4 that isn't true. > >While down on the ground he hears "Kill the spare" A blast of green >light blazes through his eyelids, and he hears something heavy fall >beside him. He opens his eyes, barfs then turns his head and sees >Cedric dead. So he didn't see him actually die. He only sees the body >afterward. But, according to Hagrid and Umbridge you have to witness >someone die, not see their dead body. Betsy replies: As for me, I thought that Harry saw the thestrals because of the shock caused for been there while Cedric was killed. Although, he didn't witnessed it, he did heard everything. And feeling the light on his eyelids, perhaps memories of his parent's death surfaced. Betsy From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 13 08:27:24 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:27:24 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121836 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > ESE!Lupin is a metaphor for what happens if you, unlike Snape, > > are too afraid of the consequences to confess and seek pardon. > > ESE!Lupin, like many on the list, thinks all werewolves will be > > judged by his actions, and that there is no way Dumbledore > > would pardon him if he knew what Lupin had done. > Gerry: > OK, I can't follow this at all. What's it that Lupin is supposed to > have done that needs confessing and needs pardonning? I see Lupin as > someone who faces consequences, not someone who tries to escape them. > Renee: This refers to Pippin's theory that it wasn't Peter Pettigrew who was the spy that betrayed the Potters in the first Voldemort war, but Lupin (using the codename Wormtail), who joined Voldemort because of the way the Wizarding World treats werewolves. But as Pippin has a tendency to treat her own speculations as canon evidence in discussions (especially where Lupin and Snape are concerned), this can be confusing to those unaware of the ESE!Lupin theory. Renee who wonders where in canon it says that Snape ever sought pardon. From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Thu Jan 13 03:39:13 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:39:13 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dolohov's curse (Was: More About Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121837 On Thursday, January 13, 2005, at 02:06 pm, justcarol67 wrote: > As I understand it, this particular curse was the result of a > whispered spell which would have been stronger (and possibly fatal) if > Dolohov had been able to speak it aloud. I don't think it's *advanced* > magic so much as *Dark* magic performed by a powerful and evil wizard > who can cast the spell even though he can't speak it. (Snape > frequently Evanescoes spills without speaking the spell; I think that > powerful wizards can perform spells without speaking them, especially > if they have wands that suit them well Yeah - I am sharing this book at the moment with my 8-year-old and he pinched it when I was at page 700! This morning I read the second snippet about that incident (when Hermione is in the hospital) and went "aha!". I think you're right: powerful wizards do not need to say the incantation aloud. I would guess that speaking it helps to focus the spell, but a wizard of sufficient experience and power can cast it without that help. On the edition, I am in Australia and it is always a toss-up whether we are getting things from America or Britain. I have never really taken the time to figure out which editions I have, but you're probably right! Jocelyn From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 08:58:00 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:58:00 -0000 Subject: Magically powerful In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121838 > Vivek wrote: > I was wondering what being magically powerful means. I mean, everyone > (in WW) has magical powers, but still some people are referred to as > being magically powerful e.g. Dumbledore, LV, Bartius Crouch Sr. etc, > and some are said to be the reverse e.g. Fudge (I think Hagrid or Sirius > said that). In a recent chat JKR has said that Harry will become more > powerful, so what exactly does being more powerful imply? And how is > a person's magical ability measured? > I guess at least one of the parameters could be magical knowledge > that a person has, but having power without knowing how to use it is > useless. So wouldn't Hermione thus be more powerful than Harry? Finwitch: Well, I think there are several conditions for being able to do magic. Each person has a talent required in order to be invited to a school like Hogwarts. This is POWER. For next level, there's developing to be done. The potential, learning spells... Learning the SKILL of controlling the power. You need some of both to be 'fully qualified wizard', and the wand gives you aid for both. What comes to a (magically) powerful wizard 1) Ability to do magic without a wand or another magical object (Even squibs can use the objects!) 2)Ability to do some particularly difficult/powerful spells, the earlier the more power the wizard is able to come to. (Harry's corporeal Patronus at the age of 13 shows this of Harry, as well as his ability to get rid of Imperio - AK requires a lot of power, too...) What they most need to know, though, is how to handle a crisis. Harry's always been able to act, even without knowledge. Hermione, with all her knowledge, didn't have this in the beginning (Look at the troll; or their acting with the Devil's Snare - or the boggart). Ron has great ability to get others out of shock and act: ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT? (which just happens to be the same criticism that otherwise would be so annoying). Three of them make a great team. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 09:07:08 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:07:08 -0000 Subject: Trelawney's 1st prediction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121839 Becky: > > Near the end of OoTP, DD tells us the contents of Trelawney's 1st > prediction, which there has already been much debate about. However, > he also tells us that someone was eavesdropping on his meeting and > told LV the contents of the 1st half of the prediction. > > I'd be intested to hear views on who that might have been. I > wondered myself if it was Snape (seeing as how he has some large > debt to pay, I wondered if this might be it). > Finwitch: If it was Snape - maybe that was an event that turned him? Because someone WOULD be able to defeat Voldemort... It could be Mundungus Fletcher (explain why he had this ban for such a tolerant-seeming bar) Finwitch From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 13 09:48:37 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:48:37 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121840 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Pippin: > You could just as well say that all the death omens linked to > Sirius in PoA were a failure, since they had no consequences > there, and children would be unlikely to remember them until > OOP. JKR obviously means the books to be re-read. She often > makes cross-references from book to book that a child might > not notice -- for example,the way the obstacles from the first book > echo the themes of the succeeding volumes. Renee: It doesn't matter if children don't recognise such references with hindsight. They aren't *warnings* adressed to kids in the age range from, say, 7-10 when PoA came out. These kids will be adolescents age 15-18 when the last book in the series comes out, so by the time the warning is supposed to hit home, they don't need it anymore. And even later generations of 7-10 year olds probably won't be able to grasp it if the warning is incorporated in a book that's defintely not directed at their age group. Also, what message will kids get out of it, given the fact that Poppy Pomfrey approves of Lupin's chocolate dealing immediately after she hears about it, thereby suggesting that having some chocolate at the ready ought to be part of a DADA-teacher's job description? Some warning that would be... As far as I recall we haven't seen any of the DADA-teachers shown to be evil and/or untrustworthy hand out candy of whatever kind. > Renee: > > My main problem is that JKR said that she'd like Lupin to be > her daughter's teacher. < > > Pippin: > I think JKR genuinely wishes Lupin could escape from the doom > she has laid out for him, just as she wished Sirius could. Renee: As we don't know yet if she has laid out such a doom for Lupin, it seems better to me not to speculate about what JKR does or does not wish. And if it should turn out that she has, I'd still find the remark disturbing, even if she'd feel sorry for him. Pippin > ESE!Lupin is a metaphor for what happens if you, unlike Snape, > are too afraid of the consequences to confess and seek pardon. > ESE!Lupin, like many on the list, thinks all werewolves will be > judged by his actions, and that there is no way Dumbledore > would pardon him if he knew what Lupin had done. > > > This is where the pedophilia comes in, IMO, as a metaphor, and > *only* as a metaphor, for the unforgivable. Renee: But to me, pedophilia as the metaphor muddles the issue. I can, theoretically, see how werewolves could be used as a metaphor for sexual aberration (though I still think JKR's remark about her daughter rules this out and it's much more likely they're a metaphor for people with cripping and potentially dangerous diseases). To make the sexual aberration the metaphor would be turning things on their head. It would be like arguing that Mrs. Black is presented as a Nazi/fascist to provide a metaphor and a warning against for the wrongness of pureblood mania. But it's the books that contain symbols for the RW, not the RW that contains symbols for the books. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 13 11:48:50 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:48:50 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121841 First, a note about terminology and some history. ESE! is list shorthand for ever-so-evil and refers to the suspicion that a character may have an as yet unrevealed allegiance to Voldemort. If I say "ESE!Lupin" did thus and so, it's identified as speculation by the ESE! tag itself, since all ESE! theories are by definition speculative. The original ESE!Lupin post is 39362--the first, as far as I know, to actually speculate that Lupin is a Death Eater. That was pre-OOP and my theory has evolved quite a bit since then. I am in the process of compiling a table of all the clues, but briefly, in order to maintain Lupin's innocence you have to believe that on the night of the Shrieking Shack he somehow: forgot he needed his potion forgot that he would transform that night forgot that Snape would be bringing the potion forgot to deactivate the Marauders Map did not recognize the Invisibility Cloak although he ran right past it forgot when he was due to transform and was not reminded of any of these things although he touched on all of them in an hour of conversations. Nope, that would make either Lupin or Rowling an idiot. I don't think so. And so, I also can't believe that though Rowling placed Lupin between Harry and the veil, and thus between Harry and Sirius, had Lupin say, "Not at all" in response to Sirius's plea for forgiveness, and had the narrator note for us that Harry knew Bella's scream "meant nothing", Lupin had nothing to do with Sirius's death. Rowling established with Quirrell that a deadly curse could be done without a wand, and with Dolohov that a curse could be done without an audible incantation. I grant you that even with all that, Lupin is hardly an obvious suspect and has no obvious motive. But then neither did Quirrell, or Ginny, or Scabbers or... > Renee: > It doesn't matter if children don't recognise such references with hindsight. They aren't *warnings* adressed to kids in the age range from, say, 7-10 when PoA came out. < Pippin: I think you've misunderstood me. I was discussing "warnings" in the context of a mystery plot. In a fair mystery, the author has to give the reader enough clues so that one could guess the identity of the culprit. In the case of ESE!Lupin, (speculating now) one of those clues is his suspicious behavior on the train. Lupin himself jokes, "I haven't poisoned that chocolate." The issue of sinister intent is raised in the text for all to see. When I was growing up, children were told the reason not to take candy from strangers was that it might be poisoned. The allusion to pedophilia is not meant in any literal sense, IMO, but to play fair with the reader by hinting that this character is capable of something truly abhorrent. The metaphor of Lupin as JKR gave it was "people's *reactions* to illness" (emphasis mine.) That's a very important distinction, IMO. What she might want to show us, I think, is that both the stigma and the aura of victimization people sometimes employ to counter it are dehumanizing and that it is dehumanization, not disease, that we should fear will turn people into monsters. Pippin From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 13 13:14:28 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:14:28 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Renee: > > It doesn't matter if children don't recognise such references > with hindsight. They aren't *warnings* adressed to kids in the > age range from, say, 7-10 when PoA came out. < > > Pippin: > I think you've misunderstood me. I was discussing "warnings" in > the context of a mystery plot. In a fair mystery, the author has to > give the reader enough clues so that one could guess the > identity of the culprit. In the case of ESE!Lupin, (speculating now) > one of those clues is his suspicious behavior on the train. Renee: I see what you mean now; thanks for explaining. So you were talking about the mystery reader, not about the gullible child that has to be warned against malicious adults who fake being nice. In that case, we seem to be back at the fundamental difference: You can read the HP books as one big mystery novel where unmasking the villain whodunit all is the main objective, and you can read them as, by and large, a symbolical fantasy series of which the separate parts may contain a mystery or two, but where the overall questions remains, how the hero will fulfill his destiny/quest with the aid of others. > Lupin himself jokes, "I haven't poisoned that chocolate." > The issue of sinister intent is raised in the text for all to see. > When I was growing up, children were told the reason not to > take candy from strangers was that it might be poisoned. Renee: Yes, I recognise the allusion, and we're *meant* to be wary of Lupin after Quirrell and Lockhart, but at the end of PoA the issue is resolved. And as I'm not reading the series as a whodunnit but as a fantasy series full of symbolism, I remember that before he made the joke about the chocolate, Lupin's first acts in the book are to spread light in the darkness and to drive away an evil entity. Realising this, and remembering the rest of PoA, I know now what to make of this character, which enables me to see the joke for what it is: the first instance of Lupin's somewhat edgy, self-depreciating humour. Pippin: > The metaphor of Lupin as JKR gave it was "people's *reactions* > to illness" (emphasis mine.) That's a very important distinction, > IMO. What she might want to show us, I think, is that both the > stigma and the aura of victimization people sometimes employ > to counter it are dehumanizing and that it is dehumanization, > not disease, that we should fear will turn people into monsters. Renee: Before I comment on this: You're reading this also as "people's reactions to their OWN illness?" From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Thu Jan 13 14:06:19 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:06:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? References: Message-ID: <002d01c4f979$10247400$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121843 > Carol responds: > I doubt very much that Sirius would have attended Bellatrix's wedding, > especially since he was estranged from his family from the time he was > sixteen. We do know that Bellatrix was part of the gang of Slytherins > so her school years overlapped with Sirius's, but neither she nor any > of the other gang members were present in the Pensieve scene, an > indication that they were all older than Severus and MWPP and had left > school. At any rate, it makes sense to me that the last time he saw > her was her last day at Hogwarts at the end of her seventh year, and > since Sirius says he was about Harry's age (Harry has recently > completed his fourth year), it would seem that Sirius and Bellatrix > are three years apart. Here's the quote, from "The Noble and Most > Ancient House of Black" in OoP: > > "Does it matter if she's my cousin?" snapped Sirius. "As far as I'm > concerned, they're not my family. *She's* certainly not my family. I > haven't seen her since I was your age, unless you count a glimpse of > her coming in to Azkaban. Do you think I'm proud of having relatives > like her?" (OoP Am. ed. 114) > > Doesn't sound to me as if he attended her wedding or had anything to > do with her outside a few inevitable sightings at school. BTW, she > married Rodolphus, but his brother Rabastan seems to be their > inseparable follower. (I'm curious about him, but I seem to be the > only one who is.) Kethryn again - To me, the quote (thanks for providing it *G*) doesn't indicate that he met her at Hogwarts at all. She could have been at the Black house the last time he saw her, doing something with his mum. You know, they are family, like it or not, so it is conceivable that he ran into her at what was about not to be his home anymore. For all we know, she was actually the reason he decided not to go back home anymore. Also, the way JKR has written the little bits we have seen of her character, I do imagine her as being about Lucius's age (although I do admit that Azkaban might prematurly age a person). Sigh. This could be yet another thing we will never know. Keth From inkling108 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 14:10:28 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:10:28 -0000 Subject: Another Eavesdropper? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121844 The thread about the eavesdropper who was ejected during the first prophecy reminds me of another OotP passage where there seems to be an eavesdropper. In Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak, when Dumbledore makes his getaway by stunning all the ministry flunkies, Harry hears: "There was a shriek and a thud and someone cried "NO!" Then the sound of breaking glass, frantically scuffling footsteps, a groan and -- silence." later on, "The notices (posted by Umbridge)...did not explain how every single person within the castle seemed to know that Dumbledore had overcome two Aurors, the High Inquisitor, the Minister of Magic and his Junior Assistant to escape...It was surprising how accurate...their information was. Everyone seemed aware, for instance, that Harry and Marietta were the only students to have witnessed the scene in Dumbledore's office, and as Marietta was now in the hospital wing, Harry found himself beseiged with requests..." Marietta doesn't seem in a postion to inform anyone, and Harry didn't do so, so unless McGonagall ran around spreading the word (which seems out of character) someone other than the people we know were in the room heard everything and lost no time telling the whole castle. Who might that have been? Inkling From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Thu Jan 13 14:30:49 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:30:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Another Eavesdropper? References: Message-ID: <005501c4f97c$7cd65a20$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121845 Inkling said - > The thread about the eavesdropper who was ejected during the first > prophecy reminds me of another OotP passage where there seems to be > an eavesdropper. In Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak, when > Dumbledore makes his getaway by stunning all the ministry flunkies, > Harry hears: > > "There was a shriek and a thud and someone cried "NO!" Then the > sound of breaking glass, frantically scuffling footsteps, a groan > and -- silence." > > later on, > > "The notices (posted by Umbridge)...did not explain how every single > person within the castle seemed to know that Dumbledore had overcome > two Aurors, the High Inquisitor, the Minister of Magic and his > Junior Assistant to escape...It was surprising how accurate...their > information was. Everyone seemed aware, for instance, that Harry > and Marietta were the only students to have witnessed the scene in > Dumbledore's office, and as Marietta was now in the hospital wing, > Harry found himself beseiged with requests..." > > Marietta doesn't seem in a postion to inform anyone, and Harry > didn't do so, so unless McGonagall ran around spreading the word > (which seems out of character) someone other than the people we know > were in the room heard everything and lost no time telling the whole > castle. Who might that have been? > > Inkling Kethryn now - Supposition, mind you, but I would guess the paintings were talking about it loudly enough to be overheard. It seems to me that some of the paintings are horrible gossips (Lady Violet and the Pink Lady anyone? GoF) so it makes sense that they would have spread the word, especially since none of them particularly approve of Umbridge. Keth From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 14:32:05 2005 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:32:05 -0000 Subject: Another Eavesdropper? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121846 inkling wrote: > > The thread about the eavesdropper who was ejected during the first > prophecy reminds me of another OotP passage where there seems to be > an eavesdropper. In Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak, when > Dumbledore makes his getaway by stunning all the ministry flunkies, > Harry hears: > > "There was a shriek and a thud and someone cried "NO!" Then the > sound of breaking glass, frantically scuffling footsteps, a groan > and -- silence." > > later on, > > "The notices (posted by Umbridge)...did not explain how every single > person within the castle seemed to know that Dumbledore had overcome > two Aurors, the High Inquisitor, the Minister of Magic and his > Junior Assistant to escape...It was surprising how accurate...their > information was. Everyone seemed aware, for instance, that Harry > and Marietta were the only students to have witnessed the scene in > Dumbledore's office, and as Marietta was now in the hospital wing, > Harry found himself beseiged with requests..." > > Marietta doesn't seem in a postion to inform anyone, and Harry > didn't do so, so unless McGonagall ran around spreading the word > (which seems out of character) someone other than the people we know > were in the room heard everything and lost no time telling the whole > castle. Who might that have been? > Tammy replies: I always presumed it was the portraits that spread the word. Afterall, they do seem to be extremely happy to have Dumbledore back at the end of the book. I think they are there to help the Headmaster, and they never considered anyone but Dumbledore the headmaster - thus spreading the word of how awesome Dumbledore's escape was would be helping him. From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 13 14:33:26 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:33:26 -0000 Subject: Dolohov's curse (Was: More About Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121847 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jocelyn Grunow wrote: Jocelyn: > On the edition, I am in Australia and it is always a toss-up whether we > are getting things from America or Britain. I have never really taken > the time to figure out which editions I have, but you're probably right! Geoff: The UK editions lack internal illustrations, which I believe are in the US versions and thus tend to have a lower page count. The usual UK OOTP edition runs to 766 pages. I think the publisher is also a guide. UK editions are from Bloomsbury, US from Scholastic(?) - US friends, please smack my wrists if I'm wrong on that. Geoff http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com Enjoy a virtual visit to the Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 14:36:21 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:36:21 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121848 Pippin wrote: > > > I am in the process of compiling a table of all the clues, but > briefly, in order to maintain Lupin's innocence you have to believe > that on the night of the Shrieking Shack he somehow: > > forgot he needed his potion > forgot that he would transform that night > forgot that Snape would be bringing the potion > forgot to deactivate the Marauders Map > did not recognize the Invisibility Cloak although he ran right past > it > forgot when he was due to transform > > and was not reminded of any of these things although he > touched on all of them in an hour of conversations. > > Nope, that would make either Lupin or Rowling an idiot. I don't > think so. > Neri : >From outside the story, the explanation of all this forgetfulness is obvious: JKR needed it to enable Snape to make his appearance, and later in order to enable Wormtail to get away and Sirius to get caught. Of course, you can blame Lupin for planning all this, but it would be very difficult for him to predict when Snape will come in with the potion, not to mention finding Lupin's motive for inviting Snape into the Shack. JKR, on the other hand, has both the means and the motive. She's a much more obvious suspect. I think ESE!Lupin is mainly based on a intentional failure to notice ESE!JKR, in a similar way that puppet-master!DD is based on a an intentional failure to see puppet-master!JKR. However, there may be an explanation for Lupin's forgetfulness from within the plot too. The possibility of a DADA jinx has been raised more than once in past books. We don't know whether it indeed exists, but four DADA teachers (not counting Quirrell) who did not manage to hold their post for more than one year is a bit too much of a coincidence. It is certainly suspicious at least as much as Lupin's forgetfulness in the night of the Shrieking Shack. It is thus quite possible that the jinx (or whatever it is) made Lupin forget the potion and the map so he won't be able to continue for another year. Neri From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 14:40:24 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:40:24 -0000 Subject: Another Eavesdropper? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121849 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "inkling108" wrote: > > The thread about the eavesdropper who was ejected during the first > prophecy reminds me of another OotP passage where there seems to be > an eavesdropper. In Chapter 27, The Centaur and the Sneak, when > Dumbledore makes his getaway by stunning all the ministry flunkies, > Harry hears: > > "There was a shriek and a thud and someone cried "NO!" Then the > sound of breaking glass, frantically scuffling footsteps, a groan > and -- silence." > > later on, > > "The notices (posted by Umbridge)...did not explain how every single > person within the castle seemed to know that Dumbledore had overcome > two Aurors, the High Inquisitor, the Minister of Magic and his > Junior Assistant to escape...It was surprising how accurate...their > information was. Everyone seemed aware, for instance, that Harry > and Marietta were the only students to have witnessed the scene in > Dumbledore's office, and as Marietta was now in the hospital wing, > Harry found himself beseiged with requests..." > > Marietta doesn't seem in a postion to inform anyone, and Harry > didn't do so, so unless McGonagall ran around spreading the word > (which seems out of character) someone other than the people we know > were in the room heard everything and lost no time telling the whole > castle. Who might that have been? > > Inkling The idea is not original to me, but it seems very likely that some of the old Headmasters' portraits spread the word amongst the other portraits in the castle, which in turn passed it on to the students. That the portraits will gossip is illustrated in ch. 16, during the meeting Hermione called in the Hog's Head to discuss forming the DA: "And did you kill a Basilisk with that sword in Dumbledore's office?" demanded Terry Boot. "That's what one of the portraits on the wall told me when I was in there last year..." Just musing on the possibilities, I'm thinking that the Headmasters' portraits can move freely about the castle, although I don't recall that we have seen any do so. On the other hand, security might demand that the other portraits are prevented from entering the Headmaster's office, unless perhaps the Headmaster himself has one of the resident portraits summon them in. Since the Headmasters' portraits are "honor-bound to give service to the present Headmaster of Hogwarts" (ch. 22), one hopes they will curb any tendency to gossip when necessary to keep the Headmaster's secrets. Annemehr From inkling108 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 14:55:03 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:55:03 -0000 Subject: Another Eavesdropper? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121850 Hi, Keth, Tammy, Annemehr, The portraits -- brilliant! I forgot about them. It seems (though we can't be sure) that the headmasters (e.g. Phineas Nigellus) do follow certain rules, only travelling to their other portraits, but if there are portraits of former headmasters in their old house common rooms, word could have spread very quickly indeed. But I still wonder about the breaking glass and frantically scurrying feet. When people are stunned, don't they just keel over - - CLUNK, end of story? Inkling From candlekicks at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 13 15:03:47 2005 From: candlekicks at yahoo.ca (candlekicks) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:03:47 -0000 Subject: Another Eavesdropper? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "inkling108" wrote: > > Hi, Keth, Tammy, Annemehr, > > The portraits -- brilliant! I forgot about them. > > It seems (though we can't be sure) that the headmasters (e.g. > Phineas Nigellus) do follow certain rules, only travelling to their > other portraits, but if there are portraits of former headmasters in > their old house common rooms, word could have spread very quickly > indeed. > > But I still wonder about the breaking glass and frantically > scurrying feet. When people are stunned, don't they just keel over - > - CLUNK, end of story? > > Inkling Linda adds: I always assumed that the breaking glass was a result of the stunners hitting DD's trinkets. The protraits are a very logical source of the leak of information but I don't think that it is totally unlikely that McGonagal mentioned details of DD escape to other teachers, conversations that could have been overheard. She has no respect for Umbridge and has shown that she will act out of character to harass her. The fireworks and giving Peeves her cane and telling Peeves about where to cut the chandelier for example. From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 15:38:55 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:38:55 -0000 Subject: Another Eavesdropper? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121852 Inkling, on what happened during Dumbledore's escape in "The Centaur and the Sneak": > But I still wonder about the breaking glass and frantically > scurrying feet. When people are stunned, don't they just keel over - > - CLUNK, end of story? > > Inkling Annemehr: I never really tried to analyse exactly what happened here. Let's have the whole paragraph and take a look: "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. Coughing in the dust, Harry saw a dark figure fall to the ground with a crash in front of him; there was a shriek and a thud and somebody cried, 'No!'; then there was the sound of breaking glass, frantically scuffling footsteps, a groan...and silence." In the aftermath, we see that Fudge, Umbridge, Dawlish and Shacklebolt are unconcious, Dumbledore, McGonagall and Harry are certainly concious, and McGonagall had forced both Harry and Marietta "out of harms way." Dumbledore's desk has been overturned, there's dust everywhere, and the office is a wreck. But what exactly had Dumbledore done? His spells were two silver streaks of light, so they were not stunners; anyway, as far as we know a stunned person *stays* stunned until someone uses Ennervate on him, but these people woke up on their own. Further, we only see two flashes of this silver light, yet four people went down and the office is in shambles. How did that happen? How did McGonagall keep Harry, Marietta, and herself out of the way of two spells that took care of everything and everyone else in the room? The frantic footsteps also make it sound as though someone had been chased down by a spell before it caught them. Here's another question: McGonagall had kept Marietta out of harm's way, and then afterward McGonagall is described as "getting up and dragging Harry and Marietta with her." So, is Marietta still conscious or not? I can't see McGonagall lifting an unconscious girl one-handed. Yet, just after this, Dumbledore talks freely about having to hex Kingsley, Kingsley's Memory charm on Marietta, and how they must keep it a secret that they have had a few minutes to communicate before Dumbledore leaves -- not something I'd expect him to say in front of Marietta, even if she is afraid to talk now. In the MoM we saw Dumbledore's dueling skills go far beyond what we might have imagined, so I don't have any trouble believing he could have done what he did in this chapter. But JKR has described the event with a lot of detail, and I, like you, am now wondering exactly what she's telling us -- is it just the action from Harry's POV, or are there clues embedded? Perhaps Marietta was meant to hear Dumbledore. Her mother works in the Ministry. Maybe Dumbledore was planning for the day when the Ministry acknowledged Voldemort's return, and wanted Marietta to be able to talk about this to her mother. Or maybe he wanted to let the girl who was a sneak see a little bit more of the stakes involved in what she hadden gotten into. We might well be seeing her in the next book. Annemehr From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 13 15:50:07 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:50:07 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121853 > Renee: > In that case, we seem to be back at the fundamental difference: You can read the HP books as one big mystery novel where unmasking the villain whodunit all is the main objective, and you can read them as, by and large, a symbolical fantasy series of which the separate parts may contain a mystery or two, but where the overall questions remains, how the hero will fulfill his destiny/quest with the aid of others. < Pippin: I don't see those readings as mutually exclusive. Harry was told at the beginning of his quest that the great terror of Voldemort's reign was that people, "Didn't know who ter trust, didn't dare get friendly with strange wizards or witches...terrible things happened." One of Harry's problems along the road is deciding which of his companions he can trust, and the complication is that while he thinks this is easy, "I can tell who the right sort are for myself," in all but a few cases it's been quite difficult. > Renee: > Yes, I recognise the allusion, and we're *meant* to be wary of Lupin after Quirrell and Lockhart, but at the end of PoA the issue is resolved. < Pippin: How can anything about a continuing character be resolved in the third book of a seven book series? JKR is quite fond of her switcheroos. I can't tell you the shivers I got when I read PoA again after OOP and got to where Harry sees the book with the dog on the cover: Death Omens: What To Do When You Know The Worst Is Coming. Yipes! And for three years I'd been smiling at Harry's childish fears. But JKR got the last laugh, didn't she. Renee: >And as I'm not reading the series as a whodunnit but as a fantasy series full of symbolism, I remember that before he made the joke about the chocolate, Lupin's first acts in the book are to spread light in the darkness and to drive away an evil entity. < Pippin: Hasn't JKR said that she doesn't believe anyone is evil in the beginning? What a lovely graphic way to show this in the story! It is essential to ESE!Lupin's tragedy that he have power for good. > Pippin: > > The metaphor of Lupin as JKR gave it was "people's *reactions* to illness" (emphasis mine.) That's a very important distinction, IMO. What she might want to show us, I think, is that both the stigma and the aura of victimization people sometimes employ to counter it are dehumanizing and that it is dehumanization, not disease, that we should fear will turn people into monsters.< > > Renee: > Before I comment on this: You're reading this also as "people's > reactions to their OWN illness?" Pippin: Sort of. The way people react to another's illness has to affect the way the person with the illness regards himself. Consider what Hermione does in PoA. She covers up for Lupin because she trusts him, and because she thinks werewolves get a raw deal. He's a victim and she feels sorry for him. But when Lupin embraces Black, she says, "Don't trust him, he's a werewolf!" Not, "Don't trust him, he's just thrown his arms around a man who wants to kill you! " There's no room in Hermione's cosmos for Lupin to be a desperately wicked *human being*--she only sees him as human as long as she believes he's innocent. It would be a psychological disaster for Lupin to believe this about himself; that his guilty deeds make him not a human who can repent and be released from punishment but a monster who must be destroyed. You asked about Snape: IMO, Dumbledore's pardon is implicit in the words "He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." Pippin From inkling108 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 15:58:46 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:58:46 -0000 Subject: Another Eavesdropper? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121854 > Linda adds: > I always assumed that the breaking glass was a result of the > stunners hitting DD's trinkets. > > The protraits are a very logical source of the leak of information > but I don't think that it is totally unlikely that McGonagal > mentioned details of DD escape to other teachers, conversations that > could have been overheard. She has no respect for Umbridge and has > shown that she will act out of character to harass her. The > fireworks and giving Peeves her cane and telling Peeves about where > to cut the chandelier for example. True, but in those cases she was helping others harass rather than initiating harassment. She is normally such a dignified and discrete person that it's hard to picture her running around saying, "You won't believe what just happened in the headmaster's office..." Inkling From inkling108 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 16:18:00 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:18:00 -0000 Subject: Another Eavesdropper? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121855 > Annemehr wrote: > I never really tried to analyse exactly what happened here. Let's > have the whole paragraph and take a look: > > "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. Coughing in the dust, Harry saw a dark > figure fall to the ground with a crash in front of him; there was a > shriek and a thud and somebody cried, 'No!'; then there was the sound > of breaking glass, frantically scuffling footsteps, a groan...and > silence." > > In the aftermath, we see that Fudge, Umbridge, Dawlish and Shacklebolt > are unconcious, Dumbledore, McGonagall and Harry are certainly > concious, and McGonagall had forced both Harry and Marietta "out of > harms way." Dumbledore's desk has been overturned, there's dust > everywhere, and the office is a wreck. > > But what exactly had Dumbledore done? His spells were two silver > streaks of light, so they were not stunners; anyway, as far as we know > a stunned person *stays* stunned until someone uses Ennervate on him, > but these people woke up on their own. Further, we only see two > flashes of this silver light, yet four people went down and the office > is in shambles. How did that happen? Inkling now: Dumbledore is not specific (he says "I had to hex Kingsley too") about the hex. My impression is that hexes do wear off eventually, though not this quickly. But since he was able to do the hex without an incantation, maybe he was also able to lift it without one as he was leaving. Just checked -- in GoF Winky is stunned by streaks of red light, not silver, so this is not a normal stunning spell, though it behaves in a very similar way. How did McGonagall keep Harry, > Marietta, and herself out of the way of two spells that took care of > everything and everyone else in the room? Maybe McGonagall is familiar enough with Dumbledore's repetoire of hexes that she knows how to deflect them? (snip) > Here's another question: McGonagall had kept Marietta out of harm's > way, and then afterward McGonagall is described as "getting up and > dragging Harry and Marietta with her." So, is Marietta still > conscious or not? I can't see McGonagall lifting an unconscious girl > one-handed. Yet, just after this, Dumbledore talks freely about > having to hex Kingsley, Kingsley's Memory charm on Marietta, and how > they must keep it a secret that they have had a few minutes to > communicate before Dumbledore leaves -- not something I'd expect him > to say in front of Marietta, even if she is afraid to talk now. This bothers me too. Maybe people who have just been hit with a memory spell are so out of it that they don't really process what's going on. Remember Mr. Roberts vauge "Merry Christmas" as Harry and the Weasleys were leaving the World Cup campgrounds? Marietta may be in a similar condition. Inkling From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 15:53:12 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (Rebecca) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:53:12 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121856 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > Pippin wrote: > > > > > > I am in the process of compiling a table of all the clues, but > > briefly, in order to maintain Lupin's innocence you have to believe > > that on the night of the Shrieking Shack he somehow: > > > > forgot he needed his potion > > forgot that he would transform that night > > forgot that Snape would be bringing the potion > > forgot to deactivate the Marauders Map > > did not recognize the Invisibility Cloak although he ran right > past > > it > > forgot when he was due to transform > > > > and was not reminded of any of these things although he > > touched on all of them in an hour of conversations. > > > > Nope, that would make either Lupin or Rowling an idiot. I don't > > think so. > > > It seems to me that this whole ESE!Lupin thing is crazy! I think it's already been covered that the handing out of chocolate was a good thing (Madam Pomfrey certainly approves). The problem seems to be the phrase `I haven't poisoned that chocolate, you know '. Of course, I, like the rest of you, am speculating, but from the view of just a normal human being, I would have said a phrase along those lines was necessary to bring Harry back to the subject of the chocolate. If you look at the passage, Lupin says this after having gone to speak to the driver. When he comes back, he discovers that they haven't touched the chocolate and are still on the subject of the dementors, verging on what you'd expect from someone in shock. Their attention is fully fixed on what has just happened. He wanted to help, so he used the phrase as a way of chiding them for not eating it and to bring their attention to it. As a child, I remember meeting children of my parents friends. I'd not be one to play with them, so my parents would say to me `It's ok. They don't bite you know!'. I'd put Lupin's phrase into that category. Also, if he truly wasn't to be trusted, then why all the help? The only person we know of (so far) to appear to help, but not do is Barty Crouch Jnr as Moody. (`A servant who would guide Harry Potter through the Triwizard Tournament without appearing to do so'). In PoA we see Lupin teaching Harry to fight off dementors. The lessons evidently work as he is able to fight off a number of dementors only a really powerful wizard can. Surely this kind of power is not in LV interest. He could have simply given useless lessons (like Snape's Occlumency lessons were fairly useless, whether or not he meant them to be (currently under discussion I know!)). He had no need to give him the chocolate during the lesson when Harry had collapsed. Snape didn't give this kind of help in his lessons. (In fairness, this is an interesting scene as he seems scared of Harry's memory of his parents being killed, though I suspect I would be if someone was recounting the death of my best friend.) As to the list of things he forgot that night in PoA, I know it seems like a lot, but they are interrelated. I agree with whoever it was who said about it being important for him to forget from JKR's point of view. Even so, if Snape was delivering the potion that night, and he didn't see it there when he left, it could easily have slipped his mind. His mind was (much like Harry's was about the dementors on the train) concentrated on the one thing, to the detriment of all others. I work in a pharmacy. It would probably surprise you the number of people we get in who are asking what they ought to do because they've forgotten to take extremely important medicine. It's certainly a long way removed from uncommon. He volunteers to be part of Harry's guard in OOTP, which would again have been unnecessary and unsuspicious as `a surprising number of people volunteered to come and get [Harry]'. Of course there is always the question of why a werewolf would choose to be on LV side when LV would clearly have been against werewolfs. Also, on the same point, how could a werewolf (or even simply a someone who was a 'blood traitor' by being friends with Lilly Potter) have possibly joined up without a powerful wizard such as LV without him noticing what he was? Again, unlikely. Just a few of my thoughts on the subject. I'm sure someone will correct them for me!! :-) Becky From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 16:40:25 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:40:25 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121857 Carol Wrote: > Unfortunately, grief is no excuse for > bad behavior, whether for Draco > or for Harry. Harry was not misbehaving, he was just defending himself and Snape would know that if he took a few seconds to investigate the matter before handing out punishments. If the situation were reversed you can be certain Snape would look long and hard before he punished Malfoy junior. From the book: "Malfoy glanced around -Harry knew he was checking for signs of teachers -then he looked back at Harry and said in a low voice, 'You're dead, Potter.' [.] 'You're going to pay,' said Malloy in a voice barely louder than a whisper. 'I'm going to make you pay for what you've done to my father.'" Then Harry said Malfoy's father was a scumbag, a perfectly true statement, the man is a scumbag. Back to the book: "Malfoy's hand flew towards his wand, but Harry was too quick for him; he had drawn his own wand before Malfoy's fingers had even entered the pocket of his robes." And that's when Snape showed up proving once and for all that he is a very small man. > this is the WW, and the rules don't change if > you've lost a godparent. Where in the world did you get that idea? Wizard law, or rather the enforcement of the law changes radically from person to person. If you have the favor of the Ministry you can literally get away with murder, if you have their disfavor they'll try to put you in Azkaban for spitting on the sidewalk. Nobody has shown more inconsistencies in enforcing Hogwart' s rules than Snape. > We then get the nice little scene in which McGonagall > returns, Snape welcomes her back with what seems like > genuine good feeling, Boy that's not how I read it! Snape showed genuine respect toward McGonagall, perhaps even a little fear, but I detected not one drop of affection. > Snape quietly accepts the 250 points she > has added for Gryffindor. He had no choice, McGonagall is assistant Headmistress, Snape's boss and probably a more powerful wizard too. > *herself* deducts the ten points for Harry's misbehavior She was trying not to embarrass Snape, McGonagall has a thing about criticizing other professors in front of students. Personally I don't thing Snape deserves such consideration. Eggplant From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 13 17:11:05 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:11:05 -0000 Subject: Another Eavesdropper? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121858 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "inkling108" wrote: Inkling: > How did McGonagall keep Harry, > > Marietta, and herself out of the way of two spells that took care > of > > everything and everyone else in the room? > > Maybe McGonagall is familiar enough with Dumbledore's repetoire of > hexes that she knows how to deflect them? > > (snip) > > Here's another question: McGonagall had kept Marietta out of harm's > > way, and then afterward McGonagall is described as "getting up and > > dragging Harry and Marietta with her." So, is Marietta still > > conscious or not? I can't see McGonagall lifting an unconscious > girl > > one-handed. Yet, just after this, Dumbledore talks freely about > > having to hex Kingsley, Kingsley's Memory charm on Marietta, and > how > > they must keep it a secret that they have had a few minutes to > > communicate before Dumbledore leaves -- not something I'd expect > him > > to say in front of Marietta, even if she is afraid to talk now. Geoff: The interesting point here is, /did/ Professor McGonagall manage to keep Marietta totally out of harm's way? Consider the beginning of the next chapter.... "Everybody knew, for instance, that Harry and Marietta were the only students to have witnessed the scene in Dumbledore's office and, as Marietta was now in the hospital wing, Harry found himself besieged with requests to give a first-hand account." (OOTP "Snape's Worst Memory" p,550 UK edition) Why was she still in the hospital? If it was only a modified memory she was suffering from, maybe a quick check with Madam Pomfrey and a good night's sleep would have sufficed. Was it more than that? Good grief, I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist. Help, let me out.... Geoff http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com Enjoy a virtual visit to the Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway From jennifer_maccherone at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 17:14:14 2005 From: jennifer_maccherone at yahoo.com (nifferhpfan) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:14:14 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121859 > Pippin wrote: > > > > > > I am in the process of compiling a table of all the clues, but > > briefly, in order to maintain Lupin's innocence you have to believe > > that on the night of the Shrieking Shack he somehow: > > > > forgot he needed his potion > > forgot that he would transform that night > > forgot that Snape would be bringing the potion > > forgot to deactivate the Marauders Map > > did not recognize the Invisibility Cloak although he ran right > past it > > forgot when he was due to transform > > > > and was not reminded of any of these things although he > > touched on all of them in an hour of conversations. > > Niffer writes: It seems reasonable to me that he forgot those things after the mind- boggling revelation that Pettigrew is alive and his good friend Sirius, who had suffered in Azkaban for all those years, was innocent and in the area. Just for the record, I don't think that Lupin is ESE. I think he withdrew from touching Harry because he's spent the last 14-16 years being cast about out from place to place without any of his friends to support him or accept his affection. From annemehr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 17:45:32 2005 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:45:32 -0000 Subject: Another Eavesdropper? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121860 Annemehr: Hey, man, this part was me: > > How did McGonagall keep Harry, > > > Marietta, and herself out of the way of two spells that took care > > of > > > everything and everyone else in the room? and Inkling: > > Maybe McGonagall is familiar enough with Dumbledore's repetoire of > > hexes that she knows how to deflect them? and Annemehr again: > > (snip) > > > Here's another question: McGonagall had kept Marietta out of > harm's > > > way, and then afterward McGonagall is described as "getting up and > > > dragging Harry and Marietta with her." So, is Marietta still > > > conscious or not? I can't see McGonagall lifting an unconscious > > girl > > > one-handed. Yet, just after this, Dumbledore talks freely about > > > having to hex Kingsley, Kingsley's Memory charm on Marietta, and > > how > > > they must keep it a secret that they have had a few minutes to > > > communicate before Dumbledore leaves -- not something I'd expect > > him > > > to say in front of Marietta, even if she is afraid to talk now. > Geoff: > The interesting point here is, /did/ Professor McGonagall manage to > keep Marietta totally out of harm's way? > > Consider the beginning of the next chapter.... > > "Everybody knew, for instance, that Harry and Marietta were the only > students to have witnessed the scene in Dumbledore's office and, as > Marietta was now in the hospital wing, Harry found himself besieged > with requests to give a first-hand account." (OOTP "Snape's Worst > Memory" p,550 UK edition) > > Why was she still in the hospital? If it was only a modified memory > she was suffering from, maybe a quick check with Madam Pomfrey and a > good night's sleep would have sufficed. Was it more than that? > > Good grief, I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist. Help, let me out.... > > Geoff Annemehr again: I just assumed Madam Pomfrey kept her for a long time trying to get rid of that nasty case of spots she had. She never managed to, anyway -- later on, Marietta is seen to be going around wearing a balaclava. Let you out? It's quite simple, really. The only foolproof way to prevent turning into a conspiracy theorist is to swear off these books entirely. Go read some nice, normal mystery books or something. Christie, or Sayers perhaps. Conan Doyle. In the end, they explain everything to you all nice and neat and tied up in a bow. Annemehr From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 13 18:23:55 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:23:55 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121861 Carol provided canon: > > "Malfoy glanced around -Harry knew he was checking for > signs of teachers -then he looked back at Harry and said in a > low voice, 'You're dead, Potter.' [.] 'You're going to pay,' > said Malloy in a voice barely louder than a whisper. 'I'm > going to make you pay for what you've done to my father.'" > > Then Harry said Malfoy's father was a scumbag, a perfectly > true statement, the man is a scumbag. Back to the book: > > "Malfoy's hand flew towards his wand, but Harry was too quick > for him; he had drawn his own wand before Malfoy's fingers had > even entered the pocket of his robes." Eggplant replied: > And that's when Snape showed up proving once and for all > that he is a very small man. Potioncat: I think JKR went out of her way to show that Snape was not there when the conversation started and only came out of the dungeon as Harry was drawing his wand. Snape may have had good reason to suspect Malfoy started it. He may have had good reason to think Potter started it. But it's in character for him to punish the Gryffindor student, not the Slytherin. We also do not know what would have happened if McGonagall hadn't come in. He could have sent them ont their way, with a warning about fighting. He could have sent Harry to bed without supper. At any rate, by this time, what's 10 little points? It isn't detention. I think he was breaking up a fight and protecting Harry and Draco from each other. I don't think he was harrassing Harry. > (not attributed)(I think Carol) > > this is the WW, and the rules don't change if > > you've lost a godparent. > > Where in the world did you get that idea? Potioncat: If that was my post or if it was Carol's (we made similar points sometimes it's hard to tell us apart.) the gist was that to McGonagall the rules are the same and she doesn't excuse the behavior because of the grief. She didn't cut the Weasleys or Harry any slack when Draco insulted their mothers. She isn't going to permit fighting now. > Eggplant: > Boy that's not how I read it! Snape showed genuine respect toward > McGonagall, perhaps even a little fear, but I detected not one drop of affection. Potioncat: I think this is one of those cases where our own opinion of the characters colors how we perceive it. And at this point in the story it's up for interpretation (which is my way of saying either of us may be right about it) > (not attributed)(Carol?) > > *herself* deducts the ten points for Harry's misbehavior > Eggplant: > She was trying not to embarrass Snape, McGonagall has a thing about criticizing other professors in front of students. Personally I don't thing Snape deserves such consideration. Potioncat: No she doesn't. She says she shouldn't speak ill of a staff members, but she lets her opinion show and she drops enough hints for most students to know what she thinks.(Think Christmas dinner with Trelawney) And she's countered Snape's punishment before, in front of Harry. (CoS when Mrs. Norris was petrified.) I know Snape is a real jerk. I don't argue that. But I don't think he was torturing Harry in this scene. Potioncat From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 18:51:04 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:51:04 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121862 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla Originally Quted: > > ""Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar > Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare > gift, Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination - a certain > disregard for rules," he added, his mustache quivvering again. "Yet > the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. > Think". -p.333,Cos, paperback. > > I frankly do NOT see any sign of Dumbledore praising those traits. > Salazar prized them, yes, Dumbledore - nope." > Del replies: > > He did call them *qualities*, didn't he? > > This passage is very clear to me, ... considered together with > Harry's Sorting. Each Founder favoured certain specific qualities: > .... Harry has got many of the qualities that Slytherin liked, and > ... many ... Gryffindor liked. ... because he has so many qualities > that belong to different "Founder-sets". ..., the Hat's choice was > ... between Gryffindor and Slytherin, at about 50-50. The Hat > couldn't reach a decision ...Harry's plea determined its choice: > .... > Alla Responds to Del: > > Isn't "quality" a neutral word? > > I will try to qualify again. ALL I was saying that it is unclear in > this passage that Dumbledore was praising Slytherins traits in > Harry. ... > > ... not quite sure that Harry has 50/50 ... Gryff ...Slyth. > > ... Hat did NOT even mention Slytherin at all, till Harry started > begging not to be put in there. ... and of course everybody has some > qualities of different houses ... > > I am just not sure Harry has it 50/50. Personally I think that he > will turn out to be mainly Gryffindor, ..... > Del continues: > Note: a certain disregard for rules is *not* a Gryffindor quality, > .... If it were, neither Percy nor Hermione would have been > Gryffindors, and Neville would be considered a traitor to his > own House ..... > Alla concludes: > > ... not exactly suggesting it, just thinking about it out loud. :o) > > Well, true we have Percy in Gryffindor, but Hermione learned fast to > bend the rules for her needs, did not she? > > For the record, I am not judging her, ... I believe that breaking > the rules for GOOD purpose can be very good thing, but > I still think that "disregard for rules" can be Gryffindor trait. > > Just my opinion, > > Alla bboyminn responding to both Alla and Del: I think in generally 'qualities' are neutral because the /quality/ of the 'qualities' depends on perspective. The qualities cunning and ruthlessness of a Slytherin is a positive thing to a Slytherin, but not so much so to others. I think Dumbledore was simply acknowledging /aspects/ of Harry that parallelled the aspects of Slytherin. There was no implication of /quality/ of qualities judgement (did that make sense?). I don't agree with the 50/50:Gryf/Slyth idea. I think the Sorting Hat knew well where Harry truly belong, but it wanted to make sure Harry knew. In a sense, the Hat tempted Harry with Slytherin, first to see if he would be tempted, and second, to see if he had the courage, scared as he was, to argue with a powerful magical object. I don't think the Hat was as cold and calculated as perhaps I make it sound, but it is the Hat's job to test the students, and get a good sense of them and their obvious and hidden characteristics. In addition, I think the Hat sees far deeper into a student than any person or even the student themselves can see. As in the example of Neville being placed in Gryffindor. I can actually imagine Neville arguing with the Hat /against/ Gryffindor feeling that he was not worthy, but the Hat saw courage in Neville that neither Neville nor his family or friends could see. I think the Hat saw that same courage deep inside Harry, and knew Harry belonged in Gryffindor; again, to some extent, Gryffindor was his destiny. So, that Hat seemed to see far more in Harry than certainly Harry, or his friends, or even we the readers saw in him. He certainly would have done well in Ravenclaw as he has a 'good mind'. We know Harry is not unintelligent, but like a lot of teenage boys he's not highly motivated to study hard and get good grades. But that is a reflection of motivation not potential. Surrounded by other academically motivated students and friends, Harry certainly would have excelled academically. Further, Harry would have done well in Hufflepuff. He's not afraid of hard work when it really counts. So again, immersed in a hard working environment, Harry would have work hard and excelled. Still further, Harry would have done well in Slytherin. Where his ambition to prove himself would have been channeled in more Slytherin-like, but not necessarily bad, ways. When Harry spoke against Slytherin, naturally, the Sorting Hat tested his resolve, but I think the Hat always knew that Harry's skill and destiny lied in Gryffindor. As far as a /disregard for the rules/ being a Gryffindor quality, I don't think so. Draco certainly /disregards/ the rule in a different way than Harry does. Slytherin disregard for the rules is usually for personal good, as in slightly dodgey business practices in the interest of maximizing profits. Harry and Gryffindor on the other hand have more of a sense of WHEN the rule /need/ to be disregarded for the /greater good/. Slytherins have an innate and selfserving (although not always evil) disregard for the rules, Gryffindors have more of a moral and intellectual disregard. Let's face it, the greatest hero in all cultures are people who knew when it was the appropriate time to break the rules. The USA was founded on the very knowledge. When tyranny and greed have corrupted the foundation of the rules, when obeying the rules fosters and encourages that tyranny and corruption, then it is time for good men (and women) to step forward and risk the consequences. Rules are not absolute, they are a mutual agreement by the general members of society as to a reasonable, orderly, stable, and safe society. But there are those who would pervert that mutual agreement to their own selfish evil ends. Then is the time for those few brave souls to risk everything to restore reason and order to the world. We see Harry disregard, bend, and break rules and even laws, but beyond petty mischief, it is alway to his own risk and potential detriment, and for the greater good of others. Slytherins disregard the rules, Gryffindors know WHEN to disregard the rules. Those are functionally similar, both are willing to break the rules, but they are founded in much different motivations. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 13 19:20:10 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:20:10 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121863 Potioncat snipping earlier part of post > > bboyminn responding to both Alla and Del: > > I think in generally 'qualities' are neutral because the /quality/ of > the 'qualities' depends on perspective. The qualities cunning and > ruthlessness of a Slytherin is a positive thing to a Slytherin, but > not so much so to others. I think Dumbledore was simply acknowledging /aspects/ of Harry that parallelled the aspects of Slytherin. There was no implication of /quality/ of qualities judgement (did that make sense?). Potioncat: Excellent post, Steve. I do disagree with the above section. Yes, it's true the word quality can mean aspect and can be neutral. But when one person (usually a doting adult) tells another person (usually a discouraged child or teen) "Look at all your qualities..." The word means "Good points" I think that's what DD is doing. And he is acknowledging (as PuppetMaster!JKR pulls the strings) to the readers that there is good in Slytherin. And, although I snipped it all, I liked the way you showed how Harry could have fit in each of the other Houses. > Steve: > As far as a /disregard for the rules/ being a Gryffindor quality, I > don't think so. Draco certainly /disregards/ the rule in a different way than Harry does. Slytherin disregard for the rules is usually for personal good, as in slightly dodgey business practices in the interest of maximizing profits. Harry and Gryffindor on the other hand have more of a sense of WHEN the rule /need/ to be disregarded for the /greater good/. Potioncat: I only disagree a little here. I think a disregard for the rules describes both Gryffindor and Slytherin. Which of course, doesn't mean Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws never break rules. But I've seen some of the "for the personal good, slightly dodgey buisness practices" performed by two ginger haired Gryffindors. ;-) Steve: Let's face it, the greatest hero in all > cultures are people who knew when it was the appropriate time to break the rules. Just a few thoughts. > Potioncat: Agreed Potioncat wonders how she ends up defending Slytherins so much when she really only likes 2 of them. From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Thu Jan 13 19:21:31 2005 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:21:31 -0000 Subject: Slazar &Slytherin: Quatlity of Qualities Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121864 Steve wrote:In a sense, the Hat tempted Harry with Slytherin, first to see if he would be tempted, and second, to see if he had the courage,scared as he was, to argue with a powerful magical object. Miz Storge replies: I may have missed an earlier post, but I think the Hat suggested Slytherin House simply because it saw Voldemort lurking in Harry. Remember, Harry had used Parseltongue to speak to the snake at the zoo, and I assume that's our earliest hint that LV is in his head. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 20:11:25 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:11:25 -0000 Subject: Slazar &Slytherin: Quatlity of Qualities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121865 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mizstorge" wrote: > > Steve wrote:In a sense, the Hat tempted Harry with Slytherin, first to see if he would be tempted, and second, to see if he had the courage,scared as he was, to argue with a powerful magical object. > > Miz Storge replies: I may have missed an earlier post, but I think > the Hat suggested Slytherin House simply because it saw Voldemort > lurking in Harry. Remember, Harry had used Parseltongue to speak to the snake at the zoo, and I assume that's our earliest hint that LV is in his head. Tonks here: I think it is both, but mostly temptation. The hat offered him "you could be great you know", or something like that. Don't have my book here. Of course, I see it like one of the temptations of Christ. Tonks_op From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 17:38:45 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:38:45 -0000 Subject: More About Snape and Occlumency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121866 >Jocelyn writes: >In OotP, Hermione is blasted by a slash of purple fire and seriously >injured - and the spell was cast by someone who couldn't speak at >the time. (page 698 in my copy) I was watching the first movie last night and recalled the time when Harry removed the glass from the snake cage. At the time, he knew no formal magic, had no wand, and made no sound at all. That makes me wonder if a wand and/or incantation is even necessary. (Of course, glass removal is probably a pretty simple spell)... Has this been discussed before? I've only been on here a week... Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 17:19:14 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:19:14 -0000 Subject: Harry shouldn't see Thestrals Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121867 >SSSusan writes: >Actually, no, unless you're saying that you think JKR is lying, it's >not that she didn't think of it in time. Rather, she said it didn't >seem fair to introduce them at the END of a book. Thanks for looking this up, Susan. Frankly, I did think she was lying (and she can lie whenever she wants, in my opinion), but this finally makes sense to me. They are definitely cool creatures it makes sense that she wanted to withhold them until she could bring them into the story. On the other hand, I think it would have been a great tease to mention them in passing at the end of Book Four and make us all wait until Book Five to find out what they were. However, I'm not the one writing the books, so I should probably just shut up now. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 17:06:41 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:06:41 -0000 Subject: JKR and Occlumency lessons (was Re: Snape and Occlumency) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121868 >Alla writes: >What IS incredibly hard to accept FOR ME is the the fact that >Dumbledore could be so NOT INTELLIGENT and misjudge the extent of >Snape' hatred for James and Harry and Harry's hatred for Snape that >badly. I've been thinking about this and have tried to go back and find out HOW Dumbledore could know about the depth of the animosity between these two. We tend to give Dumbledore a bit too much credit sometimes - he's not omniscient. WE know how much Snape hates Harry and his friends, as we were there when Snape was an obstacle to Harry, when Snape was downright vicious to Hermione, when Snape has done every nasty thing that Snape has done. When has Dumbledore been a witness to this? He knows Harry doesn't like and doesn't trust Snape. He knows Snape doesn't like Harry (and most likely attributes this to his resemblance to James) but he hasn't been present for most of the conflicts between the two of them. Nicky Joe From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 20:21:59 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:21:59 -0000 Subject: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM (was: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: <20050110201422.55587.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121869 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > Dungrollin: > >>Chapter thirty-five: Beyond the Veil "Black shapes > were emerging out of thin air all around them, > blocking their way left and right; eyes glinted > through slits in hoods, a dozen lit wandtips were > pointing directly at their hearts; Ginny gave a gasp > of horror." > > >>An interesting question is what was happening there. > There's no cracking noise remeniscent of apparation, > but similarly you'd expect both Harry and the narrator > to recognise invisibility cloaks, ... > Juli: > ... they (DE's) had to be there long before the kids > because they took care of everyone working there, > including Eric the security guy. They could have been > anywhere in the DoM, just close enough to see Harry > get the prophesy and there interfere. > > Juli bboyminn: I've always speculated that the sound heard when someone Apparates is proportional to the effort they put into Apparating. For example, Dumbledore is an extremely powerful, experienced, and talented wizard, when he Apparates, you hear hardly more than the sound of the swishing of a cloak. So, what effects effort? The Twins make trememdous noise when they Apparate, but they are new at it, and in addition, they like to show off, so I suspect they put as much effort into it as possible, even when the situation is relatively effortless, because they like to make noise and show off. Also, it seems reasonable that to Apparate from London to Los Angeles takes much much much more effort than Apparating 5 feet. So, a loud BANG if you hope to make it to Los Angeles, but a faint 'pop' to get the next room. I suspect the Death Eaters were hiding in an adjacent room looking out at the location of the Prophecy. When the kids were there and the time was right, they Apparated the 10 or 20 feet and moved in surrounding the kids. That's a small distance requiring a small effort and therefore made only a faint noise. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 20:30:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:30:59 -0000 Subject: Another Eavesdropper? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121870 Inkling: snip. .... someone other than the people we know were in the room heard everything and lost no time telling the whole castle. Who might that have been? Alla: As many have suggested, portraits are the bets guess to me also, but out of pure speculation - was Dobby anywhere close by any chance? Alla From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 13 21:05:59 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:05:59 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (and a little about Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121871 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Renee: > > You can read the HP books as one big mystery novel > where unmasking the villain whodunit all is the main objective, > and you can read them as, by and large, a symbolical fantasy > series of which the separate parts may contain a mystery or two, > but where the overall questions remains, how the hero will fulfill > his destiny/quest with the aid of others. < > > Pippin: > I don't see those readings as mutually exclusive. Harry was told > at the beginning of his quest that the great terror of Voldemort's > reign was that people, "Didn't know who ter trust, didn't dare get > friendly with strange wizards or witches...terrible things > happened." One of Harry's problems along the road is deciding > which of his companions he can trust, and the complication is > that while he thinks this is easy, "I can tell who the right sort are > for myself," in all but a few cases it's been quite difficult. Renee: Sure, the series can have elements of both. But when it comes to determining what the main issue is, people will have to make a decision, and the readers' ranks will be divided. 'Who is to be distrusted?' is the typical question of the mystery novel. Who's lying? Who's hiding something? Who among all the slippery types is the real villain? In a symbolical fantasy novel, trust is one issue among many, the main question being, IMO, how the main character will achieve his quest/do what has to do/ become what he's destined to be. The ESE!Lupin theory is clearly answering the whodunit kind of question by creating a supervillain who - was behind the Shrieking Shack incident with Snape - joined the Death Eaters, betraying his greatest benefactor, Dumbledore - betrayed his friends the Potters to Voldemort, misleading their Secret Keeper - killed a dozen Muggles - framed his friend Sirius - sent the Lestranges to torture the Longbottoms - destroyed a couple of innocent Boggarts, not to mention the vanished Grindylow - framed and was ready to kill his friend Peter - killed Bertha Jorkins, probably as a werewolf during the full moon - killed Cedric Diggory under his codename Wormtail - bit the werewolf at the Dai Llewellyn ward of St. Mungo's - killed his friend Sirius in the MoM He probably also tempted the werewolf to bite him when he was a child, introduced Quirrel to Voldemort, passed Tom Riddle's diary on to Lucius Malfoy instructing to put it in Ginny's cauldron, inspired Barty Crouch jr. to pose as Mad-eye Moody during the Quidditch World Cup (Lupin must have been one of the death-eaters there), provided Umbridge with a few Dementors (he can easily control them with his ESE!Patronus) and sent Kreacher to the Malfoys? Truly a villain of Luciferan proportions. Come to think of it, they share the first syllable of their names! And Lucifer started out like an angel of light, if I recall correctly, which would explain Lupin's first appearance as a lightbearer! Wow. But this Lupin far outshines Voldemort as the bad guy, and if he really exists, he'll probably overshadow Harry Potter, too, at the end - in whodunits, villains of this stature do have the tendency to occupy the centre of the stage at the end. So what it boils down to, I guess, is that I'm simply refusing to believe in the HP series as a whodunit with such a demasque at the end. I'm afraid no amount of theorising will bridge the gap between my HP series and yours. > > Renee: > > Yes, I recognise the allusion, and we're *meant* to be wary of > Lupin after Quirrell and Lockhart, but at the end of PoA the issue > is resolved. < > > Pippin: > How can anything about a continuing character be resolved in > the third book of a seven book series? Eh... the question whether Snape is after Harry's life, in PS/SS? Who Tom Riddle was in CS? Who Scabbers really was, in PoA? Why Hagrid is so huge, in GoF? The secret of Snape's past, also in GoF? Where we've got Fudge, in OotP? Why people were so ready to believe Sirius was a Dark Wizard, also in OotP? > > Pippin: > > > The metaphor of Lupin as JKR gave it was "people's > *reactions* to illness" (emphasis mine.) That's a very important > distinction, IMO. What she might want to show us, I think, is that > both the stigma and the aura of victimization people > sometimes employ to counter it are dehumanizing and that it is > dehumanization, not disease, that we should fear will turn > people into monsters.< > > Pippin: > The way people react to another's illness has to affect the > way the person with the illness regards himself. Consider what > Hermione does in PoA. She covers up for Lupin because she > trusts him, and because she thinks werewolves get a raw deal. > He's a victim and she feels sorry for him. > > But when Lupin embraces Black, she says, "Don't trust him, > he's a werewolf!" Not, "Don't trust him, he's just thrown his arms > around a man who wants to kill you! " There's no room in > Hermione's cosmos for Lupin to be a desperately wicked > *human being*--she only sees him as human as long as she > believes he's innocent. > > It would be a psychological disaster for Lupin to believe this > about himself; that his guilty deeds make him not a human who > can repent and be released from punishment but a monster who > must be destroyed. Renee: It would, if he did believe it. But I see no indication that he does; I rather see him confess his wrongdoings and shortcomings on several occasions. That something is possible in general doesn't mean it has happened in any particular case. Also, there's nothing new in the message that a dehumanising treatment often results in inhuman behaviour. What makes you think JKR isn't writing the opposite: an example of someone who is eventually able to rise above this kind of treatment? I actually think Lupin might be able to help Harry - also treated badly by various parties, to the point of being distrusted and socially stigmatised - to do so. Pippin: > You asked about Snape: IMO, Dumbledore's pardon is implicit in > the words "He is now no more a Death Eater than I am." Renee: That statement still doesn't tell me if Snape has asked for pardon. I consider Dumbledore perfectly capable of accepting a Snape who returns to him saying no more than `I changed my mind', as long as he's sure Snape *has* changed his mind, and knows he had a very good reason to do so. Maybe it has nothing to do with contrition. From manawydan at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 13 21:19:15 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:19:15 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] All about Lupin References: <1105563282.24867.98553.m23@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000d01c4f9b5$8a6b4860$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 121872 Pippin speculated: >I wonder if JKR is planning to show people in the WW who >identify with Lupin too, and deal with their possible >disillusionment, if he turns out to be evil. There's an Agatha >Christie story where the murderer turns out to be the head of a >respected clinic who was campaigning against the stigma of >mental illness. The denouement revolved around neutralizing >this person without discrediting his work and his clinic. The photograph on the back of my copy of OoP shows JKR against her bookshelves and there are a number of Agatha Christie novels there, so obviously she's familiar with the Christie style. Has anyone ever discussed possible parallels with Agatha Christie's plot devices? (not an area that I know a lot about, apart from the fact that they tend to feature small fastidious Belgians - the next DADA teacher, perhaps?) Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 13 21:28:49 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:28:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion - Harry (7) Message-ID: <20050113212849.30141.qmail@web25109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121873 Leaving the unconscious Ron behind, Harry and Hermione enter a room where they are trapped by fire and can go neither forwards nor backwards until they solve a logic puzzle. Obviously it is Hermione who solves the puzzle, as she personifies the renewed mind. My interpretation of this symbolism is that an apprentice alchemist must act with intelligence if progress is to be made. Although the heart, the centre of the new soul, always takes the initiative on the Path, the head must ensure the candidate takes logical and intelligent actions. Together they succeed. I just want to digress slightly and ask you all a question. This is a short extract from the book: 'Hermione's lip trembled, and she suddenly dashed at Harry and threw her arms around him. "Hermione!" "Harry -- you're a great wizard, you know." "I'm not as good as you," said Harry, very embarrassed, as she let go of him. "Me!" said Hermione. "Books! And cleverness! There are more important things -- friendship and bravery and -- oh Harry -- be careful!"' As you can see above, Hermione says, "Friendship and bravery and --" And what? Ever since the first time I read this I've thought that she was going to say, "love", but was too embarrassed to say it. I thought it was obvious, in fact, that everyone else would think the same. After some years now I've found that no one else has this thought at all. My question to you is, what do you think is the missing word? Back to Harry. There is only one draft of the magic potion to get into the next room, so Harry goes in alone. The new soul has to face this trial alone. Whenever the soul is facing a be all and end all situation, it has to act on its own inner strength. When Harry enters the next room he meets a man with two faces - one in front and one behind. I believe this is to indicate that the higher self (microcosmic self) is both good and evil. This is why the man says, "There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it...." As I said in my discussion of Voldemort, the microcosmic self is impersonal and knows no good or evil, just power. Morality is not in its dictionary. It's not programmed that way. Harry is able to take the stone out of the Mirror of Erised because he doesn't want to use the stone. I believe this symbolises the liberation of the soul from ATTACHMENT to the physical plane. The stone can make gold and the elixir of life. In other words, the owner of the stone can live an unending life in perfect health, with all the luxury he wants. I have written the word "attachment" in capital letters because there could be some misunderstanding about what I said. I didn't say there was anything wrong with the physical plane. I said that Harry overcomes his ATTACHMENT to it. In other words, he is not its slave, but has become its master. He is not subject to desires that shackle him to the physical world. The seventh cosmic plane in its present state has fallen below the vibration rate of the original sevenfold House of God, due to the Fall (or, if you like, the descent) of man. This whole universe is therefore "kindled in wrath" as Jacob Boehme puts it. This whole universe, including the physical, the etheric, the astral, the mental, and the three planes of the consciousness are all situated outside of the Divine Plan. Tao is not in them. Nirvana is outside of them. The Kingdom of Heaven is not in here. Our purpose is to LEAVE all the seven sub-planes of the seventh cosmic plane and re-enter the Divine Universe, the Sixth Cosmic Plane. That, in my humble opinion, is what Harry Potter is telling us. This is what I've been trying to tell the world and I haven't finished yet. As I have said several times in earlier posts, the human being is bound to this universe with seven chains. One chain is to the physical plane, one to the etheric plane, one to the astral, and so on. I have been saying that each book successively shows Harry's liberation from one of the seven chains. In my series of posts on Harry I will show how Harry liberates himself from another chain each time. 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 happydogue at aol.com Thu Jan 13 21:40:14 2005 From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:40:14 -0500 Subject: Feast Day of St. Mungo Message-ID: <6E8E04E1.360DA3B7.0B4B226A@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121874 Today, January 14th is the feast day of St. Mungo who is the patron of Glasgow. The Scottish monk came to the aid of his queen who had lost the ring of the king. One of Mungo's monks went fishing and immediately caught a salmon with the ring in its mouth. Mungo was less popular, however, with his flock, and it has been suggested that his name Mungo meaning "darling" was bestowed in irony. He died while taking a bath. (Taken from the St. a day calendar) From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 13 21:45:05 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:45:05 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121875 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Renee: > > >And as I'm not reading the series as a whodunnit but as a > fantasy series full of symbolism, I remember that before he > made the joke about the chocolate, Lupin's first acts in the book > are to spread light in the darkness and to drive away an evil > entity. < > > Pippin: > Hasn't JKR said that she doesn't believe anyone is evil in the > beginning? What a lovely graphic way to show this in the story! It > is essential to ESE!Lupin's tragedy that he have power for good. Renee: I've no idea why I overlooked this in my first reply to your post. But I think it's a good illustration of different ways of reading. I see this as a symbolical way to indicate what we are to make of this character. It doesn't immediately hit home because when it happens you're eager to read on and don't dwell too long on details, but on rereading, knowing what you know, it suddenly becomes obvious. At least, in my experience. Apparently you see it as no more than an illustration of a general belief that JKR shares with a great number of others (among them JRR Tolkien, who puts something like it in Gandalf's mouth). Never mind that this isn't exactly ESE!Lupin's beginning and that he's already supposed to be evil at this stage, according to your theory. I must confess that I fail to understand this interpretation, this way of reading. It simply doesn't make sense to me. From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 13 21:54:42 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:54:42 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121876 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: Carol: > > Unfortunately, grief is no excuse for > > bad behavior, whether for Draco > > or for Harry. eggplant: > Harry was not misbehaving, he was just defending himself and Snape > would know that if he took a few seconds to investigate the matter > before handing out punishments. If the situation were reversed you > can be certain Snape would look long and hard before he punished > Malfoy junior. Geoff: Interestingly, I've always had a slightly different take from other posters on Harry's comment. Canon tells us: '"Potter!" The voice rang across the Entrance Hall. Snape had emerged form the staircase leading down to his office and at the sight of him Harry felt a great rush of hatred beyond anything he felt towards Malfoy.... whatever Dumbledore said, he would never forgive Snape.... never.... "What are you doing, Potter?" said Snape, as coldly as ever, as he strode over to the four of them. "I'm trying to decide what curse to use on Malfoy, sir," said Harry fiercely.' (OOTP "The Second War Begins" p.750 UK edition) Harry has this wave of anger, then Snape asks what might be considered a silly question. I tend to interpret Harry's comment as being a change from a rush of hatred to a cold fury and giving a sarcastic answer very tongue-in- cheek; it is almost a way of telling Snape to get stuffed without actually being blatantly rude.... That might be my reaction in such a situation. Geoff http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com Enjoy a virtual visit to the Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 22:11:29 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:11:29 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121877 Geoff: Interestingly, I've always had a slightly different take from other posters on Harry's comment. Canon tells us: '"Potter!" The voice rang across the Entrance Hall. Snape had emerged form the staircase leading down to his office and at the sight of him Harry felt a great rush of hatred beyond anything he felt towards Malfoy.... whatever Dumbledore said, he would never forgive Snape.... never.... "What are you doing, Potter?" said Snape, as coldly as ever, as he strode over to the four of them. "I'm trying to decide what curse to use on Malfoy, sir," said Harry fiercely.' (OOTP "The Second War Begins" p.750 UK edition) Harry has this wave of anger, then Snape asks what might be considered a silly question. I tend to interpret Harry's comment as being a change from a rush of hatred to a cold fury and giving a sarcastic answer very tongue-in- cheek; it is almost a way of telling Snape to get stuffed without actually being blatantly rude.... That might be my reaction in such a situation. Alla: It does make sense to me,Geoff. Are you saying that this is an attitude Harry has towards Snape at the moment? Cold fury and sarcasm, instead of losing his "cool" when Snape provokes him? If it is so, I frankly would love Harry to keep such attitude towards Snape for a little more, till as we all know he will forgive him. :o) I also have to acknowledge if that is how Snape interpreted Harry's remark, I would not expect him to be very nice towards Harry, but then - whatever works to give Snape the taste of his own medicine. :o) Just my opinion, Alla From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 13 22:13:13 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:13:13 -0000 Subject: Feast Day of St. Mungo In-Reply-To: <6E8E04E1.360DA3B7.0B4B226A@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121878 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, happydogue at a... wrote: > Today, January 14th is the feast day of St. Mungo who is the patron of Glasgow. The Scottish monk came to the aid of his queen who had lost the ring of the king. One of Mungo's monks went fishing and immediately caught a salmon with the ring in its mouth. Mungo was less popular, however, with his flock, and it has been suggested that his name Mungo meaning "darling" was bestowed in irony. He died while taking a bath. (Taken from the St. a day calendar) Geoff: There are a few more bits and pieces of useless information which might be of interest in a thread titled "Side Note: St.Mungo's" which begins at message 79361. From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 23:05:47 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:05:47 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121879 bboyminn wrote: "I think Dumbledore was simply acknowledging /aspects/ of Harry that parallelled the aspects of Slytherin. There was no implication of /quality/ of qualities judgement (did that make sense?)." Del replies: It makes sense in itself, but it doesn't make sense to me in the context. Harry was feeling low because he was *afraid* he might be a better Slytherin than Gryffindor. So DD telling him "Oh yeah, you do have a lot of what you yourself consider as Slytherin bad traits" wouldn't be exactly *helping* IMO. I personally think that DD was telling him that, yes, he did have those traits, but that he should consider them as positive traits, and that they weren't even his only good traits. Bboyminn wrote: "I don't agree with the 50/50:Gryf/Slyth idea. I think the Sorting Hat knew well where Harry truly belong, but it wanted to make sure Harry knew. In a sense, the Hat tempted Harry with Slytherin, first to see if he would be tempted, and second, to see if he had the courage, scared as he was, to argue with a powerful magical object. " Del replies: To me, when the Hat confirmed in CoS that Harry had been hard to place, it sure didn't sound like the Hat had known all along where he was going to place him. Even if the Hat had indeed been playing a guessing game with Harry during his Sorting in order to test him, why would it keep on playing that game more than a year later, when Harry was definitely a member of one House? Especially considering that Harry was having doubts about his Sorting, and that he had turned to the Hat for *reassurance*! It would have been very cruel for the Hat to keep playing its guessing game *then*, if it knew all along that Harry was a true Gryffindor. Sure Harry reacted the right way, by telling the Hat that it was wrong, but that wouldn't diminish the nastiness of the Hat's lie, if its saying that Harry had been hard to place was indeed a lie. Personally, I'd rather think that the Hat has been honest all along, and that Harry was a very good candidate for Slytherin as well as Gryffindor. Bboyminn wrote: "I don't think the Hat was as cold and calculated as perhaps I make it sound, but it is the Hat's job to test the students, and get a good sense of them and their obvious and hidden characteristics." Del replies: I disagree that it is the Hat's job to test the students. Its job is simply to put the students where they belong. From what I can remember, we've never been privy as to what method(s), if any, it uses to do that. Bboyminn wrote: "Slytherins disregard the rules, Gryffindors know WHEN to disregard the rules. Those are functionally similar, both are willing to break the rules, but they are founded in much different motivations. " Del replies: I disagree. In PoA, for example, Harry bent the rules for his own very private profit when he went to Hogsmeade without authorisation. In GoF, he went roaming the castle at night for his own interest, when he went to the Prefects' bathroom. In OoP, he broke into Umbridge's office for his own interest. I think that Harry is a true Slytherin *on that matter* : he disregards the rules in general. And as Potioncat already mentioned, the Twins spend A LOT of time breaking the rules for their own interest. As for the Slytherins, apart from Draco and his two buddies, we rarely see any of them breaking rules that the other Houses (especially Gryffindor) don't break just as much, like fighting in the corridors. The one place where I remember them getting really nasty is on the Quidditch pitch, but then I also remember a Gryffindor captain telling his Seeker on one occasion to catch the Snitch or die trying, and on another occasion to use any method to prevent the opposite Seeker (Cho) from getting to the Snitch. Of course, one could argue that Quidditch is precisely one of those occasions where breaking the rules is appropriate ;-) Del, who is quite a Hermione where Quidditch is concerned, and heartily supported her when she criticised its effect on the inter-House relationships in OoP :-) From inkling108 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 23:07:36 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:07:36 -0000 Subject: More About Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121880 Nicky Joe wrote: > I was watching the first movie last night and recalled the time when > Harry removed the glass from the snake cage. At the time, he knew no > formal magic, had no wand, and made no sound at all. That makes me > wonder if a wand and/or incantation is even necessary. (Of course, > glass removal is probably a pretty simple spell)... Has this been > discussed before? I've only been on here a week... > In one of her interviews (forget which one, sorry) JKR something to the effect that a wizard can do some minor magic without a wand, in fact without even realizing it, if s(he) is feeling strong emotion, but serious magic requires a wand. I've been assuming all along that not all incantations are spoken, because there are too many places in the books where powerful magic is done without speaking, as in the examples already cited and also at such key moments as when Lupin and Sirius transform Scabbers back into Peter in the Shrieking Shack. Still I have been assuming that in these cases there is either a mental incantation, or an image, or some other way of focussing attention toward a specific end. Possible real world analogy: In Eastern spiritual traditions, mantras, which are words of power, are powerful whether they are spoken or only thought. It is the mental concentration that counts. Inkling From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 19:45:34 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:45:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slazar &Slytherin: Quatlity of Qualities In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050113194534.15922.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121881 > Steve wrote:In a sense, the Hat tempted Harry with > Slytherin, first > to see if he would be tempted, and second, to see if > he had the > courage,scared as he was, to argue with a powerful > magical object. > > Miz Storge replied: I may have missed an earlier > post, but I think > the Hat suggested Slytherin House simply because it > saw Voldemort > lurking in Harry. Remember, Harry had used > Parseltongue to speak to > the snake at the zoo, and I assume that's our > earliest hint that LV > is in his head. Juli: But I think Harry has much more qualities of a Slytherin member than just the parseltongue. "Professor," he started again after a moment. "The Sorting Hat told me I'd -- Id have done well in Slytherin. Everyone thought I was Slytherin's heir for a while ... because I can speak Parseltongue .... "You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "because Lord Voldemort -- who is the last remaining ancestor of Salazar Slytherin -- can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure .... "Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so." "So I should be in Slytherin," Harry said, looking desperately into Dumbledore's face. "The Sorting Hat could see Slytherin's power in me, and it --" "Put you in Gryffindor," said Dumbledore calmly. "Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his handpicked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination -- a certain disregard for rules," he added, his mustache quivering again. "Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think." "It only put me in Gryffindor," said Harry in a defeated voice, "because I asked not to go in Slytherin . . . ." (CoS) I wanted to quote this just to state my point (just as Steve said before), Harry has more qualities of Slytherin than parseltongue. Slytherin is not an evil house per se, it's just it's reputation, mostly because of Voldemort and his followers, other houses have also produced dark wizards: Peter Pettigrew was Gryfindor, and in Pippin is right about the ESE!Lupin theory, he's also Gryffindor. By thw way, here's the deffinition on Quality from Merriam-Webster: Etymology: Middle English qualite, from Old French qualit, from Latin qualitat-, qualitas, from qualis of what kind; akin to Latin qui who -- more at WHO 1 a : peculiar and essential character : NATURE b : an inherent feature : PROPERTY c : CAPACITY, ROLE 2 a : degree of excellence : GRADE b : superiority in kind It clearly states that it is neither a good or a bad thing, it's just a property, But the way DD says it, it seems, at least to me, that he thinks those are good qualities. Juli __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From klevasseur at earthlink.net Fri Jan 14 00:15:33 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:15:33 -0000 Subject: Suggestions please: Mysteries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121882 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol earlier: > > ...edited... > > > > > And for all we know, Winky in her mistaken kindness to poor young > Master let Barty Jr. practice magic under the cover of his > invisibility cloak. We know that he had periods when the Imperius > Curse was weak, and the Imperius Curse didn't prevent him from > maturing physically, so probably it didn't prevent the natural > maturation of his magical powers, either. > > > > Juli: > > > > But I don't think Barty Jr did any magic while under > > the Imperius curse, here's the quote from GoF, Ch 35 > > > > "But Winky didn't know that I was growing stronger. I > > was starting to fight my father's Imperius Curse. > > There were times when I was almost myself again. There > > were brief periods when I seemed outside his control. > > It happened, there, in the Top Box. It was like waking > > from a deep sleep. I found myself out in public, in > > the > > middle of the match, and I saw, in front of me, a wand > > sticking out of a boys pocket. I had not been allowed > > a wand since before Azkaban. I stole it. Winky > > didn't know. > > > > This means he didn't do any magic, at least any > > wand-magic, he could have done some wandless, but I > > doubt it. Barty must have learned the Dark Arts when > > he joined the DEs, afterwards he was sent to jail, > > then imperio'd by his father, then he went to Hogwarts > > as Moody so this doesn't leave much time to learn much > > magic. > > > > Juli > >Hi everyone!, I am re-reading GoF and I noticed something that may be important to this discussion about Crouch Jr., When Mr. Crouch, Sr comes stumbing out of the Forbidden Forest after escaping from LV and he is talking to the tree...he says something very interesting, He says that his son received 12 OWLS...yes, we are very proud of him. So, doesn't this mean that Barty Jr., had the potential, even at Hogwarts to be a very powerful wizard? He had it in him, and probably would have learned Dark Arts from the DE's very quickly. I had thought it unlikely, at first that he would have been able to REALLy participate in the torture and what not that the DE's were doing, but now that I have noticed this little phrase, I have to re-think my first supposition. From hallisallimalli at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 00:19:11 2005 From: hallisallimalli at yahoo.com (halli) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:19:11 -0000 Subject: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121883 > > Betsy: And if Narcissa is about Lucius' age (which puts them in the same age group as Arthur and Molly Weasley, I think) why did they wait so long to have a child? Halli: I would just like to point out that that would most definently *not* put them in Molly and Arthurs age group. In fact, they are *much* younger. I don't have my book with me, but in GOF, when Molly comes to Hogwarts just before the third task, and Harry takes them on a tour, she reminises about the groundskeeper before Hagrid, a man named 'Ogg' I think. Which means shes older than Hagrid and Tom, and since they were (I think) 61 in COS if my calclations are correct, she had to have graduated at least a year before Hagrids expulsion, making her... at least 5 or 6 years older than him. -Halli From kirsty_lowson at yahoo.com Thu Jan 13 20:38:27 2005 From: kirsty_lowson at yahoo.com (Kirsty Lowson) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:38:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050113203827.7292.qmail@web53704.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121884 Carol Wrote: > > > Unfortunately, grief is no excuse for > > bad behavior, whether for Draco > > or for Harry. Eggplant: > Harry was not misbehaving, he was just > defending himself and Snape > would know that if he took a few seconds to > investigate the matter > before handing out punishments. Kirsty: But what did Snape see? Harry, wand out, ready to hex; Malfoy, wand *not* out (yet). He didn't hear or see the exchange between Harry and Draco. He asks Harry what he's doing. Reply "I'm trying to decide what hex to use on Malfoy, Sir." (p750 UK edition). Even to the neutral teacher, this sounds like a simple confession. I agree that any teacher worth their salt would investigate *why*, but Snape has his little prejudices and takes this as barely-concealed insolence. Eggplant: >If the > situation were reversed you > can be certain Snape would look long and hard > before he punished > Malfoy junior. Kirsty: Well, yes. But then, this is his pet pupil (from what we've seen). Eggplant: > Then Harry said Malfoy's father was a scumbag, > a perfectly > true statement, the man is a scumbag. Kirsty: Draco doesn't see his Dad that way, and he's incensed. Natural reaction (I don't think especially badly of him for his reactions at the end of OOtP -- they're pretty typical reactions for someone who's lost one close to them and is a blaming-sort of person). Eggplant: >[McGonagall]*herself* deducts the ten points for Harry's > misbehavior > > She was trying not to embarrass Snape, > McGonagall has a thing about > criticizing other professors in front of > students. Personally I > don't thing Snape deserves such consideration. Kirsty: But then, McGonagall's one of the old school -- she's got stereotypical Scottish traits of wry humour and a tight rein on her emotions. Can't wait till her temper fully explodes -- I'm betting it'll be one to rival Snape's. I can't wait for the OOtP-MWHNBM (medium which must not be mentioned), to hear Maggie Smith deliver McGonagall's humour...I can hear her voice now (or that might be my old English teacher, who hsa an accent unnervingly like Smith's...) Kirsty ===== "If men are always wrong, what does that mean when he tells a woman she looks beautiful?" From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 14 00:24:38 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:24:38 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (and a little about Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121885 > Renee: . The ESE!Lupin theory is clearly answering the whodunit kind > of question by creating a supervillain who > > - was behind the Shrieking Shack incident with Snape > - joined the Death Eaters, betraying his greatest benefactor, > Dumbledore > - betrayed his friends the Potters to Voldemort, misleading their > Secret Keeper > - killed a dozen Muggles > - framed his friend Sirius > - sent the Lestranges to torture the Longbottoms > - destroyed a couple of innocent Boggarts, not to mention the > vanished Grindylow > - framed and was ready to kill his friend Peter > - killed Bertha Jorkins, probably as a werewolf during the full moon > - killed Cedric Diggory under his codename Wormtail > - bit the werewolf at the Dai Llewellyn ward of St. Mungo's > - killed his friend Sirius in the MoM Pippin: My, my, you *have* been paying attention. I'm flattered! Renee: > > Truly a villain of Luciferan proportions. Come to think of it, they > share the first syllable of their names! And Lucifer started out > like an angel of light, if I recall correctly, which would explain > Lupin's first appearance as a lightbearer! Wow. > > But this Lupin far outshines Voldemort as the bad guy, and if he really exists, he'll probably overshadow Harry Potter, too, at the end - < Pippin: thus the favorite character sobriquet Renee: in whodunits, villains of this stature do have the tendency to occupy the centre of the stage at the end. So what it boils down to, I guess, is that I'm simply refusing to believe in the HP series as a whodunit with such a demasque at the end. I'm afraid no amount of theorising will bridge the gap between my HP series and yours. Pippin: I dunno -- LOTR is high fantasy. But consider Saruman. He's introduced as the Head of the Order, the White Wizard who drove the Enemy out of Mirkwood. A light bringer, and one who drove away an evil entity, eh? Even though he's already supposed to be succumbing to evil at this point and there's a hint or two that Gandalf would be wise to trust him less than he does. But even though he doublecrosses Gandalf and Theoden, is responsible for the deaths of Boromir and slew of lesser characters, and dies in the last ditch (pace Peter Jackson), he doesn't for a moment threaten Sauron's place as the arch-villain. It's Sauron who corrupted him and inspires his every move, even when Saruman thinks he's acting for himself, and Sauron who preoccupies the heroes. Saruman could easily overshadow the Hobbits if Tolkien let him, but he doesn't. By the time "Sharkey" is unmasked, in a tiny but nonetheless distinguishable mystery plot, they have grown and he has dwindled, so much that he's undone by his whining, miserable servant, a fellow by the name of Wormtongue. Hmmm. Pippin previously: > > It would be a psychological disaster for Lupin to believe this about himself; that his guilty deeds make him not a human who can repent and be released from punishment but a monster who must be destroyed.<< > > Renee: It would, if he did believe it. But I see no indication that he does; I rather see him confess his wrongdoings and shortcomings on several occasions. Pippin: Only when speaking to Sirius and the trio, never to anyone who has the power to punish him. Renee: Also, there's nothing new in the message that a dehumanising treatment often results in inhuman behaviour. What makes you think JKR isn't writing the opposite: an example of someone who is eventually able to rise above this kind of treatment? Pippin: Of course she is, that's why the books are called Harry Potter and... As Harry is the hero, it might be more fitting if he helped someone else rise above, Snape maybe, rather than being helped by Lupin. Lupin's path, detachment, does not seem to be Harry's. > Pippin: > > You asked about Snape: IMO, Dumbledore's pardon is implicit in the words "He is now no more a Death Eater than I am."<< > Renee: > That statement still doesn't tell me if Snape has asked for pardon. I consider Dumbledore perfectly capable of accepting a Snape who returns to him saying no more than `I changed my mind', as long as he's sure Snape *has* changed his mind, and knows he had a very good reason to do so. Maybe it has nothing to do with contrition. Pippin: Would Dumbledore trust someone who had served the Dark Side and wasn't contrite? Pippin From easimm at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 00:29:02 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:29:02 -0000 Subject: Suggestions please: Mysteries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121886 "Jim Flanagan" wrote: >> >> Why was it necessary to have such an elaborate plot to transport >> Harry to Voldemort in GoF? It took nearly the whole school year, >> and there were many opportunities for a slip-up along the way. > Couldn't the ersatz Moody have kidnaped him by force, or slipped him >> a disguised portkey in a much easier, and more certain, way? One reason might be simply that the revival potion takes months to make. To make the polyjuice potion takes a month. -snorky From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 00:46:47 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:46:47 -0000 Subject: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121887 >>Betsy: >And if Narcissa is about Lucius' age (which puts them in the same age group as Arthur and Molly Weasley, I think) why did they wait so long to have a child?< >>Halli: >I would just like to point out that that would most definently *not* put them in Molly and Arthurs age group. In fact, they are *much* younger. I don't have my book with me, but in GOF, when Molly comes to Hogwarts just before the third task, and Harry takes them on a tour, she reminises about the groundskeeper before Hagrid, a man named 'Ogg' I think. Which means shes older than Hagrid and Tom, and since they were (I think) 61 in COS if my calclations are correct, she had to have graduated at least a year before Hagrids expulsion, making her... at least 5 or 6 years older than him.< Betsy: I checked the Lexicon and it has Molly's year of birth somewhere around the 1950s, while Tom Riddle was born in the mid-20s (1926?). Plus, is there canon that states Hagrid was hired on as head grounds keeper *immediately* after his expulsion? I admit, I don't think there's canon that states their ages one way or another, but Arthur Weasley and Lucius Malfoy always struck me as contemporaries. Betsy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 01:12:14 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:12:14 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV mortality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121888 Ahha!! I have got it!!! We know that James and Harry look alike. We know that Tom and Harry look alike. We know Harry has his mother's eyes. And why are we always being reminded of that? Why would McGonagall give Hermione a time-turner just to take a couple of extra classes when time turning is so dangerous? (Drum roll ) Because either Harry, Tom or James is going to use it again. When asked in an interview if the time- turner would be seen again, JKR said she was not telling. That often means *yes*. So Hermione using the time-turner was to tell the reader and Harry about time-turning. And *Harry has his mother's (green) eyes* is to tell the readers and members of the wizarding world how to know that it is Harry that is standing in front of them and not someone else. And why is time-turning so important? Because it is what LV did to become immortal. He meddled with time. *Terrible things happen to wizards that meddle with time*. And perhaps one of those terrible things is that they get stuck in time and can not escape. Think why was LV an ugly baby when Wormtail brought him into the grave yard that night? Is LV trapped in time? Is he living backwards like Merlin? And here is the real question (another drum roll ) is he really trying to live forever, or is he trying to DIE. Maybe Tom Riddle messed around with a time-turner, thought it was cool, but after a few years as LV, wanted out and now can not get out. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 01:14:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:14:16 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121889 Bboyminn wrote: "I don't agree with the 50/50:Gryf/Slyth idea. I think the Sorting Hat knew well where Harry truly belong, but it wanted to make sure Harry knew. In a sense, the Hat tempted Harry with Slytherin, first to see if he would be tempted, and second, to see if he had the courage,scared as he was, to argue with a powerful magical object. " Alla: I tend to agree for now. Del replies: To me, when the Hat confirmed in CoS that Harry had been hard to place, it sure didn't sound like the Hat had known all along where he was going to place him. snip. Personally, I'd rather think that the Hat has been honest all along, and that Harry was a very good candidate for Slytherin as well as Gryffindor. Alla: Here is my speculation, which I am not sure I will keep for the future. If as JKR said the Hat is certainly sincere, then it indeed possible that it was hard to place Harry, BUT as someone else said - Harry's Slytherin qualities could be mainly Voldemort's induced and Hat may have not realised it. THAT was the difficulty, I SPECULATE. I think that "hat is sincere" does not necessarily mean that Hat is correct in all of its assumptions. Bboyminn wrote: "Slytherins disregard the rules, Gryffindors know WHEN to disregard the rules. Those are functionally similar, both are willing to break the rules, but they are founded in much different motivations. " Del replies: I disagree. In PoA, for example, Harry bent the rules for his own very private profit when he went to Hogsmeade without authorisation. In GoF, he went roaming the castle at night for his own interest, when he went to the Prefects' bathroom. In OoP, he broke into Umbridge's office for his own interest. I think that Harry is a true Slytherin *on that matter* : he disregards the rules in general. And as Potioncat already mentioned, the Twins spend A LOT of time breaking the rules for their own interest. As for the Slytherins, apart from Draco and his two buddies, we rarely see any of them breaking rules that the other Houses (especially Gryffindor) don't break just as much, like fighting in the corridors. Alla: Unsurprisingly, I am with Steve with one. I think that instances when Harry selfishly breaks the rules are MUCH more limited than those when he breaks them of good purpose. In fact, I think Hogsmead is the only one which can be cited as the example of selfishness in PoA and even that I would not cite as pure selfishness, but as "stress relief". Of course though it was for Harry's own benefit though. Breaking into Umbridge office, I would not agree as pure selfishness either. Regardless, I can give you very long list of Harry's breaking the rules for noble purpose, as I said MUCH longer than the one you gave. :o) So, I disagree that Harry is a "true Slytherin" in that aspect. JMO, of course. I think to compare "rule breaking" we should pick the Slytherin who actually has "lines" to speak and so far it has been Draco mainly, unfortunately. Let's look at some examples of his of rule breaking : went to spy on Trio to tell on them in PS/SS; dresses as Dementor with his buddies to make sure Harry falls off the broom in PoA. I think Slytherins know how to break rules quite well mainly for selfish purposes. I give you Twins though. I love them and don't doubt for a second that they are good guys, but they sure break rules a lot for their own gain. You know what I realised? I am still not sure which house is more guilty of breaking the rules in general. I guess I still place Gryffs and especially Trio on significantly more unselfish rule breaking scale. Just my opinion, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 14 01:23:41 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:23:41 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121890 > > Alla: > > Here is my speculation, which I am not sure I will keep for the > future. If as JKR said the Hat is certainly sincere, then it indeed > possible that it was hard to place Harry, BUT as someone else said - > Harry's Slytherin qualities could be mainly Voldemort's induced and > Hat may have not realised it. THAT was the difficulty, I SPECULATE. > > I think that "hat is sincere" does not necessarily mean that Hat is > correct in all of its assumptions. Potioncat: Parseltongue would have come from LV. But a disregard for the rules, resourcefulness...oh shoot I forgot the others, but those are ones that James had as well and are most likely ones that Harry "came by honestly" as we say in the states. From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 01:34:16 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:34:16 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV mortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121891 Tonks wrote: Ahha!! I have got it!!! We know that James and Harry look alike. We know that Tom and Harry look alike. We know Harry has his mother's eyes. And why are we always being reminded of that? Why would McGonagall give Hermione a time-turner just to take a couple of extra classes when time turning is so dangerous? (Drum roll ) Because either Harry, Tom or James is going to use it again. When asked in an interview if the time- turner would be seen again, JKR said she was not telling. That often means *yes*. So Hermione using the time-turner was to tell the reader and Harry about time-turning. And *Harry has his mother's (green) eyes* is to tell the readers and members of the wizarding world how to know that it is Harry that is standing in front of them and not someone else. vmonte replies: I agree with you. I've been saying this for quite a while now. By the way people really hate time turner theories on this site. Vivian From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 01:38:42 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:38:42 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121892 Pippin wrote: > And so, I also can't believe that though Rowling placed Lupin > between Harry and the veil, and thus between Harry and > Sirius, had Lupin say, "Not at all" in response to Sirius's plea for > forgiveness, and had the narrator note for us that Harry knew > Bella's scream "meant nothing", Lupin had nothing to do with > Sirius's death. Carol responds: Without taking a stand on ESE!Lupin (though I happen to think that he's more weak than evil), I want to point out that your remark on Bella's scream is taken out of context. The full quotation is: "Harry heard Bellatrix's triumphant scream but knew it meant nothing--Sirius had only just fallen through the aarchway, he would reappear from the other side any second. . . ." OoP am. ed. 806, ellipses in original). Clearly Bellatrix's scream of triumph indicates that she knows Sirius is dead (or will be when he passes through the Veil) and that, as we're shown later in the confrontation with Harry, she believes she killed him. The scream "meant nothing" to Harry not because he believes that someone else killed Sirius but because he believes that Sirius isn't dead. (This is an example of the unreliable narrator reflecting Harry's POV, but in this case the misperception is countered quickly; we learn immediately that Sirius isn't coming back, and both Lupin and Dumbledore later state that he is dead. Note the use of "knew," which is often an indicator that what Harry "knows" is wrong. It's used again when Voldemort possesses him: "He knew he was dead," 815--clearly a mistaken perception on Harry's part.) Although we're not told who cast the spell, the implication is certainly that it's Bellatrix. We're told about her first jet of light, identified as a stunning spell, missing Sirius and then "The second jet of light hit him squarely in the chest" (805). Probably this spell was not an AK or Harry would not be in denial about Sirius's death, but Bellatrix certainly acts as if she's the one who cast the spell, whatever it was, and sent Sirius through the Veil. Didn't mean to get into the second part of the argument here; I just wanted to present the context of the remark on Bella's scream, which I believe you're interpreting a bit too loosely. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 01:51:52 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:51:52 -0000 Subject: Bellatrix's age (Was: Narcissa Malfoy ) In-Reply-To: <002d01c4f979$10247400$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121893 Kethryn wrote: > > To me, the quote (thanks for providing it *G*) doesn't indicate that he met > her at Hogwarts at all. She could have been at the Black house the last > time he saw her, doing something with his mum. You know, they are family, > like it or not, so it is conceivable that he ran into her at what was about > not to be his home anymore. For all we know, she was actually the reason he > decided not to go back home anymore. Also, the way JKR has written the > little bits we have seen of her character, I do imagine her as being about > Lucius's age (although I do admit that Azkaban might prematurly age a > person). Sigh. This could be yet another thing we will never know. Carol responds: If she *is* Lucius's age, that's only two years older than the age I'm postulating for her. Lucius is five years older than MWPP and Snape; I'm postulating three for Bella. I never said that Sirius *met* her at Hogwarts. Certainly when they were both small children of say, seven and ten respectively, they could have seen each other at family gatherings, though the Blacks don't seem like the type to hold parties. At any rate, if she married and joined the DEs right out of Hogwarts, she probably didn't spend much time visiting her aunt and uncle. We can speculate that he saw her at family gatherings, but we *know* he saw her at school and that she was part of the same gang that invited the clearly younger Severus to join it. So again, it makes sense that he last saw her at school, probably at the end-of-term banquet in her final year or her last ride home on the Hogwarts Express. and since he last saw her when he was Harry's age, that last banquet or ride would have been the one at the end of his fourth year. Carol Carol From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 14 02:00:11 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:00:11 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV mortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121894 Tonks wrote: snip Because either Harry, Tom or James > is going to use it again. When asked in an interview if the time- > turner would be seen again, JKR said she was not telling. That > often means *yes*. So Hermione using the time-turner was to tell > the reader and Harry about time-turning. And *Harry has his > mother's (green) eyes* is to tell the readers and members of the > wizarding world how to know that it is Harry that is standing in > front of them and not someone else. > > vmonte replies: > > I agree with you. I've been saying this for quite a while now. > By the way people really hate time turner theories on this site. Potioncat: I agree too. But also, I think it might be possible to find events in the first books where a TT might have been used.[That is to say, where a future Harry was watching.] Two that come to mind are at the Riddle house when a dark haired boy is seen near the house (Yeah, I know it was probably Tom) and one is the "Oops" episode (but I don't know why) and possibly those times that Harry felt like he was being watched but nothing we saw confirmed it. In TH White's book, the confusion of time is a frequent problem for Merlyn who lives backwards in time. I wouldn't be surprised if JKR wove the time issue into the series. But I don't think she'll just have someone pull a TT out at the end and make everything all better. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Jan 14 02:05:18 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:05:18 -0000 Subject: The Founders Fallout WAS Salazar & Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121895 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Also, per the Sorting Hat's song in OotP Salazar was very upfront with what type of students he wanted to teach. And the founders taught together in harmony for several years. We don't really know what sparked the fight that ended in Salazar's leaving. Though the Hat does say that all four founders were fighting with *each other*. So it wasn't a big, "Salazar Sucks!" fight. > > Betsy Valky: This is a very good point, what did cause the final fallout and the departure of Salazar Slytherin? This won't be the first time I've brought up this one but, IMO, we have many, many Clues. Please allow me to make a list of canon: 1 The Chamber of Secret[S] *plural! 2 The SH's New song OOtP "But then discord crept among us Feeding on our faults and fears." 3 Dumbledores speech at the end of GOF paraphrase "Voldemort has a *gift for spreading enmity and discord*" 4 The SH new song OOtP "At last there came a morning when old Slytherin departed and though the fighting THEN DIED OUT," (emphasis mine) 5 Hogwarts A History; Helga-o-Godric-waRowena-t-Salazar = Helga and Godric, joined by a ring, on one side of a "WAR" that ends with Rowena - cross Salazar, Q: So what does all this mean? A: Unlike Dumbledore I was about to spill the lot of my theory in a single sentence... like Dumbledore I have chosen not to. Q: What caused the fallout between the founders? A: The spirit of enmity and discord, conjured in the Chamber of Secrets, by Salazar Slytherin. It is an immortal energy that feeds endlessly on fear and miscreance. Q: What made Salazar leave? A: Rowena's death. He loved her, and she him, he admired her sharpness of mind and her power, and she supported him in his passion for secrets and his ambitious plans, but when she discovered that Salazar had conjured the evil spirit she put down her foot as his love and told him to banish it. It killed her. To this day she keeps his secrets for him as the ghost of Ravenclaw house. Salazar embitterd by the loss of his love sunk into dereliction and disgrace, he dissappeared. Valky From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 02:25:41 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:25:41 -0000 Subject: Family Ties Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121896 Harry looks like his father, and Tom Riddle look like them both. And we know old wizarding families are all interrelated. (although some have red hair, others like the Malfoys are blond). Tom, James and Harry are from the line with Black hair. Maybe even the Black family line somehow. Where I am going with this is maybe James' is related in some way to Tom Riddle's mother. And, now this is far out... but what if I am right that LV is imortal because he is caught in a time trap because of the time- turner. He can only get out of the trap by killing all of the males in the line of his family... This lets Lily out, she is not in his family line, only James and Harry are. DD knows about the timeturner trap and is trying to help Tom Riddle get out of it by distroying LV. Tonks_op (too much time on my hands, I have got to get a life.) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 02:31:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:31:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar , vulnerability, and Occlumency (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121897 Carol: Alla in an other post (which I can't go back to and copy without losing this one--Yahoomort will eat it, you know) argued that the Occlumency lessons were *causing* Harry to be more vulnerable to Voldemort, but I think he was already vulnerable. The dreams predate the Occlumency lessons by several months, Harry feels the urge to bite Dumbledore almost immediately after the *real* incident with Mr. Weasley just before Christmas time, which predates the Occlumency lessons and may be the reason Dumbledore arranges them. Granted, he feels a pain in his head soon after the Occlumency lessons, but this results from something Voldemort is feeling and not from the lesson itself, which has not *directly* revealed anything related to Voldemort. It has only led Harry to figure out what his dreams are about, putting two and two together as Snape would do. His scar still hurts from that moment of realization and it's true that he's white and shaky, but this could be as much from the *realization* that he's been dreaming about something Voldemort wants as from the lessons themselves. I don't remember a similar reaction after other lessons, but I could be wrong. Alla: Well, yes, Harry most certainly experienced similar reaction after other Occlumency lessons. "In fact Harry would have given a great deal to be making as much progress in Occlumency as Neville was just making during D.A. meetings. Harry's sessions with Snape, which had started badly enough, were not improving; on the contrary, Harry felt he was getting worse with every lesson. Before he started studying Occlumency his scar had prickled occasionally, usually during the night, or else following one of those strange flashes of Voldemort's thoughts or moods that he experienced every now and then. Nowadays, however, his scar hardly ever stopped prickling, and he often felt lurches of annoyance or cheerfulness that were unrelated to what was happening to him at the time, which were always accompanied by a particularly painful twinge from his scar. He had the horrible impression that he was slowly turning into a kind of aerial that was tuned in to tiny fluctuations in Voldemort's mood, and he was SURE (emphasis mine) that he could date this increased sensitivity firmly from his first lesson with Snape" - OOP, p.554, paperback, american edition. So, it seems to me that even if Harry was vulnerable before, which eh of course was, his vulnerability GREATLY increased since the first lesson. I find it strange. Carol: (Alla, Hermione's remark that "I expect anyone would feel that way after they'd had their mind attacked over and over again" is just a friend's sympathy--note "I expect." She doesn't *know.* She hasn't looked up the effects of Occlumency in book. And even if it does result from the lesson, as I pointed out in another post, we can't assume that Harry's reaction is normal, since he's the first and only person with a mind-link to Voldemort. And Snape didn't see his reaction, which occurs after Harry has gone with Ron and Hermione to the library.) Alla: Of course Hermione's remark is the remark of the concerned friend. I just don't think that it was unknowledgeable remark. When Hermione is used to give us some unquestionable facts, she is not always accompanies those facts with the remark. I read it in such and such book. For example "I'll tell you what it means," said Hermione ominously. "It means that Ministry's interfering in Hogwarts" - OOP, p.214. Has Hermione read it somewhere? NO. She listened to Umbridge speech and made correct conclusion. Just as she listened to Harry's complaints and made a conclusion, which I believe is correct. Carol: He does not actually feel sick (as he did before the vision of the snake) and feel excruciating pain in his scar (as he always does when Voldemort is feeling strong emotions) until he goes upstairs, and the cause of this pain is not the Occlumency lessons but Voldemort feeling "jubilant, ecstatic, triumphant" (OoP am. ed. 541). Alla: I believe he was JUST AS SICK as he did before vision of the snake. Consider the following quote. "Something good's happened," mumbled Harry. He was shaking as badly as he had done after seeing the snake attack Mr. Weasley and felt very sick. Something he's been hoping for." - OOP, p.542. Carol: Conclusion: Snape is *not* trying to open up Harry's mind to Voldemort. snip Alla: I think I showed that exactly opposite conclusion is just as firmly supported by canon as yours. Just my opinion, Alla From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 02:33:47 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:33:47 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV mortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121898 Potioncat: I agree too. But also, I think it might be possible to find events in the first books where a TT might have been used.[That is to say, where a future Harry was watching.] Two that come to mind are at the Riddle house when a dark haired boy is seen near the house (Yeah, I know it was probably Tom) and one is the "Oops" episode (but I don't know why) and possibly those times that Harry felt like he was being watched but nothing we saw confirmed it. In TH White's book, the confusion of time is a frequent problem for Merlyn who lives backwards in time. I wouldn't be surprised if JKR wove the time issue into the series. But I don't think she'll just have someone pull a TT out at the end and make everything all better. vmonte responds: I agree with you that JKR will not pull out a time turner and make everything ok in the end. If anything, the characters will realize (in the end) that they caused more problems by using the time turner. I know I'm being stupid but what is the Ooops episode? Vivian From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 02:37:47 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:37:47 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121899 Alla wrote: "Here is my speculation, which I am not sure I will keep for the future. If as JKR said the Hat is certainly sincere, then it indeed possible that it was hard to place Harry, BUT as someone else said - Harry's Slytherin qualities could be mainly Voldemort's induced and Hat may have not realised it. THAT was the difficulty, I SPECULATE." Del replies: It could be like that, sure. But think of it : are you sure you really want Harry to have no Slytherin qualities of his own? His resourcefulness saved his life countless number of times. His disregard for the rules allowed him to dare and confront teachers, to look for useful information, to be in the right places at the right times, and so on. His ambition... It was because he wanted to do well at Quidditch that he worked so hard on the Patronus Charm. It was because he wanted to pay Umbridge back that he agreed to lead the DA. And so on. I personally don't think that Harry would be of any interest as the hero if he didn't have his Slytherin qualities. It's those Slytherin qualities that give Harry the freedom and the purpose to act that he needs to be the hero. Alla wrote: "Unsurprisingly, I am with Steve with one. I think that instances when Harry selfishly breaks the rules are MUCH more limited than those when he breaks them of good purpose." Del replies: The fact that Harry breaks the rules *generally* for a good cause doesn't change the fact that he has *repeatedly* broken them for strictly personal motives. Compare Harry to Hermione, for example : she has learned to break the rules for good reasons, but she wouldn't break them for personal purposes. That, IMO, is the difference between a Gryffindor and a Slytherin. And anyway, you do agree that Harry breaks the rules very regularly, right? So I'm right to say that he disregards the rules *in general*, right :-)? Which is a trait that DD says Salazar identified with his own House... ;-) Alla wrote: "Breaking into Umbridge office, I would not agree as pure selfishness either." Del replies: I'm surprised, because this one seems very obvious to me. Would you mind explaining your point of view a bit more, please? Alla wrote: "I think to compare "rule breaking" we should pick the Slytherin who actually has "lines" to speak and so far it has been Draco mainly, unfortunately." Del replies: I completely disagree. Using Draco as the Slytherin-meter would be like using Harry as the Gryffindor-meter. Both of them are above the crowds of their respective Houses, and using either of them as the typical example of their House wouldn't be fair. Alla wrote: "dresses as Dementor with his buddies to make sure Harry falls off the broom in PoA." Del replies: Technically, this one was not selfish at all :-) : they were doing it for their whole House. Alla wrote: "I think Slytherins know how to break rules quite well mainly for selfish purposes." Del replies: We've got a handful of Slytherins who break the rules for supposedly selfish purposes, and we've got a handful of Gryffindors who do it too. I wouldn't dare making a judgement based on so little evidence. Especially since the *biggest* rule-breakers we know of were *all* Gryffindors : the Twins, but also the Marauders! Alla wrote: "I guess I still place Gryffs and especially Trio on significantly more unselfish rule breaking scale." Del replies: Well, we always end up in the same ditch : we don't know *why* the Slytherins do anything. Motives, motives, motives :-) Del From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 02:47:01 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:47:01 -0000 Subject: Family Ties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121900 Tonks wrote: Where I am going with this is maybe James' is related in some way to Tom Riddle's mother. And, now this is far out... but what if I am right that LV is imortal because he is caught in a time trap because of the time- turner. He can only get out of the trap by killing all of the males in the line of his family... This lets Lily out, she is not in his family line, only James and Harry are. DD knows about the timeturner trap and is trying to help Tom Riddle get out of it by distroying LV. vmonte: I like your idea. Do you think it's possible that Voldemort created (or will create) some kind of rift in the time line? And that the reason DD "knows pretty much everything that is going on" is because his job in the "Order" is to correct the rift caused by Voldemort? You know, I really don't understand why MM would give Hermione a dangerous device like a time-turner unless the kids were specifically being targeted by DD. Are they being trained for future roles in the "Order?" Tonks wrote: Tonks_op (too much time on my hands, I have got to get a life.) vmonte: I know how you feel... :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 03:06:25 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:06:25 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121902 Del replies: It could be like that, sure. But think of it : are you sure you really want Harry to have no Slytherin qualities of his own? His resourcefulness saved his life countless number of times. His disregard for the rules allowed him to dare and confront teachers, to look for useful information, to be in the right places at the right times, and so on. His ambition... It was because he wanted to do well at Quidditch that he worked so hard on the Patronus Charm. It was because he wanted to pay Umbridge back that he agreed to lead the DA. And so on. I personally don't think that Harry would be of any interest as the hero if he didn't have his Slytherin qualities. It's those Slytherin qualities that give Harry the freedom and the purpose to act that he needs to be the hero. Alla: No, of course not. I want Harry to have good Slytherin qualities, but I am not so sure that resourcefullness and disregard for rules is associated exclusively with Slytherin . As I said earlier I believe it could be that those qualitites are associated just as much with Gryffindor. Call me sceptical and I would welcome if JKR plants the big red herring with this, but I for now inclined to take her words that Gryffindor is her favourite House at face value. I am just not so sure that she associates that many good qualities with Slytherin House in the first place. I hope I am wrong. Del replies: snip And anyway, you do agree that Harry breaks the rules very regularly, right? So I'm right to say that he disregards the rules *in general*, right :-)? Which is a trait that DD says Salazar identified with his own House... ;-) Alla: Well, yes, but I am convinced that it is a Gryffs trait also. Alla wrote previously: "Breaking into Umbridge office, I would not agree as pure selfishness either." Del replies: I'm surprised, because this one seems very obvious to me. Would you mind explaining your point of view a bit more, please? Alla: Sorry, it is just "selfishness" carries very negative, BAD connotation to me. I guess I would agree " for his own purpose". I don't see anything BAD in his desire to talk to Sirius. Alla wrote: "I think to compare "rule breaking" we should pick the Slytherin who actually has "lines" to speak and so far it has been Draco mainly, unfortunately." Del replies: I completely disagree. Using Draco as the Slytherin-meter would be like using Harry as the Gryffindor-meter. Both of them are above the crowds of their respective Houses, and using either of them as the typical example of their House wouldn't be fair. Alla: Blinks and registers her very sincere surprise. But there are NO other Slytherins to use so far, am I right? Are we suppose to pick the character who is just a name for now? Harry is indeed above the croud. Draco is for the most part THE ONLY CROUD we can hear for the most part. We can assume that he is above the croud or we can assume that he is the typical representative of such. Alla wrote: "I guess I still place Gryffs and especially Trio on significantly more unselfish rule breaking scale." Del replies: Well, we always end up in the same ditch : we don't know *why* the Slytherins do anything. Motives, motives, motives :-) Alla: Actually, I don't completely agree. I think that we may not know COMPLETE story about Slytherins and why they do things, but we were given some motifs for their action (pureblood ideology for example) and to me they are clear as night and day. Just my opinion, Alla From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 14 03:25:42 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:25:42 EST Subject: Ok, Stupid Question Message-ID: <159.4860cd38.2f1895b6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121903 OK I know this is a stupid question, but I figured I'd go ahead and ask it anyway. (Hey, it's not like it ever stopped me before right!) What is Butterbeer, and why, seeing that it contains alcohol, are the students allowed to have it? Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Fri Jan 14 03:30:08 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:30:08 -0000 Subject: Bellatrix's age (Was: Narcissa Malfoy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121904 > Kethryn wrote: > > > > To me, the quote (thanks for providing it *G*) doesn't indicate that > he met her at Hogwarts at all. She could have been at the Black house the last > > time he saw her, doing something with his mum. Also, the way JKR has written the > > little bits we have seen of her character, I do imagine her as being > about > > Lucius's age (although I do admit that Azkaban might prematurly age a > > person). Sigh. This could be yet another thing we will never know. > > Carol responds: > If she *is* Lucius's age, that's only two years older than the age I'm > postulating for her. Lucius is five years older than MWPP and Snape; > I'm postulating three for Bella. I never said that Sirius *met* her at > Hogwarts. Certainly when they were both small children of say, seven > and ten respectively, they could have seen each other at family > gatherings, though the Blacks don't seem like the type to hold > parties. At any rate, if she married and joined the DEs right out of > Hogwarts, she probably didn't spend much time visiting her aunt and > uncle. We can speculate that he saw her at family gatherings, but we > *know* he saw her at school and that she was part of the same gang > that invited the clearly younger Severus to join it. So again, it > makes sense that he last saw her at school, probably at the > end-of-term banquet in her final year or her last ride home on the > Hogwarts Express. and since he last saw her when he was Harry's age, > that last banquet or ride would have been the one at the end of his > fourth year. > > Carol Kethryn again (for the last time hopefully *G* unless new info is brought to light) I guess the only reason that I postulate that Bella is about Lucius' age is because of Narcissa, really. I mean, if the Black family tree is correct and the ww does family trees the way we do them, then Bella would be the eldest and Narcissa would be the baby. As poorly as I tend to think of Lucius, he doesn't really strike me as the child bride type so it's hard for me to imagine more than a couple of years seperate him and Narcissa. Of course, if he really was a child molester, I can't say that I would be shocked...grossed out, perhaps, but not shocked and that would pretty much put him on the permanent sh*t list in my books. It's funny, isn't it? I mean, we have all but been expressly told that Lucius (at a bare minimum) murdered people but I can still accept him...as long as he is not a child molester... Keth (who is, once more, fighting with her webhosting company) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 03:34:39 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:34:39 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121905 bboyminn wrote: > I think Dumbledore was simply acknowledging /aspects/ of Harry that parallelled the aspects of Slytherin. There was no implication of /quality/ of qualities judgement (did that make sense?). > > Del replied: > It makes sense in itself, but it doesn't make sense to me in the context. Harry was feeling low because he was *afraid* he might be a better Slytherin than Gryffindor. So DD telling him "Oh yeah, you do have a lot of what you yourself consider as Slytherin bad traits" wouldn't be exactly *helping* IMO. I personally think that DD was telling him that, yes, he did have those traits, but that he should consider them as positive traits, and that they weren't even his only good traits. Carol responds: I'm not sure who to agree with here. The noun "quality," in the sense of a trait or characteristic, *is* generally neutral (unlike "asset" or "virtue"), but surely the qualities Dumbledore chooses to list as being valued by Salazar Slytherin, resourcefulness and determination, would be considered by most people, including Dumbledore and Harry, as good in themselves (unlike ambition, which amounts to a tragic flaw in Shakespeare and seems to be simlarly regarded by JKR, but which is nevertheless a necessary trait for success in most careers). At any rate, I agree with Del that Dumbledore is attempting to comfort Harry, and this passage does seem to indicate that Slytherin House itself is not all bad and that Harry should not look down on himself because the Hat considered placing him there. > Bboyminn wrote: > I think the Sorting Hat knew well where Harry truly belong, but it wanted to make sure Harry knew. In a sense, the Hat tempted Harry with Slytherin, first to see if he would be tempted, and second, to see if he had the courage, scared as he was, to argue with a powerful magical object. > > Del replied: > To me, when the Hat confirmed in CoS that Harry had been hard to > place, it sure didn't sound like the Hat had known all along where he was going to place him. Carol responds: Just a reminder, as Steve (I think) has pointed out in earlier threads, the Hat doesn't even bring up Slytherin until Harry thinks "*Not Slytherin! Not Slytherin!*" Only then does it state that he would do well there and ask him if he's sure, in essence offering him the choice to accept or reject the greatness Slytherin could offer him (SS Am. ed. 121). I don't see this as a test but a way of making sure that this is what Harry wants. Then, with Slytherin out of the running, the Hat opts for Gryffindor over Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff as the House most suitable for a person with Harry's "qualities." > Bboyminn wrote: > Slytherins disregard the rules, Gryffindors know WHEN to disregard the rules. Those are functionally similar, both are willing to break the rules, but they are founded in much different motivations. " > > Del replied: > I disagree. > In PoA, for example, Harry bent the rules for his own very private profit when he went to Hogsmeade without authorisation. In GoF, he went roaming the castle at night for his own interest, when he went to the Prefects' bathroom. In OoP, he broke into Umbridge's office for his own interest. I think that Harry is a true Slytherin *on that matter* : he disregards the rules in general. > And as Potioncat already mentioned, the Twins spend A LOT of time breaking the rules for their own interest. > As for the Slytherins, apart from Draco and his two buddies, we rarely see any of them breaking rules that the other Houses (especially Gryffindor) don't break just as much, like fighting in the corridors. Carol responds: If Slytherin House is notable for rule-breaking, it's ironic that Snape is the rule-enforcer in the first four books. (We see less of that in OoP, where Snape is not concerned about Harry ecountering danger in the corridors or Hogsmeade; here the focus shifts to the dangers in Harry's own head and Snape is again the enforcer, trying (unsuccessfully) to get Harry to block Voldemort's intrusions into his mind.) There's no need to list again all the rules that Harry has broken, whether for personal or altruistic reasons, taking Ron and Hermione along with them. Also, in addition to the twins as consummate Gryffindor rule-breakers, we have MWPP, who were illegally becoming animagi in part to help a friend but also for their own enjoyment. ("Wish it was a full moon," says Sirius, rather inconsiderately ignoring Remus's feelings on the matter. And the older Sirius says, "The risk is what would have made it fun for James." Not to mention the incantations necessary to reveal and hide the contents of the Marauder's Map: "I solemnly swear that I am up to no good" and "Mischief managed." It was fun to break the rules and see what they could get away with, and detention was certainly no deterrent.) Even McGonagall breaks or bends a rule early in SS/PS. Rather than punishing Harry for disobeying Madam Hooch, she procures a broom for him (first-years aren't allowed brooms) so he can be on the Quidditch team. Not exactly altruism. More like House spirit. I'd say it's fair to state that "a certain disregard for the rules"--not necessarily in a noble cause--is at least as much a Gryffindor trait as a Slytherin one. Carol, wondering which House Mundungus belonged to From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 03:58:13 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:58:13 -0000 Subject: Suggestions please: Mysteries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121906 ms_luna wrote: > I am re-reading GoF and I noticed something that may be important to this discussion about Crouch Jr., When Mr. Crouch, Sr comes stumbing out of the Forbidden Forest after escaping from LV and he is talking to the tree...he says something very interesting, He says that his son received 12 OWLS...yes, we are very proud of him. So, doesn't this mean that Barty Jr., had the potential, even at Hogwarts to be a very powerful wizard? He had it in him, and probably would have learned Dark Arts from the DE's very quickly. I had thought it unlikely, at first that he would have been able to REALLy participate in the torture and what not that the DE's were doing, but now that I have noticed this little phrase, I have to re-think my first supposition. Carol responds: I agree. I made the same point in the second paragraph of my post 121641, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121641 , which argues that Barty's intelligence, power, determination, and desire for revenge enabled him to perform Unforgiveables and other difficult magic at Hogwarts despite a year in Azkaban and twelve years under the Imperius Curse. Absolutely he had to have learned the Unforgiveable Curses as a DE; we know that he helped to Crucio the Longbottoms into insanity, and he must have learned AK and Imperius there as well. He may have been only nineteen, but he was a quick study and a fanatic. We're told that his father was a very powerful wizard; Barty Jr. seems to have inherited that power. As I said in my other post, he and his father are tragic figures, talented men whose talents could have been used for good but who instead brought ruin on themselves and each other. Carol, wondering whether Barty Jr. was a Slytherin; he seems more like a ruined Ravenclaw From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Jan 14 03:58:16 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:58:16 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121907 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > Unfortunately, grief is no excuse for bad behavior, whether for Draco > or for Harry. And Harry admits, quite calmly, that he was considering > what hex to hit Draco with. Snape as a teacher can't let this go. He > has to follow standard procedure and deduct house points. Oh come now, what a weak argument. Had Draco been the instigator Snape most certainly would have found a way not to enforce the standard punishment. > > We then get the nice little scene in which McGonagall returns, Snape > welcomes her back with what seems like genuine good feeling, And where do you see that? I see no sign of good feeling on Snape's part whatsoever. He greets her with no indication of good will or joy, and seems from my reading to be quite annoyed that she walks in on one of his tirades. she add > house points (including, with some reluctance, fifty for Ravenclaw), > and then *herself* deducts the ten points for Harry's misbehavior even > though she, like Snape, is almost certainly aware of Harry's loss. And > Snape quietly accepts the 250 points she has added for Gryffindor. He does no such thing. He pretends not to hear at first and then gives in with poor grace and signs of bitterness. His > behavior on his occasion either exhibits remarkable self-control or a > genuine recognition that the Gryffindors (and Luna) deserve those > points. None of which takes away from the fact that Harry, having > broken the rules, deserves the standard punishment. Moreover, Snape > would have had to explain to Draco and the Slytherins why Harry wasn't > punished for an overt infraction of the rules. And yet he feels no compunction to explain to the Gryffindors why he allows Draco to go unpunished for HIS numerous infractions in potions. > > As someone else said, this is the WW, and the rules don't change if > you've lost a godparent. No excuse whatsoever. What is called for here is for Snape to act like a decent human being, a task at which, as usual,he utterly fails. (I once had a student who pleaded the loss of > her grandmother as a reason for plagiarizing a paper. I failed the > paper--but chose not to have her expelled, as I could have done.) > > A teacher who bends the rules out of sympathy for a student, > especially uncharacteristically as would have been the case with > Snape, is likely to lose the respect of students who expect the rules > to be enforced. In many years of teaching, I have never found this to be the case. But I acknowledge that everyone has different experiences. Snape would have his hands ful with unruly Slytherins > had he allowed Harry to go unpunished. And it wouldn't have increased > Harry's respect for him to do so, either. > > Carol, who thinks that Snape is a product of his upbringing and that > we can't reasonably pass judgment on him for not being a modern Muggle > teacher brimming with concern for students' self-esteem Being a product of one's upbringing is no excuse whatsoever. Snape fails in almost every test of being a decent human being, and thus fails in almost every test of being a "good" human being -- saving Harry's life notwithstanding. Lupinlore From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 04:13:31 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:13:31 -0000 Subject: Ok, Stupid Question In-Reply-To: <159.4860cd38.2f1895b6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121909 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > What is Butterbeer, and why, seeing that it contains alcohol, are the students allowed to have it? > > Chancie Tonks here: According to the Harry Potter Lexicon: butterbeer very popular drink served cold in bottles or hot by the mug ("foaming tankards of hot butterbeer") at the Three Broomsticks House-Elves can get drunk on butterbeer, but it doesn't have that effect on humans (GF How is butterbeer made and what does it taste like? When asked about this by "Bon Appetit" magazine, JKR responded: "I made it up. I imagine it to taste a little bit like less-sickly butterscotch." Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 04:14:38 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:14:38 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121910 Carol responds: Unfortunately, grief is no excuse for bad behavior, whether for Draco or for Harry. And Harry admits, quite calmly, that he was considering what hex to hit Draco with. Snape as a teacher can't let this go. He has to follow standard procedure and deduct house points. Lupinlore: Oh come now, what a weak argument. Had Draco been the instigator Snape most certainly would have found a way not to enforce the standard punishment. Alla: LOL! Loved your post, as usual. Snape sure is not in a hurry to enforce any procedures with Draco, doesn't he? Remember Snape's reaction in PoA when Draco walks in class late? I most certainly don't remember taking any points off Carol: We then get the nice little scene in which McGonagall returns, Snape welcomes her back with what seems like genuine good feeling, Lupinlore: And where do you see that? I see no sign of good feeling on Snape's part whatsoever. He greets her with no indication of good will or joy, and seems from my reading to be quite annoyed that she walks in on one of his tirades. Alla: Actually, I just reread the scene and I agree with you Lupinlore. Even though I also was inclined to agree that Snape welcomes McGonagall with some kind of good feeling and I don't see any. "Professor McGonagall!" said Snape, striding forward, "Out of St.Mungo, I see!" "Yes, Professor Snape," said Professor McGonagall, shrugging off her travelling cloak, "I am quite as good as new. You two - Crabbe- Goyle-" - OOP, p.852. I think I WANTED Snape to be at least glad that McGonagall came back. I see no sign of it in the text - no smile, or at least half- smile, nothing... I still think that in general Snape respects her though. Lupinlore: Being a product of one's upbringing is no excuse whatsoever. Snape fails in almost every test of being a decent human being, and thus fails in almost every test of being a "good" human being -- saving Harry's life notwithstanding. Alla: I agree. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 14 04:16:30 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:16:30 -0000 Subject: Oops! was Re: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV mortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121911 > vmonte responds: > > I agree with you that JKR will not pull out a time turner and make > everything ok in the end. If anything, the characters will realize > (in the end) that they caused more problems by using the time turner. > > I know I'm being stupid but what is the Ooops episode? Potioncat: No, of course you aren't being stupid. It's one of the Potions classes after Occlumency is cancelled. Harry turns in what he thinks will be a good potion, but it falls and breaks. And Snape says, "Oops! No mark again today" (or some such)(OoP) When things get too quiet, Rabid Snape Supporters and Vehement Snape Opponents get together and argue about how the container broke. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 04:19:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:19:57 -0000 Subject: Oops! was Re: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV mortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121912 Potioncat: No, of course you aren't being stupid. It's one of the Potions classes after Occlumency is cancelled. Harry turns in what he thinks will be a good potion, but it falls and breaks. And Snape says, "Oops! No mark again today" (or some such)(OoP) When things get too quiet, Rabid Snape Supporters and Vehement Snape Opponents get together and argue about how the container broke. Alla: MAHAHAHA! I told you long time ago - Snape twins, it is all their fault. Oh, I know, not only they appeared for that lesson, they invented new, more reliable Time -travel method and let Harry use it just to spite their poor Dad. How about that? :o) From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 14 04:26:50 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:26:50 -0000 Subject: Bellatrix's age (Was: Narcissa Malfoy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121913 Keth wrote: As poorly as I tend to think of Lucius, he doesn't really strike me as the child bride type so it's hard for me to imagine more than a couple of years seperate him and Narcissa. Of course, if he really was a child molester, I can't say that I would be shocked...grossed out, perhaps, but not shocked and that would pretty much put him on the permanent sh*t list in my books. > Potioncat: But we're talking less than 10 years difference. Certainly at one time, that was the more frequently seen span between husband and wife. And I would think there would be 7 or less years difference. (Of course, I'm right up there with JKR at math.) From ayaneva at aol.com Fri Jan 14 01:30:58 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:30:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121914 "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Geoff: > Interestingly, I've always had a slightly different take from other > posters on Harry's comment. > > Canon tells us: > '"Potter!" > The voice rang across the Entrance Hall. Snape had emerged form the > staircase leading down to his office and at the sight of him Harry > felt a great rush of hatred beyond anything he felt towards > Malfoy.... whatever Dumbledore said, he would never forgive Snape.... > never.... > "What are you doing, Potter?" said Snape, as coldly as ever, as he > strode over to the four of them. > "I'm trying to decide what curse to use on Malfoy, sir," said Harry > fiercely.' > > (OOTP "The Second War Begins" p.750 UK edition) > > Harry has this wave of anger, then Snape asks what might be > considered a silly question. > > I tend to interpret Harry's comment as being a change from a rush of > hatred to a cold fury and giving a sarcastic answer very tongue-in- > cheek; it is almost a way of telling Snape to get stuffed without > actually being blatantly rude.... > > That might be my reaction in such a situation. I hope I've responded to this in the correct format. I'm AyanEva and I've been reading the list for quite awhile, but I'm always too shy to post anything! Everyone seems to be so much more clever than I. Anyway, Geoff's quoting of canon brought to mind something that I've been curious about since I read book 5; the idea just won't let go. I'm sorry if it's been mentioned before, I haven't seen it yet. Harry's rush of anger always strikes me as odd and almost out of place. Thinking back to the rest of the book and Dumbledore's explanation of the anger and hatred that Harry felt whenever he was around Dumbledore, I can't help but wonder if we're seeing the same phenomenon w/ Harry's end-of-year encounter w/ Snape. What if it's Voldemort feeling a rush of anger and hatred towards Snape, but again, Harry's unable to distinguish b/w his own emotions and Voldemort's? The wording of the passage is strange in that it says that Harry would never forgive Snape. For what exactly? I assumed, after mulling it over for a bit, that he blames Snape for the death of Sirius. But what if it's something more than that? It could be that Voldemort's angry at Snape for...betraying him? Something? Aside from the likelihood that Voldemort knows that Snape betrayed him in the past, I can't think of a reason for the sudden display of anger. But maybe it only shows up now b/c the connection b/w him and Harry is stronger. The only problem that I can find w/ this theory is that JKR already used the Harry-Voldemort-emotional-connection previously and it might be a bit of a repeat. Then again, it does fit w/ canon and there's nothing to say that this isn't the case. Anyone wanna run w/ this? Or you can tell me that I've gone completely loony! :-) AyanEva (21 yr old research assistant, Philadelphia, PA) From mrsfigg1968 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 01:46:58 2005 From: mrsfigg1968 at yahoo.com (mrsfigg1968) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:46:58 -0000 Subject: More About Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121915 > Nicky Joe wrote: > > I was watching the first movie last night and recalled the time > > when Harry removed the glass from the snake cage. At the time, > > he knew no formal magic, had no wand, and made no sound at all. > > That makes me wonder if a wand and/or incantation is even necessary. > > Inkling: > > I've been assuming all along that not all incantations are spoken, > because there are too many places in the books where powerful magic > is done without speaking, as in the examples already cited and also > at such key moments as when Lupin and Sirius transform Scabbers > back into Peter in the Shrieking Shack. Still I have been assuming > that in these cases there is either a mental incantation, or an image, > or some other way of focussing attention toward a specific end. I just finished re-reading my HP series(semi-annual occurance). I noticed that in the 5th novel, in the death chamber, that most of the dueling takes place with very little mention to incantations. I do not have correct canon (pardon me), but I believe she describes several times where the duelist wands are moving like swords, she mentions the lights coming from the wands, she never mentions the duelist speaking the incantation. Also, several times Dumbledore conjures items almost at will with his wand without having to actually speak. Does this mean that in advanced magic, perhaps only certain wizards/witches reach a maturity level where the spoken word is not required? Just an interesting thought, I have been curious about this same thing for awhile. "mrsfigg1968" From mrsfigg1968 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 01:50:10 2005 From: mrsfigg1968 at yahoo.com (mrsfigg1968) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:50:10 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV mortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121916 > Tonks wrote: > Why would McGonagall give Hermione a time-turner just to > take a couple of extra classes when time turning is so dangerous? > (Drum roll ) Because either Harry, Tom or James is going to use > it again. So Hermione using the time-turner was to tell > the reader and Harry about time-turning. My Hubbie thinks the time-turner is a shoe in as well. I don't like it because it would be too easy to neatly wrap up all the loose ends...Ron goes back in time to become Dumbledore...Harry goes back in time to become Dumbledore...yada yada yada "mrsfigg1968" From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 02:12:45 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (Rebecca) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:12:45 -0000 Subject: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM (was: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121917 > Dungrollin: > > Chapter thirty-five: Beyond the Veil "Black shapes > > were emerging out of thin air all around them, > > blocking their way left and right; > > > > An interesting question is what was happening there. > > There's no cracking noise reminiscent of apparation, > > but similarly you'd expect both Harry and the narrator > > to recognise invisibility cloaks, ... There is of course the possibility that they had been hiding in wait in the MoM using a spell similar to the one used on Harry when flying to the OOTP headquaters. It made him blend in with his background while in effect and then re-appear when it was removed. Just a thought... Becky From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 02:59:13 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:59:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV mortality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050114025913.33849.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121918 --- Tonks wrote: ...snip... > > And why is time-turning so important? Because it is > what LV did to become immortal. He meddled with time. > *Terrible things happen to wizards that meddle with > time*. And perhaps one of those terrible things is > that they get stuck in time and can not escape. > And here is the real question (another drum roll) is > he really trying to live forever, or is he trying to > DIE. Maybe Tom Riddle messed around with a time-turner, > thought it was cool, but after a few years as LV, wanted > out and now can not get out. Juli now: WOW, Love this theory Tonks, completely amazing. But, as always, there's a but, first here's this little piece of canon: I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality. You know my goal - to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked ... for I had not been killed, though the curse should have done it. [...]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. (LV's speach to his DE, GoF Ch33) As I read this, LV wants his inmortality, not his capability to die. Just my opinion Juli From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 05:02:30 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:02:30 -0000 Subject: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121919 Halli: > >I would just like to point out that that would most definently *not* put them in Molly and Arthurs age group. In fact, they are *much* younger. I don't have my book with me, but in GOF, when Molly comes to Hogwarts just before the third task, and Harry takes them on a tour, she reminises about the groundskeeper before Hagrid, a man named 'Ogg' I think. Which means shes older than Hagrid and Tom, and since they were (I think) 61 in COS if my calclations are correct, she had to have graduated at least a year before Hagrids expulsion, making her... at least 5 or 6 years older than him.< > > Betsy reaponded: > I checked the Lexicon and it has Molly's year of birth somewhere > around the 1950s, while Tom Riddle was born in the mid-20s (1926?). > Plus, is there canon that states Hagrid was hired on as head grounds > keeper *immediately* after his expulsion? > > I admit, I don't think there's canon that states their ages one way > or another, but Arthur Weasley and Lucius Malfoy always struck me as > contemporaries. Carol replies: I checked the Lexicon and didn't find birthdates for Molly and Arthur. Even Charlie's years of attendance at Hogwarts are marked as uncertain. Can you tell me where you found this information (which section of the Lexicon)? And if you're right, I hope Lexicon Steve will explain his criteria for having the Weasleys born in the 1950s because I'm sure that they're considerably older than Lucius Malfoy. Malfoy, age 41 at the end of GoF, would have been born around 1955 if MWPP and Snape were born in 1960 (the Lexicon says 1954 for Malfoy, but I think that's off by a year). At any rate, the evidence of Ogg the groundskeeper, mentioned by Halli, suggests that the Weasleys were much older. Surely Hagrid, who was in his forties or fifties at the time, would have been groundskeeper throughout Malfoy's years at Hogwarts (ca. 1966-1973). Mrs. Weasley also mentions that Apollyon Pringle, not Argus Filch, was caretaker when she went to school. But it was Filch, not Pringle, who deprived MWPP of the Marauders Map, and their time at Hogwarts (ca. 1971-1978) overlaps Malfoy's by about two years. Filch's age is hard to determine, but he seems at least as old as Hagrid, so I'm guessing that he was caretaker throughout Malfoy's Hogwarts years as well as (presumably) MWPP's. I think it's significant that both the caretaker and the groundskeeper were different for the Weasleys than for MWPP et al., and JKR seems to be using this information to suggest that they're considerably older. (Given the slower aging of the wizarding population, Molly having children in her sixties or thereabouts shouldn't be surprising.) As for canon stating that Hagrid became groundskeeper immediately, I don't know of any, but there had to be a reason for keeping him at Hogwarts. Since DD was not headmaster then, he must have persuaded Armando Dippett to allow "little" Hagrid, aged about fourteen, to stay on as Ogg's assistant. Certainly they would not have fired Ogg and had an untrained, disgraced fourteen-year-old take his place. It's possible that Molly attended school while Hagrid was serving his apprenticeship, but surely she would have mentioned it. She seems to have been at school *before* Hagrid and not to have known him there. Maybe JKR has some better explanation, but I can't think of one. Carol, agreeing with Halli that Arthur Weasley and Lucius Malfoy are probably not contemporaries despite what is clearly a personal grudge between them From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 03:32:09 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:32:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) In-Reply-To: <159.4860cd38.2f1895b6@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050114033209.42392.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121920 --- chnc1024 at AOL.COM wrote: > What is Butterbeer, and why, seeing that it contains > alcohol, are the students allowed to have it? Juli: I'll give it a shot, there are some beers that are called alcohol-free beers, I used to drink them as a kid, then last year while I was studying alcohol and it's use/abuse I realized it does contain alcohol, just half the amount that regular beer does, so authorities don't consider it an alcoholic beverage. Just like in France, kids are allowed to drink wine from time to time, why? Because it's their way of life. So my guess is that it's alcohol level is low enough not to be considered "alcoholic". From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 05:40:05 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:40:05 -0000 Subject: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol replies: > I checked the Lexicon and didn't find birthdates for Molly and Arthur. > Even Charlie's years of attendance at Hogwarts are marked as > uncertain. Can you tell me where you found this information (which > section of the Lexicon)? And if you're right, I hope Lexicon Steve > will explain his criteria for having the Weasleys born in the 1950s > because I'm sure that they're considerably older than Lucius Malfoy. > > Malfoy, age 41 at the end of GoF, would have been born around 1955 if MWPP and Snape were born in 1960 (the Lexicon says 1954 for Malfoy, but I think that's off by a year). At any rate, the evidence of Ogg the groundskeeper, mentioned by Halli, suggests that the Weasleys were much older. Surely Hagrid, who was in his forties or fifties at the time, would have been groundskeeper throughout Malfoy's years at Hogwarts (ca. 1966-1973). Mrs. Weasley also mentions that Apollyon Pringle, not Argus Filch, was caretaker when she went to school. But it was Filch, not Pringle, who deprived MWPP of the Marauders Map, and their time at Hogwarts (ca. 1971-1978) overlaps Malfoy's by about two years. Filch's age is hard to determine, but he seems at least as old as Hagrid, so I'm guessing that he was caretaker throughout Malfoy's Hogwarts years as well as (presumably) MWPP's. I think it's significant that both the caretaker and the groundskeeper were different for the Weasleys than for MWPP et al., >Snip> Tonks here: If you look in the Lexicon, not under the Weasley family, but under the seperate entry for Molly, it says that they guess 1950. I always thought that Molly and Arthur were around the same age as the Malfoys, manybe a bit older, but not more than 5 to 10 years max. Certainly not as old as Hagrid. I don't know about the different groundskeeper and caretaker, that is a bit odd. Tonks_op From juli17 at aol.com Fri Jan 14 05:47:55 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:47:55 EST Subject: Draco's anger (was Snape and Occlumency) Message-ID: <198.3640708e.2f18b70b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121922 > Alla: > > Actually, I just reread the scene and I agree with you Lupinlore. > Even though I also was inclined to agree that Snape welcomes > McGonagall with some kind of good feeling and I don't see any. > > "Professor McGonagall!" said Snape, striding forward, "Out of > St.Mungo, I see!" > "Yes, Professor Snape," said Professor McGonagall, shrugging off her > travelling cloak, "I am quite as good as new. You two - Crabbe- > Goyle-" - OOP, p.852. > > I think I WANTED Snape to be at least glad that McGonagall came > back. I see no sign of it in the text - no smile, or at least half- > smile, nothing... > I still think that in general Snape respects her though. Julie says: I read it as Snape being glad to see McGonagall. When he says "Professor McGonagall!" the exclamation mark indicates a strong outburst of emotion behind Snape's words. It could be anger, annoyance, disgust, etc, but there's nothing to indicate so (and Snape and McGonagall don't have a past history of enmity). I read it as surprise with an element of satisfaction. He's glad to see she's returned. Remember also that we see the scene (as we do most all) from Harry's POV. If there was anything unpleasant or unenthusiastic about Snape's greeting, we would have read '"Professor McGonagall(!)" Snape sneered/muttered/glowered.' The very fact that there is no negative connotation conferred on Snape's tone or expression is a pretty good indication that his mood at that moment is, if not cheerful, at least fairly agreeable ;-) Julie (who can't imagine Snape ever being described as "smiling," particularly not while the narration reflects Harry's POV!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 05:54:15 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:54:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's scar , vulnerability, and Occlumency (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121923 Alla wrote: > > "Nowadays, however, his scar hardly > ever stopped prickling, and he often felt lurches of annoyance or > cheerfulness that were unrelated to what was happening to him at the > time, which were always accompanied by a particularly painful twinge > from his scar. He had the horrible impression that he was slowly > turning into a kind of aerial that was tuned in to tiny fluctuations > in Voldemort's mood, and he was SURE (emphasis mine) that he could > date this increased sensitivity firmly from his first lesson with > Snape" - OOP, p.554, paperback, american edition. > > > So, it seems to me that even if Harry was vulnerable before, which > eh of course was, his vulnerability GREATLY increased since the > first lesson. > > I find it strange. Carol responds: First, I don't count increased prickling as "greatly increased." But bear in mind that the prickling relates to Voldemort's desire to get Harry to get to the MoM and pick up the Prophecy orb. Harry starts having the dream both before Occlumency but several things happen that make the dreams, and the prickling, more intense. First, Voldemort finds out about the connection between him and Harry through the dream about Mr. Weasley (which made Harry sicker than anything that happened after Occlumency). At this time, too, Harry starts getting the urge to bite DD like a snake, making DD think it would be better for Snape to give Harry the lessons than for him to do so. Then LV finds out that only he and Harry can pick up the Prophecy. And on the very night that the Occlumency lessons begin, Voldemort finds out that his DEs have escaped, providing him with a way to kill Harry (if he can only lure him to the MoM) without being at the MoM himself. None of these things has any connection with Snape, but all of them add up to an increasingly urgent desire on Voldemort's part to get into Harry's head and make him finish that dream. Naturally Harry dates the increased sensitivity to the first Occlumency lesson. That's the point when Voldemort starts pushing him harder. As I pointed out in another post, Snape does not force the MoM idea out of Harry's head or put it in; Harry himself puts together his real memory of the corridor and the dreams he's been having. This discovery in itself increases his desire to have the dreams, and he is certainly putting no effort into the Occlumency, so Snape's intrusions into his mind are greater and have more effect than they would have if he'd been practicing. Another thing. You emphasize "Harry was SURE." That to me is a giveaway that Harry's wrong, just like "Harry knew he was dead" and "harry heard Bellatrix's triumphant scream but knew it meant nothing," both of which are just plain wrong. "Harry knew" or "Harry was sure" is often a clue that Harry is mistaken. Carol earlier: > > Conclusion: Snape is *not* trying to open up Harry's mind to > Voldemort. > Alla responded: > > I think I showed that exactly opposite conclusion is just as firmly > supported by canon as yours. Carol again: I see that we've reached our usual standoff. I'm firmly convinced that Voldemort, not Snape, is responsible for Harry's increased vulnerability. But what I don't see evidence for anywhere outside Harry's and Ron's suppositions is Snape's *deliberate* desire to open Harry's mind to Voldemort. And I ask anyone who still holds that view to please read my post 121741 before responding. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121741 Carol, who should start calling herself "Carol Carol" because she keeps signing her posts twice From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 05:57:19 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:57:19 -0000 Subject: More About Snape and Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121924 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mrsfigg1968" wrote: > > > Nicky Joe wrote: Snip> > > That makes me wonder if a wand and/or incantation is even necessary. > > > > Inkling: > > > > I've been assuming all along that not all incantations are spoken, because there are too many places in the books where powerful magic is done without speaking, as in the examples already cited and also at such key moments as when Lupin and Sirius transform Scabbers back into Peter in the Shrieking Shack. Still I have been assuming that in these cases there is either a mental incantation, or an image, or some other way of focussing attention toward a specific end. > > ------------------- > I just finished re-reading my HP series(semi-annual occurance). I > noticed that in the 5th novel, in the death chamber, that most of the dueling takes place with very little mention to incantations. snip> Also, several times Dumbledore conjures items almost at will with his wand without having to actually speak. Does this mean that in advanced magic, perhaps only certain wizards/witches reach a maturity level where the spoken word is not required? Just an interesting thought, I have been curious about this same thing for awhile. > > "mrsfigg1968" Tonks here: Yes, I think this is exactly what advanced magick means. Magick can be done without a wand, with the power of the mind. A very experienced wizard does not need a wand at all. All the wand does is to channel the power of the universe and the power of the wizard. It is possible to channel that without a wand. And without words. And I am talking about real *magick*. For example: I saw a PBS show once where they had a very old Chinese man using I think Chi Going or something and with just the power of his mind channeled through his hand, without ever touching anyone he was able to throw attackers to the ground. It was one of those Bill Moyer specials about the power of the mind. So this stuff is real. And in the WW I am sure it is done the same way. Tonks_op From kempermentor at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 06:08:45 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:08:45 -0000 Subject: His mother's eyes (was: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/TT/ LV mortality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121925 Tonks wrote: Ahha!! I have got it!!! And *Harry has his mother's (green) eyes* is to tell the readers and members of the wizarding world how to know that it is Harry that is standing in front of them and not someone else. Kemper now: I don't know about the TimeTurner stuff, I'm not a fan of those theories. But I have been thinking about his eyes... In GF, we have a dark potion. "Bone of the father unknowingly given you will renew your son. Flesh of the servant willingly given you will revive your master. Blood of the enemy forcibly taken you will resurrect your foe." What about on a fateful Halloween, there was a love charm. Blood of the mother freely given you will protect your blood. Soul of the mother secretly given you will guard your son. Life of the mother knowingly given you will defend your child. Lily cuts her hand then places her hand on Harry's forehead. The cut on her hand is lightning/eihwaz shaped. She looks into her son's eyes, and their souls touch. A part of her soul stays with Harry; he has his mother's eyes. Lily sacrifices herself, sealing the `mother's shield' charm. What if one of the Ancient Laws of Magic, as it were, is you can't curse the dead and, if you do, something happens. The curse rebounds back to the curser. So when the AK is cast against Harry, it rebounds back to LV because Lily is dead, and a part of Lily, through her charm, is in Harry. But then, why didn't LV die? I don't know, but I'm thinking about it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 06:25:52 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:25:52 -0000 Subject: Bellatrix's age (Was: Narcissa Malfoy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121926 Kethryn wrote: > I guess the only reason that I postulate that Bella is about Lucius' age is because of Narcissa, really. I mean, if the Black family tree is correct and the ww does family trees the way we do them, then Bella would be the eldest and Narcissa would be the baby. As poorly as I tend to think of Lucius, he doesn't really strike me as the child bride type so it's hard for me to imagine more than a couple of years seperate him and Narcissa. Carol: Well, since I think Narcissa is the oldest sister in spite of the apparent order of the names on the tapestry, I agree that she's Lucius's age and that he didn't marry a child bride. And in order for Andromeda, the middle sister, to have had a child Tonk's age, *she* would have to be close to Lucius'age. I put them in this order: 1) Narcissa (Lucius's age, five years older than MWPP and, by WW standards, by no means too old to be Draco's mother, about 41 at the end of GoF; certainly not a child bride) 2) Andromeda (about a year younger, about 40 at the end of GoF--She must have been just out of school when she had Tonks) 3) Bellatrix (two years younger than Lucius and three years older than Sirius because of the quote in the "Noble House of Black" chapter, about 39 at the end of GoF) If we ignore or otherwise reinterpret the quote and reverse the ages of Narcissa and Bellatrix, she's still not a child bride. She would be only two years younger than Lucius. But I stand with my original interpretation. (If anyone wants it, it's in post 121706; the quote and an addendum is in post 121834.) Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 06:33:44 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:33:44 -0000 Subject: Bellatrix's age (Was: Narcissa Malfoy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121927 > Keth wrote: > As poorly as I tend to think of Lucius, he doesn't really strike > me as the child bride type so it's hard for me to imagine more than > a couple of years seperate him and Narcissa. > Potioncat responded: > But we're talking less than 10 years difference. Certainly at one > time, that was the more frequently seen span between husband and > wife. And I would think there would be 7 or less years difference. > (Of course, I'm right up there with JKR at math.) Carol notes: As I've already indicated in several posts, I think Narcissa is Lucius's age and the oldest of the three. An additional reason, which I forgot to mention, is that our pragmatic Lucius would certainly have married the oldest sister as the one who would inherit her family's estate if it wasn't divided equally. And Lucius must surely have met Narcissa in school, which seems to be the case with all the WW marriages we've seen so far. Note that the marriage partners are also usually close in age, often in the same year. Just a thought, as Steve always says. Carol, wondering where either of you arrived at a ten years' difference between Lucius and Narcissa from the original argument that Bellatrix is two years younger than Lucius From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 06:58:26 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:58:26 -0000 Subject: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM (was: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121928 Dungrollin wrote: > > > Chapter thirty-five: Beyond the Veil "Black shapes were emerging out of thin air all around them, blocking their way left and right; > > > > > > An interesting question is what was happening there. There's no cracking noise reminiscent of apparation, but similarly you'd expect both Harry and the narrator to recognise invisibility cloaks, ... > > Becky responded: > There is of course the possibility that they had been hiding in wait in the MoM using a spell similar to the one used on Harry when flying to the OOTP headquaters. It made him blend in with his background while in effect and then re-appear when it was removed. Carol notes: Since they were all in black (robes, cloaks, hoods, and masks), they would have blended into the shadows anyway and no such spell would have been needed. IIRC, the place was dimly lit, possibly only by the Prophecy orbs themselves. Harry and friends may have had their backs turned to them as well. (They emerged from left and right but they could have come from behind along both sides of the shelves while Harry and his friends were all focusing their attention on the Prophecy orb.) Maybe Lucius was watching to see when Harry would pick up the orb and gave the DEs the signal to move forward and surround them. One tiny thing about that scene bothers me. The narrator says early on that Harry could see their eyes through slits in their hoods, which doesn't make much sense. Hoods go over the head and around the face, not over it. (Even Tolkien's Black Riders merely have huge hoods that would throw their faces into shadow if they had visible faces.) Later, though, JKR has at least three of them (Dolohov, MacNair, and Bellatrix) remove their masks, so clearly it's the mask, not the hood, that has slits for the eyes. A tiny detail, but as an editor, I'd have pointed it out and asked JKR to fix it or fixed it myself and queried it with "Edit okay?". Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 07:42:28 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:42:28 -0000 Subject: His mother's eyes (was: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/TT/ LV mortality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121929 Kemper wrote: > In GF, we have a dark potion. > "Bone of the father unknowingly given you will renew your son. > Flesh of the servant willingly given you will revive your master. > Blood of the enemy forcibly taken you will resurrect your foe." > > What about on a fateful Halloween, there was a love charm. > Blood of the mother freely given you will protect your blood. > Soul of the mother secretly given you will guard your son. > Life of the mother knowingly given you will defend your child. > > Lily cuts her hand then places her hand on Harry's forehead. The cut on her hand is lightning/eihwaz shaped. She looks into her son's eyes, and their souls touch. A part of her soul stays with Harry; he has his mother's eyes. Lily sacrifices herself, sealing the `mother's shield' charm. > > What if one of the Ancient Laws of Magic, as it were, is you can't curse the dead and, if you do, something happens. The curse rebounds back to the curser. > So when the AK is cast against Harry, it rebounds back to LV because Lily is dead, and a part of Lily, through her charm, is in Harry. > > But then, why didn't LV die? I don't know, but I'm thinking about it. Carol responds: I've also been arguing for a protective charm placed on Baby!Harry, but your version gives me shivers. Also, we have indications that Lily was good with Charms but nothing has been said about her and potions. Still, a potion combined with an incantation does sound like a form of "ancient magic" so I'm certainly not ruling it out. Here's my version, combining my theories and yours and attempting to answer the question about Voldemort: Lily places an elaborate Protego (shield charm) on Baby Harry, perhaps involving an incantation like the one kemper hypothesized (as opposed to the mere name of the spell), and, using her finger, marks Harry's forehead with an (defense) eihwaz rune, like a priest marking a baby's forehead with a cross in a baptismal service. The incantation specifies that the charm will be activated by her self-sacrifice. Shortly afterwards, she is murdered, sacrificing herself for Harry and activating the charm. Voldemort tries to kill Harry, and the powerful Protego erupts through Harry's forehead, leaving an eihwaz-shaped opening that later turns into a scar. The Protego deflects the AK onto Voldemort, who is not killed because of the protections he put on himself (even he doesn't know which "experiments" made him immortal, but something did. See the speech in the graveyard quoted by Juli in post 121918). The force of the Protego explodes not only Voldemort but everything around him, and the house crashes on dead Lily and Baby!Harry. (Dead James is somewhere outside the house where he died duelling with Voldemort.) While the wound is open, some of Voldemort's powers and possibly some of his anger enters into Harry. (I don't think, as explained elsewhere, that he permanently lost those powers, but he can't use them until he regains a body, and meanwhile, Harry, marked as Voldemort's equal by the very scar that symbolizes his protection, now possesses some of the same powers in latent form.) Anyway, I suppose Lily could have cut herself and used her blood to mark Harry with the rune to symbolize blood protection, but I don't see the necessity for that, or for the part about looking into his eyes. But at any rate, I think an explanation like this allows the scar to be caused by a cut when the AK hit (AKs normally don't leave any mark) and at the same time allows the scar to be a symbol of his mother's protection, the eihwaz (defense) rune. As noted in an earlier post, JKR did say that the shape of the scar wasn't the most important thing about it, but she didn't say that the shape wasn't important at all. Valky, what do you think? Are we hitting close to the mark? Carol From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Jan 14 09:06:11 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:06:11 -0000 Subject: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM (was: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121930 > Dungrollin wrote: > Chapter thirty-five: Beyond the Veil "Black shapes were emerging out of thin air all around them, blocking their way left and right; > An interesting question is what was happening there. There's no cracking noise reminiscent of apparation, but similarly you'd expect both Harry and the narrator to recognise invisibility cloaks, ... > Becky responded: > There is of course the possibility that they had been hiding in wait in the MoM using a spell similar to the one used on Harry when flying to the OOTP headquaters. It made him blend in with his background while in effect and then re-appear when it was removed. > Carol notes: > Since they were all in black (robes, cloaks, hoods, and masks), they would have blended into the shadows anyway and no such spell would have been needed. IIRC, the place was dimly lit, possibly only by the Prophecy orbs themselves. Harry and friends may have had their backs turned to them as well. (They emerged from left and right but they could have come from behind along both sides of the shelves while Harry and his friends were all focusing their attention on the Prophecy orb.) Maybe Lucius was watching to see when Harry would pick up the orb and gave the DEs the signal to move forward and surround them. (snip) Dungrollin replies: Sorry to pick on you, Carol, as I know several others have suggested this. But how exactly does "Black shapes were emerging out of thin air" equate to "Someone yelled 'Now!' and they all legged it round the corner of the row (which Harry had, BTW, just searched behind) and arrived in time to surround the kids, panting slightly from the unexpectedly sudden burst of exercise, but nevertheless taking the children completely by surprise"? Silencing charm on their footsteps, perhaps? The prophecy hall is lit by candles set in brackets at intervals along the shelves, with blue-burning flames. "They had reached the end of the row and emerged into more dim candlelight." Yes, it's not very brightly lit - in fact "... the further ends of [the rows] were in near-total darkness." But, Harry "... ran up the space at the end of the rows, staring down them. Empty aisle after empty aisle flickered past. He ran the other way, back past his staring companions. There was no sign of Sirius anywhere, nor any hint of a struggle." Nor, presumably, does Harry see a group of DEs trying to blend in and look like innocent bits of dusty shelves. "Emerging out of thin air" suggests very strongly to me that magic was used. I like the disillusionment charm idea a lot. Wonder if that's what DD used when he spied on Harry and Ron looking in the mirror of Erised... Dungrollin From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Fri Jan 14 09:07:38 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:07:38 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (and a little about Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121931 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > My, my, you *have* been paying attention. I'm flattered! Renee: I'll take that as a compliment on my memory. Thanks! > Renee: > in whodunits, villains of this stature do have the tendency to > occupy the centre of the stage at the end. So what it boils down > to, I guess, is that I'm simply refusing to believe in the HP > series > as a whodunit with such a demasque at the end. I'm afraid no > amount of theorising will bridge the gap between my HP series > and yours. > > > Pippin: > I dunno -- LOTR is high fantasy. But consider Saruman. He's > introduced as the Head of the Order, the White Wizard who > drove the Enemy out of Mirkwood. A light bringer, and one who > drove away an evil entity, eh? Even though he's already > supposed to be succumbing to evil at this point and there's a > hint or two that Gandalf would be wise to trust him less than he > does. > > But even though he doublecrosses Gandalf and Theoden, is > responsible for the deaths of Boromir and slew of lesser > characters, and dies in the last ditch (pace Peter Jackson), he > doesn't for a moment threaten Sauron's place as the arch-villain. > It's Sauron who corrupted him and inspires his every move, even > when Saruman thinks he's acting for himself, and Sauron who > preoccupies the heroes. > > Saruman could easily overshadow the Hobbits if Tolkien let him, > but he doesn't. By the time "Sharkey" is unmasked, in a tiny but > nonetheless distinguishable mystery plot, they have grown and > he has dwindled, so much that he's undone by his whining, > miserable servant, a fellow by the name of Wormtongue. > Hmmm. Renee: In a way, you have a higher opinion of Lupin than I have, if you think he's of the same stature as Saruman; I don't put him at such a level (but then, I don't interpret JKR's remark that he's a great man the way you do). To me, this analogy simply doesn't work. Saruman turns out to be evil the first time we 'see' him in action (in Gandalf's account in the Council of Elrond), even though he has been mentioned before. Unlike Lupin, he's unmasked quite early in the story, he never builds any kind of relationship with the main character, he never protects, helps or supports him in any way and the main character doesn't regard him with anything remotely resembling affection. Rather than being an example of 'you can't trust anyone even if they're being nice' he's a prime example of the corruption of power from an early stage of LotR onward. > Renee: > I rather see him confess his wrongdoings and shortcomings on > several occasions. > > Pippin: > Only when speaking to Sirius and the trio, never to anyone who > has the power to punish him. Renee: You mean we don't see him do so. But we don't see Shape confessing his wrongdoings, yet you say: "Would Dumbledore trust someone who had served the Dark Side and wasn't contrite?" If showing remorse for past wrongs is a condition to get back into DD's good graces, Lupin must have done so, or DD wouldn't accept him in the renewed Order of the Phoenix. He just didn't do it in Harry's presence. > Renee: > Also, there's nothing new in the message that a dehumanising > treatment often results in inhuman behaviour. What makes you > think JKR isn't writing the opposite: an example of someone who > is eventually able to rise above this kind of treatment? > > Pippin: > Of course she is, that's why the books are called Harry Potter > and... As Harry is the hero, it might be more fitting if he > helped someone else rise above, Snape maybe, rather than > being helped by Lupin. Lupin's path, detachment, does not > seem to be Harry's. Renee: Harry's the hero, but he's also going through a learning process. He can do both: being helped, and (therefore) helping someone else. This makes more sense to me, a matter of input and output. And Lupin's detached attitude doesn't prevent him from helping Harry when it's necessary (Patronus), keeping him from running through the Veil (did you ever explain why Lupin did this if he's ESE? I've only kept track of the posts since I became a member) and showing up in King's Cross station at the end of OotP. Also, in the beginning, it wasn't that difficult for Harry to rise above his bad treatment, because in the WW he turned out to be popular (Snape and Draco & Co. nothwithstanding), and he spent most of his time there. But when he starts losing this popularity, his attitude deteriorates, his triumphs become tainted and he gives in to negative emotions. The way he is at the end of OotP, he is unfit to help Snape; Harry himself needs help first. Renee who hopes this isn't getting boring for other list members From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Fri Jan 14 09:31:40 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:31:40 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM (was: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <18A520DA-660F-11D9-9325-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 121932 On Friday, January 14, 2005, at 05:58 pm, justcarol67 wrote: > One tiny thing about that scene bothers me. The narrator says early on > that Harry could see their eyes through slits in their hoods, which > doesn't make much sense. Hoods go over the head and around the face, > not over it. (Even Tolkien's Black Riders merely have huge hoods that > would throw their faces into shadow if they had visible faces.) Later, > though, JKR has at least three of them (Dolohov, MacNair, and > Bellatrix) remove their masks, so clearly it's the mask, not the hood, > that has slits for the eyes. A tiny detail, but as an editor, I'd have > pointed it out and asked JKR to fix it or fixed it myself and queried > it with "Edit okay?". I was assuming that the hoods were more like the hoods you see in the classic depiction of executioners. Rather like a sack over the head with a slit for the eyes? I have always heard that particular garment described as a hood, although it is quite different from the hood one thinks of in connection with a cloak. Do you know the sort I mean, or should I try and hunt up a picture? Jocelyn ---------- From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Fri Jan 14 09:41:05 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:41:05 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM (was: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: <18A520DA-660F-11D9-9325-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: <69112F98-6610-11D9-9325-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 121933 On Friday, January 14, 2005, at 08:31 pm, Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > Do you know the sort I mean, or should I try and hunt up a picture? > What the heck - I hunted up a photo anyway Go and look at this to see what I mean by an 'executioner's hood': http://www.costumecraze.com/ACC03.html Jocelyn From BamaJenny12 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 07:28:47 2005 From: BamaJenny12 at yahoo.com (Jenny H) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:28:47 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM (was: Snape and Occlumency) References: Message-ID: <000a01c4fa0a$b4e68640$0201a8c0@ROLLTIDE> No: HPFGUIDX 121934 Carol notes: One tiny thing about that scene bothers me. The narrator says early on that Harry could see their eyes through slits in their hoods, which doesn't make much sense. Hoods go over the head and around the face, not over it. (Even Tolkien's Black Riders merely have huge hoods that would throw their faces into shadow if they had visible faces.) Later, though, JKR has at least three of them (Dolohov, MacNair, and Bellatrix) remove their masks, so clearly it's the mask, not the hood, that has slits for the eyes. A tiny detail, but as an editor, I'd have pointed it out and asked JKR to fix it or fixed it myself and queried it with "Edit okay?". Carol Jenny here: There could have been eye slits in hoods. The Klu Klux Klan wore white hoods (not masks) with slits. It was a hood, as you described, that went over the head and around the face, but there was an extra flap attached to the top front of the hood that drapped down to cover the face. In fact, when I read this, that was the image that immediately popped into my head: KKK hoods, only black instead of white. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fionap19 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 14 10:57:45 2005 From: fionap19 at yahoo.co.uk (Fiona) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:57:45 -0000 Subject: Identity of Half-Blood Prince Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121935 I recently bought myself a Latin-English dictionary to help me with my writing and I came across an entry for PRINCE. prince - noun - regulus, regis, filius The entry got me to thinking back over the role of the diminutive charms professor and to wondering if JKR is trying to wrong-foot us into thinking the prince has to be a major character. Perhaps Flitwick is half-human half-goblin? It opens some interesting possibilities. From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 14 12:02:26 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:02:26 -0000 Subject: Identity of Half-Blood Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121936 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Fiona" wrote: > > > I recently bought myself a Latin-English dictionary to help me with > my writing and I came across an entry for PRINCE. > > prince - noun - regulus, regis, filius > > The entry got me to thinking back over the role of the diminutive > charms professor and to wondering if JKR is trying to wrong-foot us > into thinking the prince has to be a major character. Perhaps > Flitwick is half-human half-goblin? It opens some interesting > possibilities. Geoff: I think your dictionary entry needs to be defined a little. I suspect part of your entry should not be "regis, filius" but "regis filius" (without the comma) which is the Latin for "son of a king". filius=son, regis=of a king (genitive case) from rex=king. regulus=petty king - whatever that means(!)and there is also the Latin noun princeps=prince. Sorry for the rush of pedantry to the head..... Geoff http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com Enjoy a virtual visit to the Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Fri Jan 14 12:48:55 2005 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:48:55 -0000 Subject: Everything Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121937 "nkafkafi" wrote: It seems to me that this whole ESE!Lupin thing is crazy! I work in a pharmacy. It would probably surprise you the number of people we get in who are asking what they ought to do because they've forgotten to take extremely important medicine. It's certainly a long way removed from uncommon. Miz Storge: I work at a large teaching hospital and I'm a sefety representative. There seem to be events in which everything that can go wrong does, and when you examine them later it seems pretty farfetched that so many failures ocurred in one procedure. It's just when a writer tells a story that happens like that people find their credulity strained. Of course there is always the question of why a werewolf would choose to be on LV side when LV would clearly have been against werewolfs. Miz Storge: I think it's because they appear to be intrinsic dark creatures in "Fantastic Beasts". From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 14 13:00:54 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:00:54 -0000 Subject: Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121938 > Tonks here: > > If you look in the Lexicon, not under the Weasley family, but under > the seperate entry for Molly, it says that they guess 1950. > > I always thought that Molly and Arthur were around the same age as > the Malfoys, manybe a bit older, but not more than 5 to 10 years > max. Certainly not as old as Hagrid. > > I don't know about the different groundskeeper and caretaker, that > is a bit odd. Potioncat: Two thoughts. (That's a lot, pre-coffee) I think in one of the books Molly calls Professor McGonagall "Minerva." I've been meaning to go look for it because it didn't strike me as significant at first, but I began to wonder if they were friends at school. (I know, after having 7 kids in the professor's House, a parent might be on first name basis with her.) It would make sense for Molly and Arthur to be Minerva's age, particularly given the different staff members they remember from their Hogwarts days. Keep in mind that there is nothing in the books to make us think Minerva is 70. And her age isn't mentioned until she's hit by those 4 spells in OoP. (And then an age isn't given.) There is also the fact that Arthur was punished so severely that he has scars from it. I don't think that sort of punishment would be allowed when DD was Headmaster. (But given the free reign he gives Professor Snape, I could be wrong.) This does seem to create a long time between the Weasleys graduating from Hogwarts and having children. And it does make for a heck of a long child-bearing age for witches. Thought two: Which I offer in the spirit of sharing ideas. (warning TT coming) I can't find it, but I read it just a few days ago at the Lexicon. There's an essay that suggests that Molly and Arthur have been TT'd to this time. Oops, out of time, gotta go! Potioncat From madettebeau at gmail.com Fri Jan 14 13:02:36 2005 From: madettebeau at gmail.com (madlysarcastic) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:02:36 -0000 Subject: Bellatrix's age (Was: Narcissa Malfoy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121939 Carol wrote: > I forgot to mention, is that our pragmatic Lucius would certainly have > married the oldest sister as the one who would inherit her family's > estate if it wasn't divided equally. And Lucius must surely have met > Narcissa in school, which seems to be the case with all the WW > marriages we've seen so far. Note that the marriage partners are also > usually close in age, often in the same year. Maddy writes: I had always assumed that Andromeda was the eldest Black sister. My reasoning for this is probably because Tonks appears to be (approximately?) 6 or 7 years older than Draco Malfoy. One could assume that because Andromeda had a child before Narcissa did, she also married before her sister(s) did, and was therefore is older. Since we know that Andromeda married Muggle-born Ted Tonks, it is quite probable that she was disowned by the Black family and therefore wouldn't inherit anything. So if Narcissa was the next oldest, any inheritance would fall to her. Although, I quite like the idea of Bellatrix being the middle child, I think she is most likely the youngest of the three. Probably 2-5 years older than Sirius. =) Maddy (who notices she uses "assume" and "probable" far too often these days) From inkling108 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 13:59:49 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:59:49 -0000 Subject: Advanced Magic (was More About Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121940 Mrs. Figg wrote: > > I just finished re-reading my HP series(semi-annual occurance). I > > noticed that in the 5th novel, in the death chamber, that most of > the dueling takes place with very little mention to incantations. > snip> Also, several times Dumbledore conjures items almost at will > with his wand without having to actually speak. Does this mean that > in advanced magic, perhaps only certain wizards/witches reach a > maturity level where the spoken word is not required? Just an > interesting thought, I have been curious about this same thing for > awhile. Then Tonks wrote: > > Yes, I think this is exactly what advanced magick means. Magick can > be done without a wand, with the power of the mind. A very > experienced wizard does not need a wand at all. All the wand does is > to channel the power of the universe and the power of the wizard. It > is possible to channel that without a wand. And without words. And I > am talking about real *magick*. For example: I saw a PBS show once > where they had a very old Chinese man using I think Chi Going or > something and with just the power of his mind channeled through his > hand, without ever touching anyone he was able to throw attackers to > the ground. It was one of those Bill Moyer specials about the power > of the mind. So this stuff is real. And in the WW I am sure it is > done the same way. Now Inkling writes: JKR clearly knows a lot about European Medieval and Renaissance magic, given all the Alchemical symbolism and the mention of Flamel, Agrippa, Paracelsus. Not sure what she knows about more recent stuff, like the Golden Dawn or about traditions from other cultures, such as China. Probably more than she lets on. (And who can blame her with all the fundies who are already in a froth about her.) One of my hopes for Books 6 and 7 is that we learn what constitutes advanced magic in the WW. There have been lots of references to stuff that is "well beyong OWL level." So now that the kids have taken their OWLs, they should be starting to learn this stuff. (Since JKR has said that there are no universities in the WW, they would have to learn it in their last years at Hogwarts, yes?) With a war going on they won't be able to focus on their studies as much as in previous books, but I still hope JKR develops this angle of the story, because I've been curious about it for a long time. Inkling From meriaugust at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 14:46:36 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:46:36 -0000 Subject: Family Ties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121941 Tonks wrote: > Where I am going with this is maybe James' is related in some way to > Tom Riddle's mother. Meri now: Interesting theory, but unfortunately it is debunked in canon. In CoS, when we find out who Tom Riddle really is, he says something along the lines of the noble blood of Salazar Slytherin runs through his veins from his mother's family. And then Dumbledore confirms for Harry that LV is in fact the *last* descendent of Slytherin. (I know some editions, my own included, have that typoed as "ancestor" but I am pretty sure that this is a mistake.) You could argue the point that maybe DD was just waiting to tell Harry that he was related to LV at a later time, but whatever we can say about DD he never lies to Harry. And I am also pretty sure that JKR said that making Harry and LV distant cousins would be too "Star Wars" for her. Meri - From pegruppel at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 14:51:11 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:51:11 -0000 Subject: Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) In-Reply-To: <20050114033209.42392.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121942 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > --- chnc1024 at A... wrote: > > > What is Butterbeer, and why, seeing that it contains > > alcohol, are the students allowed to have it? > > Juli: > I'll give it a shot, there are some beers that are > called alcohol-free beers, I used to drink them as a > kid, then last year while I was studying alcohol and > it's use/abuse I realized it does contain alcohol, > just half the amount that regular beer does, so > authorities don't consider it an alcoholic beverage. > Just like in France, kids are allowed to drink wine > from time to time, why? Because it's their way of > life. So my guess is that it's alcohol level is low > enough not to be considered "alcoholic". I'll agree with Julie and add a point--most soft drinks (pop, soda, whatever your local dialect calls for) have a little alcohol in them. Homemade soft drink recipes often call for a little yeast to carbonate them. Even bread has a little alcohol--the yeast that raises bread is pretty much the same one used for fermenting beer and wine. Peg From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Jan 14 15:13:27 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:13:27 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ok, Stupid Question In-Reply-To: <159.4860cd38.2f1895b6@aol.com> Message-ID: <005001c4fa4b$9a1dec40$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 121943 OK I know this is a stupid question, but I figured I'd go ahead and ask it anyway. (Hey, it's not like it ever stopped me before right!) What is Butterbeer, and why, seeing that it contains alcohol, are the students allowed to have it? Chancie Sherry now: no stupid questions. But I have one back. How do we know it is alcoholic? I know it makes Winky drunk, but she is a different creature, not human, and her system must react to butter beer that way. Is there anywhere in the books that butter beer is explained and said to be alcoholic to humans? I've always sort of been curious about it, too, but I can't remember anything except Winky's reaction. Sherry From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 15:20:13 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:20:13 -0000 Subject: Family Ties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121944 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > > Tonks wrote: > > Where I am going with this is maybe James' is related in some way > to > > Tom Riddle's mother. > > Meri now: Interesting theory, but unfortunately it is debunked in > canon. In CoS, when we find out who Tom Riddle really is, he says > something along the lines of the noble blood of Salazar Slytherin > runs through his veins from his mother's family. And then Dumbledore > confirms for Harry that LV is in fact the *last* descendent of > Slytherin. (I know some editions, my own included, have that typoed > as "ancestor" but I am pretty sure that this is a mistake.) You > could argue the point that maybe DD was just waiting to tell Harry > that he was related to LV at a later time, but whatever we can say > about DD he never lies to Harry. And I am also pretty sure that JKR > said that making Harry and LV distant cousins would be too "Star > Wars" for her. > Meri - Tonks: You are right. I wasn't thinking. Just can't figure out how it is that Tom Riddle, James Potter and Harry all look so much alike. Harry and James, of course, because they are father and son. But Tom??? Tonks_op From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 14 15:24:14 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:24:14 -0000 Subject: Ok, Stupid Question In-Reply-To: <005001c4fa4b$9a1dec40$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121945 Sherry now: > > no stupid questions. But I have one back. How do we know it is alcoholic? Potioncat: We know JKR was thinking of Butterscotch. (From a previous post) But it also reminds me of Ginger Ale. Neither Ginger Ale nor butterscotch are alcoholic. Buttered Rum? Well now, that's a different story! Potioncat From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 15:30:36 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:30:36 -0000 Subject: Ok, Stupid Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121946 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Sherry now: > > > > no stupid questions. But I have one back. How do we know it is > alcoholic? > > > Potioncat: > We know JKR was thinking of Butterscotch. (From a previous post) But it also reminds me of Ginger Ale. Neither Ginger Ale nor > butterscotch are alcoholic. > > Buttered Rum? Well now, that's a different story! > Potioncat Tonks again: A number of years ago I went to England and they had a drink there, rather good too, that was called Ginger Beer. It was not alcholic and was like our Ginger Ale (Ale=Beer) only better. I don't like Ginger Ale, but was trying to get as much Ginger Beer as I could before I went home. Move over Winky. Tonks_op From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 14 15:32:48 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:32:48 -0000 Subject: Family Ties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121947 > Tonks: > > You are right. I wasn't thinking. Just can't figure out how it is > that Tom Riddle, James Potter and Harry all look so much alike. > Harry and James, of course, because they are father and son. But > Tom??? > Potioncat: I don't know if this is the direction JKR is going in. Afterall, we have a number of wizards who seem to look alike but are really in a category. Tom, James, Harry, Sirius, Severus and Minerva all fall into the Black-haired wizards. Lily, DD, the Weasleys all fall into the Red-haired group (Assuming you consider fire-red and auburn in the same family) But we are told that James Harry and Tom look alike. So, how about this: James and Tom's mother have an ancestor in common. Tom's mother gets her "Salazar connection" through the line they don't share. That could be one reason we've never told her name. She could easily be a Potter. Potioncat From revealme4u at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 06:22:25 2005 From: revealme4u at yahoo.com (revealme4u) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 06:22:25 -0000 Subject: Magically powerful In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121948 Finwitch: > What they most need to know, though, is how to handle a crisis.... > snip > > Three of them make a great team. Vivek: Thanks everyone, for the replies sent so promptly. But I will still like to know of the three, who is the most powerful one, standing alone, because the three of them complement each other fairly well, making up for the deficiencies each one has? Harry might be the answer, but among Ron and Hermione, who is more powerful? From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 14:16:08 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (Rebecca) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:16:08 -0000 Subject: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM (was: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121949 Carol notes: > Since they were all in black (robes, cloaks, hoods, and masks), they > would have blended into the shadows anyway and no such spell would > have been needed. IIRC, the place was dimly lit, possibly only by the > Prophecy orbs themselves. Harry and friends may have had their backs > turned to them as well... Thanks to whoever thinks my idea is a good one! Just in reply to Carol, I originally read the book that way (people coming out of the shadows), but when I re-read the quote, it does say that they emerged 'out of thin air', NOT 'out of the shadows'. I think that if they had come out of the dark, that's how it would have been written. (I also like the idea that that is how DD was watching Harry looking in the mirror.) Becky From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 15:31:10 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (Rebecca) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:31:10 -0000 Subject: Family Ties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121950 Tonks wrote: > Where I am going with this is maybe James' is related in some way to Tom Riddle's mother. Meri now: > ...I am also pretty sure that JKR said that making Harry and LV distant cousins would be too "Star Wars" for her. I agree it's highly unlikely because of JKR saying it's too Star Wars, but just because someone isn't a direct descendant of someone doesn't mean to say they're not related. e.g. I'm not directly descended from my great uncle, but it doesn't make us any less related. To the best of my knowledge, nothing in canon rules out the possibility of the 4 founders of Hoggwarts being related in one way or another, which could throw up some interesting theories!! Becky From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 15:56:54 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:56:54 -0000 Subject: Magically powerful In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121951 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "revealme4u" wrote: > But I will still like to know of the three, who is the most powerful one, standing alone, because the three of them complement each other fairly well, making up for the deficiencies each one has? Harry might be the answer, but among Ron and Hermione, who is more powerful? Tonks: That is easy. Hermione, because she thinks first and knows what to do before she does it. If she doesn't know, she reasons it out. Tonks_op From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Jan 14 15:58:00 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:58:00 -0000 Subject: Ok, Stupid Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121952 > > Sherry wrote: > > > no stupid questions. But I have one back. How do we know it is alcoholic? > > Potioncat: > > We know JKR was thinking of Butterscotch. (From a previous post) > But it also reminds me of Ginger Ale. Neither Ginger Ale nor > > butterscotch are alcoholic. > > > > Buttered Rum? Well now, that's a different story! > > Potioncat > > Tonks again: > > A number of years ago I went to England and they had a drink > there, rather good too, that was called Ginger Beer. It was not > alcholic and was like our Ginger Ale (Ale=Beer) only better. I > don't like Ginger Ale, but was trying to get as much Ginger Beer > as I could before I went home. > > Move over Winky. > Tonks_op Dungrollin: I don't remember anyone specifically saying that it contains alcohol, but there's one bit in GoF - the second time that Harry, Ron and Hermione go to the kitchens to visit Dobby and thank him for the gillyweed - chapter 28: The Madness of Mr Crouch. (Quote) As they watched her she gave an enormous hiccough. "Winky is getting through six bottles a day now," Dobby whispered to Harry. "Well, it's not strong, that stuff," Harry said. But Dobby shook his head. "'Tis strong for a house-elf, sir," he said. (End quote) The implication is that there's *something* in it, although not much of whatever it is. From the rowdiness of various celebrations in the Gryffindor common room, I'd say it's most likely to be alcohol. Dungrollin From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 16:54:58 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:54:58 -0000 Subject: Magically powerful In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121953 > Tonks: > > That is easy. Hermione, because she thinks first and knows what to > do before she does it. If she doesn't know, she reasons it out. Finwitch: I'm not so sure if that makes her more powerful. More skilled and more responsible, perhaps - not more powerful. You know - Hermione's need to know first is both a weakness and a strength. If something she hasn't experienced or read beforehand happens, she cannot do anything. Ron can see the strategic situation and improvise within moments, immediately thinking of the solution (while Hermione would analyze the problem for hours...) When in trouble, I think the latter gives more strength... hmm-mm. I think they're *equal*. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 17:01:12 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:01:12 -0000 Subject: Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121954 Peg : > > I'll agree with Julie and add a point--most soft drinks (pop, soda, > whatever your local dialect calls for) have a little alcohol in > them. Homemade soft drink recipes often call for a little yeast to > carbonate them. Even bread has a little alcohol--the yeast that > raises bread is pretty much the same one used for fermenting beer and > wine. Finwitch: Most if not all of that alcohol would vaporise away in the oven for bread, though. And yes, there are such low-alcoholic things kids can have (like liquer-filled chocolates). But speaking of alcohol going away when heated - don't they have their butterbeer hot? Finwitch From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 17:20:43 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:20:43 -0000 Subject: Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121955 > What is Butterbeer, and why, seeing that > it contains alcohol, are the students > allowed to have it? You're not the first to ask that question, in Stephen King's glowing review of Order Of The Phoenix he says this: "The distinction between "children's literature" and plain old "literature" has ceased to exist. The latest Potter adventure could be The Cather in the Rye, minus the dirty words and the drinking...or maybe just the dirty words: Just what the hell is butterbeer, anyway?" Eggplant From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 16:58:24 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:58:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bellatrix's age (Was: Narcissa Malfoy ) Message-ID: <20050114165824.8527.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121956 Maddy wrote: ...snip... >>Although, I quite like the idea of Bellatrix being the middle child, I think she is most likely the youngest of the three. Probably 2-5 years older than Sirius.<< Juli: Here's some canon that the way I read it puts Bella and Sirius around the same age: "Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year, and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters." Sirius held up his fingers and began ticking off names. "Rosier and Wilkes - they were both killed by Aurors the year before Voldemort fell. The Lestranges - they're a married couple - they're in Azkaban. Avery - from what I've heard he wormed his way out of trouble by saying he'd been acting under the Imperius Curse - he's still at large. (GoF Ch27 Padfoot Returns) We already know that Snape and the Marauders are about the same age, so if Bella is about Snape's age, this means she and Sirius ara both the same age also, which is about 36. Juli From jonkc at att.net Fri Jan 14 16:47:31 2005 From: jonkc at att.net (johnkclark) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:47:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121957 "AyanEva" wrote: > Harry's rush of anger always strikes me > as odd and almost out of place. I was just surprised Harry didn't get angry much sooner.In the last 5 years at school 3 of Harry's teachers had tried to kill him and another teacher removed all the bones in his arm and attempted to erase his memory and turn him into a vegetable. I have found that when my mother, father and godfather get murdered, and I have to cut my hand open and write with my own blood, and bitten by a spider the size of a small elephant and then I get tied to a tombstone and tortured so horribly I want to die, I tend to get a bit grumpy. But perhaps that's just me, perhaps I'm just ill tempered by nature. > What if it's Voldemort feeling a rush of > anger and hatred towards Snape, but again, > Harry's unable to distinguish b/w his own > emotions and Voldemort's? There is another reason I don't think your theory is correct, the theory that Harry's bad mood is due to Voldemort messing directly with his mind; it just wouldn't make a very interesting story if his anger and grief turned out to be Voldemort pulling strings. Canned grief in a tragedy is as unworthy as canned laughter in a comedy. I think at some point in the next 2 books it will all starts to become too much and Harry will come very close to turning evil; he will certainly be tempted. It would be far more interesting than another Voldemort mind trick, and that's why I think Rowling will make it happen. Eggplant From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 14 17:32:56 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:32:56 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) Message-ID: <53.1f033909.2f195c48@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121958 In a message dated 1/14/2005 9:11:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, finwitch at yahoo.com writes: Finwitch: But speaking of alcohol going away when heated - don't they have their butterbeer hot? Finwitch ****************************************************************************** 8 Chancie: I don't think it's always served hot. I know on cold Hogsmead visits it's Always (as far as I can remember) served hot. Maybe it hot or cold, kinda like chocolate milk, and hot chocolate. Not much difference in the two, except for the temperature, and hot chocolate sometimes has marshmallows. Chancie~ who wishes she didn't mention hot chocolate, because she's still trying to loose the last of her baby weight, and can now hear the chocolate calling her from the other room... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 17:46:43 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:46:43 -0000 Subject: Disillusionment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121959 > > > Dungrollin replies: I like the disillusionment charm idea a lot. > Wonder if that's what DD used when he spied on Harry and Ron looking > in the mirror of Erised... Finwitch: Could be - although, I think Dumbledore has a charm that makes him *invisible* not just disillusioned. Or rather, it wasn't a spell but a special ability Dumbledore has. (Maybe both of the brothers, but oh well). A special ability that doesn't require a wand (traceable) nor a potion (troublesome). Finwitch From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 19:34:20 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:34:20 -0000 Subject: Magically powerful In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > > > Tonks: > > > > That is easy. Hermione, because she thinks first and knows what to do before she does it. If she doesn't know, she reasons it out. > > Finwitch: > > I'm not so sure if that makes her more powerful. More skilled and > more responsible, perhaps - not more powerful. > > You know - Hermione's need to know first is both a weakness and a > strength. If something she hasn't experienced or read beforehand > happens, she cannot do anything. Ron can see the strategic situation and improvise within moments, immediately thinking of the solution (while Hermione would analyze the problem for hours...) When in trouble, I think the latter gives more strength... hmm-mm. I think they're *equal*. > > Finwitch Tonks: Well Finwitch, you have just described me. I guess I am more like Hermione than I realized before. I always hate it when people tell me to just *jump in and do it*. Makes me cringe even here. Yes there are times when just doing it is good. And people who just jump in can think on their feet (which I can't, and maybe not Hermione either), but that also is their strength and weakness. They often get in above their head and it takes more thinking on their feet to get back out again. It is clear that the trio work best as a team. Tonks_op From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 14 19:34:30 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:34:30 -0000 Subject: Longbottom nod to Tolkein Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121961 My apologies if it's been mentioned before, but I was rereading LotR and realizeds that Tobold, the first known grower of pipeweed, was from Longbottom. I wondered if by giving Neville the name Longbottom and a special talent for herbology, JKR might have been tipping her hat to Tolkein? Not that important, just something I noticed. imamommy From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 14 19:40:24 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:40:24 -0000 Subject: Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121962 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > > What is Butterbeer, and why, seeing that > > it contains alcohol, are the students > > allowed to have it? > > You're not the first to ask that question, in Stephen King's glowing > review of Order Of The Phoenix he says this: > > "The distinction between "children's literature" and plain > old "literature" has ceased to exist. The latest Potter adventure > could be The Cather in the Rye, minus the dirty words and the > drinking...or maybe just the dirty words: Just what the hell is > butterbeer, anyway?" > > Eggplant imamommy I'm a Yank, so I don't know if this is right, but aren't the drinking laws more lax through most of Europe? . I first thought maybe it was like rootbeer, but after the scene with Winky I started assuming it was mildly alchoholic, and I always imagined it as sweet (butter rum Lifesavers come to mind), and as they only get it in Hogsmeade they aren't really supposed to have it on campus. Ogden's Old Firewhisky seems to be a different story. imamommy From pegruppel at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 21:26:10 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:26:10 -0000 Subject: Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121963 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > Peg : > > > > > I'll agree with Julie and add a point--most soft drinks (pop, soda, > > whatever your local dialect calls for) have a little alcohol in > > them. Homemade soft drink recipes often call for a little yeast to > > carbonate them. Even bread has a little alcohol--the yeast that > > raises bread is pretty much the same one used for fermenting beer > and > > wine. > > Finwitch: > > Most if not all of that alcohol would vaporise away in the oven for > bread, though. And yes, there are such low-alcoholic things kids can > have (like liquer-filled chocolates). > > But speaking of alcohol going away when heated - don't they have > their butterbeer hot? > > Finwitch Peg: Well, yes, most of the alcohol will evaporate. But not all of it-- it's a real concern for alcoholics. (I'll stop before I get too pedantic here). And hot toddies (sp?) and mulled wine sure aren't non-alcoholic. Hot, yummy, and most definitely alcoholic! Peg--Who's been reading entirely too many science articles and should go play with her artwork now . . . From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 21:39:26 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:39:26 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121964 Alla wrote: "I am not so sure that resourcefullness and disregard for rules is associated exclusively with Slytherin . As I said earlier I believe it could be that those qualitites are associated just as much with Gryffindor." Del replies: For that matter, those qualities can also be Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw qualities. Cedric was a Hufflepuff, and yet he was the Hogwarts TWT champion, which to me indicates quite a lot of resourcefulness. All those Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws who joined the DA proved they had a healthy disregard for rules. Inversely, Hermione and Ernie are very good students, which is supposed to be a Ravenclaw trait, an assorted variety of students of all the Houses are courageous, which is supposed to be a Gryffindor trait, and quite a lot are also loyal and hard-working which are supposed to be Hufflepuff traits. I personally think that it's a stupid concept to separate qualities into arbitrary bags to start with, but once this is done, we have to go with the bags as they are. Resourcefulness and disregard for the rules have been presented by DD as Slytherin qualities, not Gryffindor's. It's obvious that many non-Slytherin students will possess those qualities, but that doesn't change the fact that they have been stamped "Slytherin". Just like uncontrolled ambition is a Slytherin trait, even though we know of at least one Gryffindor who possesses that trait : that doesn't make it a Gryffindor trait. Alla wrote: "Call me sceptical and I would welcome if JKR plants the big red herring with this, but I for now inclined to take her words that Gryffindor is her favourite House at face value. I am just not so sure that she associates that many good qualities with Slytherin House in the first place. I hope I am wrong." Del replies: Gryffindor is her favourite House because she values courage above everything else and courage is *the* Gryffindor trait. But I'm sure she also values loyalty, hard work, and hard study, for example, so I'm sure she also likes Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw, even if they are not her favourite House. So there's no reason she wouldn't attribute some good qualities to Slytherin too. Unless we bring up the harsh morality issues again, and we conclude that Slytherin is an all-around no-good House because JKR considers all the Slytherins as profoundly bad by the time they are 11. I prefer not to think of this, which is why I think that JKR did give positive traits to Slytherin, including resourcefulness and a healthy disregard for the rules. Alla wrote: "Sorry, it is just "selfishness" carries very negative, BAD connotation to me. I guess I would agree " for his own purpose". I don't see anything BAD in his desire to talk to Sirius." Del replies: Ah, OK. I agree that there was nothing bad in Harry's desire to talk to Sirius. And I also notice that I wasn't clear enough : I wasn't talking about the time at the end of the book when Harry tried to check on Sirius, I meant the time when he was troubled about the Pensieve scene and wanted to clear things up with Sirius and Remus. In this case, it's quite clear to me that Harry broke a rule in his own interest only, there was no greater cause. Alla wrote: "But there are NO other Slytherins to use so far, am I right? Are we suppose to pick the character who is just a name for now?" Del replies: No. Personally I would consider the typical Slytherin *as the Sorting Hat presents him*. I don't consider any of the Gryffindors to be the typical Gryffindor, so when talking about the typical Gryffindor, I wouldn't use any of them as the perfect example. Similarly, I don't consider Draco to be the typical Slytherin : to me he's quite obviously much nastier than an average Slytherin, or than the typical Slytherin (the Sorting Hat does mention "use any means to achieve their ends", but it doesn't expressly mention utter nastiness, which is in fact counter-productive, as Lucius tried to teach his son in CoS). Alla wrote: "Actually, I don't completely agree. I think that we may not know COMPLETE story about Slytherins and why they do things, but we were given some motifs for their action (pureblood ideology for example) and to me they are clear as night and day." Del replies: How many Slytherins do we know *for sure* believe in the pureblood ideology? Draco is the only one, as far as I can remember. So I wouldn't assume that all Slytherins strongly believe in this ideology, especially not the older ones. Moreover, even if they do believe in it, that doesn't mean that it is a *motive* to their actions. Pureblood ideology was a motive for LV : he based his plans for the future on this ideology. But for someone like Draco, it's more a tool than a motive : he uses it to hurt Hermione, but it's not the main reason he dislikes Hermione, and he doesn't make his life revolve around a particular desire to trample the Muggleborns like Tom did. As for the other Slytherins, none of them has ever shown that they were basing any of their actions on a particular dislike of the Muggles or the Muggleborns. So I really don't think that the pureblood ideology is a motive for most of the Slytherins. In fact, even the Sorting Hat doesn't say that a belief in the pureblood ideology is a motive for the typical Slytherin. It says that the typical Slytherin believes in that ideology (but it doesn't say to what extent), but it doesn't say that the typical Slytherin will ever make this ideology a basis for his actions. Believing in something, and acting on that belief are two very different things. Just look at the Blacks : they believed in the pureblood ideology, they thought that LV had the right *idea*, but they refused to follow in his *actions* : their ideology wasn't enough of a motive for them to act. Del From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 21:54:14 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:54:14 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121965 Carol wrote: "Just a reminder, as Steve (I think) has pointed out in earlier threads, the Hat doesn't even bring up Slytherin until Harry thinks "*Not Slytherin! Not Slytherin!*"" Del replies: This point is often used to say that the Hat wasn't thinking of Slytherin. But *IIRC* the fact is : the Hat didn't mention *any* House before Harry started pleading with it not to put him in Slytherin. It might be that the Hat would never have mentioned Slytherin, but it could also be that it was about to Sort Harry into Slytherin. Carol wrote: "Only then does it state that he would do well there and ask him if he's sure, in essence offering him the choice to accept or reject the greatness Slytherin could offer him (SS Am. ed. 121). I don't see this as a test but a way of making sure that this is what Harry wants. Then, with Slytherin out of the running, the Hat opts for Gryffindor over Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff as the House most suitable for a person with Harry's "qualities." " Del replies: Hem :-) With that kind of reasoning, I could argue that Harry was, for example, 50% Slytherin, 40% Gryffindor, and 10% Hufflepuff/Ravenclaw, and that the Hat put him in Gryffindor just because Harry refused to go to Slytherin. After all, if Harry *really* had nothing to do in Slytherin, why did the Hat lose all that time advertising Slytherin? Wouldn't it instead have said something like "Not Slytherin?? Well, of course not Slytherin! You definitely don't belong there!" Carol wrote: "If Slytherin House is notable for rule-breaking, it's ironic that Snape is the rule-enforcer in the first four books." Del replies: Is Snape the rule-enforcer for everyone, or just for Harry :-)? Carol wrote: "I'd say it's fair to state that "a certain disregard for the rules"--not necessarily in a noble cause--is at least as much a Gryffindor trait as a Slytherin one." Del replies: I would put it differently : I'd say that quite a few Gryffindors possess this Slytherin trait :-) Just like I expect quite a few Slytherins to possess the main Gryffindor trait : courage. And just like one of the main Hufflepuff traits, loyalty, was emphasized as necessary for *everyone* in OoP. Del From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 21:59:11 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:59:11 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121966 Alla wrote previously: "But there are NO other Slytherins to use so far, am I right? Are we suppose to pick the character who is just a name for now?" Del replies: No. Personally I would consider the typical Slytherin *as the Sorting Hat presents him*. I don't consider any of the Gryffindors to be the typical Gryffindor, so when talking about the typical Gryffindor, I wouldn't use any of them as the perfect example. Similarly, I don't consider Draco to be the typical Slytherin : to me he's quite obviously much nastier than an average Slytherin, or than the typical Slytherin (the Sorting Hat does mention "use any means to achieve their ends", but it doesn't expressly mention utter nastiness, which is in fact counter-productive, as Lucius tried to teach his son in CoS). Alla: I am sorry, but I am starting to feel very, very confused. I think we are reaching the point of fundamental differences in readings. How do you know that Draco is nastier than usual Slytherin, since he is the ONLY Slytherin we can can consider among the kids for now? What do you mean you would consider "typical Slytherin" as Sorting Hat presents him? Sorting Hat does not give us any new characters, it only gives us traits or "qualities" by which it supposedly chooses Slytherins Alla wrote previously: "Actually, I don't completely agree. I think that we may not know COMPLETE story about Slytherins and why they do things, but we were given some motifs for their action (pureblood ideology for example) and to me they are clear as night and day." Del replies: How many Slytherins do we know *for sure* believe in the pureblood ideology? Draco is the only one, as far as I can remember. So I wouldn't assume that all Slytherins strongly believe in this ideology, especially not the older ones. Alla: Again, same question. Who else in the story among the Slytherin students can be called a real character, not a name? And, I would say all Slytherins we KNOW so far, not just heard their names , believe in pureblood ideology or believed at one point of their lives. (I am talking about Snape and Regulus) I believe and of course it is only my opinion that by making Draco so visible Rowling means for us to consider him as a typical Slytherin. Now, it may very well be that it is a false assertion, I absolutely concede that, but I just don't understand how we can think that Draco is not typical Slytherin, if we don't really see anybody else in the younger generation and everybody else in the older generation seems as nasty as Draco (let's exclude Snape's attitude since we don't really know much about it). I mean even Regulus happily (or unhappily, I don't know) joined the DE and only after that realised that he is not cut for that. So, so far Draco is behind him on the path to Darkness, not in front of him. Remember that password to Slytherin dorms was "pure blood" in CoS? I think it hints at something. Just my opinion, Alla From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 14 22:23:16 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:23:16 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Harry (9) Message-ID: <20050114222316.92097.qmail@web25101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121967 Sorry, my previous post should have been called Harry (8). Harry's second year illustrates the new soul's liberation from the etheric plane of the time-spatial universe. The etheric plane is next to the physical plane, and is in a sense part of it, for it gives life to physical bodies. All living organisms have an etheric field or aura, and some people can see this. Our etheric body penetrates our physical body and is slightly larger. It regulates our health and facilitates things like metabolism, sexual reproduction, sensory perception, and the working of the nervous system and the brain. The etheric body is made up of etheric atoms which actually fit inside the physical atoms. It therefore follows our physical body wherever it goes, and in a sense is the "slave" of the physical body. There are many organisms which have an etheric body but not a physical body, and so are invisible to most people. However very young children and some animals can see them. Their existence was known long ago and many legends and myths name them. These include fairies, elves, gnomes, undines, salamanders, nymphs, sylphs etc. These creatures often work with nature in developing growth of trees etc. We are introduced to one of these creatures right at the beginning of book 2. Dobby is a "house elf" who warns Harry that some one is about to wreak havoc at school. Whenever liberating stories contain mention of etheric creatures, the author is drawing our attention to the etheric plane. So right away we know "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" takes place on that plane. When Harry stays at the Weasleys' house he meets another type of etheric creature - the garden gnome. Harry's first lesson in Defence against the Dark Arts is to learn to control a group of etheric creatures, this time pixies. As we know Hermione is the one who is able to do this. Harry meets Dobby throughout the book and near the end learns that he is the slave of a servant of Voldemort, namely Lucius Malfoy. If we look at the symbolism as I have explained it so far, we know that Harry is the new soul born in the seeker in whom the lily and the stag have united, while Voldemort is the higher self, which I have also called the microcosmic or permanent self. When the soul is born, this permanent self is weakened considerably. If Jo tells us that Lucius Malfoy is a servant of Voldemort, we can deduce from this that Malfoy is a force within the human being which represents the higher self. In other words, it's the lower self, the physical self. In my opinion Dobby personifies the etheric body of the alchemist who is undergoing the process of liberation. I don't know if it's a coincidence, but if we reverse the consonants in "Dobby" we get "Bbody". As I said above, the etheric body is the "slave" of the physical body. It follows it wherever it goes, looks after it, and helps it in all its functions. This is exactly what Dobby does for Malfoy - until Harry changes things. By a brilliant act of quick witted intelligence and compassion for Dobby, Harry frees Dobby (how I love Harry). This, friends, believe it or not, is exactly what the new soul does for the etheric body at a certain stage of the alchemical transmutation. The new soul actually lives in the etheric body and at a certain point the etheric body is freed from the physical body. It is no longer its "slave" as it were but can move independently. And just as Dobby does some very useful things in the later books, so the etheric body is extremely helpful to the new soul. You may have heard mention of wonderful vestures worn by heroes in some fairy tales and legends. We hear especially about golden wedding vestures, and in the "Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross" the candidates for the wedding are constantly putting on new raiments. These clothes usually refer to the various invisible bodies. When the alchemist has a new soul that has been able to take the Philosopher's Stone out of the mirror, his etheric vesture or aura will begin to radiate a brilliant golden light - hence the term golden wedding vesture. I wonder if this will be mentioned in book 7 in some way. ===== 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 gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 14 22:29:31 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:29:31 -0000 Subject: Family Ties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121968 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: Tonks: > > You are right. I wasn't thinking. Just can't figure out how it is > that Tom Riddle, James Potter and Harry all look so much alike. > Harry and James, of course, because they are father and son. But > Tom??? Geoff: But I meet people from time to time and say perhaps to my wife, "Don't you think that he looks just like so-and-so?" Robert Hardy who plays Fudge in "the medium that dare not speak its name" is an absolute clone of a friend in my church. He looks the same, he sounds the same... it's uncanny. There again, returning to canon, there are one or two references in COS which came to mind.... 'There was a knock on the office door. "Enter," said the old wizard in a feeble voice. A boy of about sixteen entered, taking off his pointed hat. A silver Prefect's badge was glinting on his chest. He was much taller than Harry but he, too, had jet-black hair. (COS "The Very Secret Diary" p.181 UK edition) 'Riddle's face contorted. The he forced it into an awful smile. "So. Your mother died to save you. Yes, that's a powerful counter- charm. I can see now - there is nothing special about you after all. I wondered, you see. Because there are strange likenesses between us, Hary Potter. Even you must have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great Slytherin himself. We even /look/ something alike... But after all, it was merely a lucky chance that saved you from me. That's all I wanted to know."' (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.233 UK edition) I don't think the likenesses are so great as to suggest any link biologically. The similarities appear to be more of an experiential nature. Tom is also described by Dumbledore as being "clever, handsome" (ibid. "Dobby's Reward" p.243). Harry has never acquired the epithet of handsome..... Geoff http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com Enjoy a virtual visit to the Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 14 22:36:18 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:36:18 -0000 Subject: Magically powerful In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121969 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "revealme4u" > wrote: > > But I will still like to know of the three, who is the most > powerful one, standing alone, because the three of them complement > each other fairly well, making up for the deficiencies each one has? > Harry might be the answer, but among Ron and Hermione, who is more > powerful? Tonks: > That is easy. Hermione, because she thinks first and knows what to > do before she does it. If she doesn't know, she reasons it out. Geoff: Not always. What about in PS when she starts to flap about the Devil's Snare and Ron has to shout at her to get her back into "brain in gear" mode? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 22:39:35 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:39:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore next MoM? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121970 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nifferhpfan" wrote: > > I know that Dumbledore turned down the MoM position in the past. Do > you think that after Fudge's mishandling of LV's return that he > might be willing to take the position now? > > Niffer bboyminn: While I think many people will push for Dumbledore to take over, I don't think Dumbledore really wants the job. First, I think he really enjoys being Headmaster and helping educate the wizards of tomorrow. Second, being Minister is not really a highly effective job. If Dumbledore took it, he would be so buried under petty bureaucratic details and mundane daily tasks that it would take him away from the serious task of fighting Voldemort. I think he can be far more effective outside the Ministry. In addition, Dumbledore already holds powerful government positions. He is the head of the Wizengamot and the International Confederations of Wizards (Supreme Mugwump, Chief Warlock). That gives him substantial power and influence both inside the Ministry and out. So, I think with a cooperative government, Dumbledore has all the influence he needs to affect the course of laws and policy. In addition, I think many of the parents only allow there children to come back to Hogwarts because they know that Dumbledore is there to protect them. It would be very much to Voldemort's advantage to take over the school and in essense hold the entire wizard world hostage by holding their children hostage. That would give him tremendous leverage. Because of that, and because of hints in the books, I'm confident at some point in the next two books the war will come to Hogwarts front door. When that happens we definitely want Dumbledore on the scene. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 23:05:33 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:05:33 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121971 Alla wrote: "How do you know that Draco is nastier than usual Slytherin, since he is the ONLY Slytherin we can can consider among the kids for now?" Del replies: Precisely because we don't see any other Slytherin being as nasty. Well, maybe Pansy Parkinson. Where nastiness is concerned, Draco and Pansy are leaders, they are one of the extremes in the group "Slytherin", which means that the average Slytherin is necessarily less nasty than they are (sorry, my -very basic- statistical training coming up again : any group contains extremes, and the majority of the items in the group are *usually* somewhere between those two extremes). Alla wrote: "What do you mean you would consider "typical Slytherin" as Sorting Hat presents him? Sorting Hat does not give us any new characters, it only gives us traits or "qualities" by which it supposedly chooses Slytherins" Del replies: Exactly. I would personally follow those traits when judging the Slytherins in general, rather than the specific traits of *one* Slytherin. The Hat tells us that the Slytherins are ambitious, cunning and so on, and those traits are those that matter to me when talking Slytherin, not Draco's traits. We don't know how closely Draco adheres or differs from the typical Slytherin (though we do know that the Hat put him there without any hesitation, but just like in Harry's case, we don't know how much Draco's desire influenced the Hat). Just like Neville, the Twins and Hermione represent 3 very different types of Gryffindors, and like Luna and Cho represent 2 very different types of Ravenclaws, I would say that Draco most probably represents only one of several different types of Slytherins. Alla wrote: "I would say all Slytherins we KNOW so far, not just heard their names, believe in pureblood ideology or believed at one point of their lives. (I am talking about Snape and Regulus)" Del replies: I agree. But I see it as the other way around : the only Slytherins we get to see are the most visible ones, and they are visible precisely because they are extremists in their actions : they *act* on their beliefs, so we know they hold those beliefs. But that doesn't in any way mean that all the other Slytherins believe in the pureblood ideology to the same extent. I see it a bit like religious beliefs. Let's call a religion X for the sake of this example. I will assimilate believing in religion X in RL to the Slytherins believing in the pureblood ideology in the WW. So there are some people who truly, deeply, fanatically (in the good sense of the term) believe in X, who go to church several times a week, who do acts of worship every day and who make their entire life revolve around this religion. This would be LV. Then you have the faithful believers, who go to church every week, try to obey all the commandments, say their prayers every day, but don't center their life around their religion. X is very important in their life, but it is not the most important thing. This could be Lucius Malfoy for example. Then there are people who sincerely believe in X, but who can't be bothered to worship too much : they go to church once or twice a month, they vote according to their beliefs, but they don't obey all the commandments and several days can pass between two times they think of their beliefs. Typically, those people are usually very happy and proud when one of their children becomes a faithful type or a fanatic type (a missionary, for example). That could be the Blacks for example. Then you have the "excuse-believers", those that say that they believe in X, but they go to church once or twice a year for the biggest events, they have only a superficial knowledge of what their religion teaches, they basically believe in X because their parents did, they would never dream of applying their religion in their every day life, even though they are relieved when other people make laws turn to their advantage, and they use their religion of birth as an excuse not to listen to preachers from other religions because they couldn't care less about religion in general. That could be the case of many Slytherins : they believe in the pureblood superiority ideology in a very shallow manner, but they use it as an easy excuse when someone or something would try and force them to reconsider. And finally you have the forced-believers : they are mostly found among the young people. They were raised in religion X so they always took it for the truth, but as they grow up it makes less and less sense to them. But their family won't let them leave the religion, so they have to keep the pretense, at least until they are of age. And even then, many will keep pretending if they have no strong motive to oppose their family (like finding the truth in another religion). I do suspect that there are such Slytherins among the kids as Hogwarts. It wouldn't make sense statistically if there weren't any, because only a brain-washing can create such a vaccuum, and brain-washing would go against the principle of free will that JKR keeps putting at the center of her story. Oh, and there are also the post-X, who got out of X and don't want to hear about it anymore, and the anti-X : those who got out of the religion and now oppose it. I wonder if we'll ever run into a Slytherin fighting against the pureblood ideology? Or at least a Slytherin not caring about it? I'm not sure I'm making much sense to you, and if I'm not, I apologise. Alla wrote: "I believe and of course it is only my opinion that by making Draco so visible Rowling means for us to consider him as a typical Slytherin." Del replies: She could be doing just that, but I would be very disappointed, because that would mean that it's not just Draco that is very 2D, it's all the Slytherins, it's Slytherin House itself. Alla wrote: "Remember that password to Slytherin dorms was "pure blood" in CoS? I think it hints at something." Del replies: Do we know who chooses the passwords? It's not impossible that a single pureblood ideologist Prefect chose that password. After all, "Mimbulus Nimbletonia" in OoP seems to have been chosen (by Hermione?) for the benefit of a single student : Neville. And we *do* know that, in Gryffindor at least, the students do not get to vote on the passwords. Moreover, we have to remember the very special atmosphere that was enveloping Hogwarts at the time when "pure-blood" was the Slytherin password: the whole issue of blood was in everybody's mind, and the monster of Slytherin was chasing the Muggleborns. Slytherin was being set apart from the other Houses whether they wanted to or not, so they might have chosen that password as a reaction of scorn (you know, the very immature reaction many teenagers have : you think I'm such and such, so I might as well really be such and such). Del From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 23:08:45 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:08:45 -0000 Subject: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121972 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tristan" wrote: > > Very Interesting, I didn't know that about the origins of the dark mark. > > The only thing that baffler me is that every little thing in HP > seems to have been stolen from something else. > > Aragog: > The scientific name for a spider is ARAneae, which happens to be > the first three letters of Aragog's name. Since Aragog is a spider, > that makes perfect sense! > > Azkaban: > This is really doesn't explain the meaning of Azkaban, but it's > pretty interesting. Someone (Mitchell) told me that Azkaban and > Alacatraz are both similar because they're both prisons on islands, > and they're both 3-syllable words that sound the same. > > ...many more examples snipped.... > > Tristan bboyminn: Stole or used? JKR sets her world in the real world. She didn't steal London, she simple used it because it exists in the real world and in her fictional version of the real world. Unicorns and Dragons are part of our real world mythology, and are therefore part of her real world too. The use of Latin in spells and in hidden meanings of names is natural because in our real world many names and words have Latin origins, and Latin would most likely be the language of magic since it is the most ancient language of Europe. In Asia, it's likely that magic words have their origins in Sanskrit, the equally ancient language of Asian. Also, in choosing some names, she has dropped hints about the characters. There are 'dog' hints in Sirius Black's name. There are wolf hints in Remus Lupin's name. So, I agree with all your examples, but I think 'stole' is a little too strong, she has simple borrowed the real world in order to construct her version of it. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From klevasseur at earthlink.net Fri Jan 14 23:17:16 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:17:16 -0000 Subject: His mother's eyes (was: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/TT/ LV mortality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121973 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Kemper wrote: > > >> > What about on a fateful Halloween, there was a love charm. > > Blood of the mother freely given you will protect your blood. > > Soul of the mother secretly given you will guard your son. > > Life of the mother knowingly given you will defend your child. > > > > Lily cuts her hand then places her hand on Harry's forehead. The > cut on her hand is lightning/eihwaz shaped. She looks into her son's > eyes, and their souls touch. A part of her soul stays with Harry; he > has his mother's eyes. Lily sacrifices herself, sealing the `mother's > shield' charm. snip> > >> Carol responds: > I've also been arguing for a protective charm placed on Baby!Harry, > but your version gives me shivers. Also, we have indications that Lily > was good with Charms but nothing has been said about her and potions. > Still, a potion combined with an incantation does sound like a form of > "ancient magic" so I'm certainly not ruling it out. > > Here's my version, combining my theories and yours and attempting to > answer the question about Voldemort: > > Lily places an elaborate Protego (shield charm) on Baby Harry, perhaps > involving an incantation like the one kemper hypothesized (as opposed > to the mere name of the spell), and, using her finger, marks Harry's > forehead with an (defense) eihwaz rune, like a priest marking a baby's > forehead with a cross in a baptismal service. The incantation > specifies that the charm will be activated by her self-sacrifice. > Shortly afterwards, she is murdered, sacrificing herself for Harry and > activating the charm. Voldemort tries to kill Harry, and the powerful > Protego erupts through Harry's forehead, leaving an eihwaz-shaped > opening that later turns into a scar. The Protego deflects the AK onto > Voldemort, who is not killed because of the protections he put on > himself The force of the Protego explodes not only Voldemort but > everything around him, and the house crashes on dead Lily and > Baby!Harry. (Dead James is somewhere outside the house where he died > duelling with Voldemort.) While the wound is open, some of Voldemort's > powers and possibly some of his anger enters into Harry. > I think an explanation like this allows the > scar to be caused by a cut when the AK hit (AKs normally don't leave > any mark) and at the same time allows the scar to be a symbol of his > mother's protection, the eihwaz (defense) rune. > > As noted in an earlier post, JKR did say that the shape of the scar > wasn't the most important thing about it, but she didn't say that the > shape wasn't important at all. > > Valky, what do you think? Are we hitting close to the mark? > > Carol Carol, I'm not Valky, but I do like this theory. It explains the destruction of the house and why his scar is shaped as it is. The question I have deals with DD sealing the charm himself by placing Harry with the Dursley's. If Lily's charm is activated to the extent that it protects baby Harry from an AK curse, why would DD need to *seal* it by placing Harry with the Dursley's? Seems to me that the charm Lily put on Harry would have been sufficient to protect Harry through his young years without having to put him through the neglect he endured at the hands of the Dursley's. From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 23:30:35 2005 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:30:35 -0000 Subject: Family Ties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121974 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca" wrote: > > Tonks wrote: > > Where I am going with this is maybe James' is related in some way to Tom Riddle's mother. > > Meri now: > > ...I am also pretty sure that JKR said that making Harry and LV distant cousins would be too "Star Wars" for her. > > I agree it's highly unlikely because of JKR saying it's too Star > Wars, but just because someone isn't a direct descendant of someone > doesn't mean to say they're not related. e.g. I'm not directly > descended from my great uncle, but it doesn't make us any less > related. To the best of my knowledge, nothing in canon rules out the > possibility of the 4 founders of Hoggwarts being related in one way > or another, which could throw up some interesting theories!! > > Becky mhbobbin: I agree that it's not a likely plot point from what JKR has said. BUT there's got to be a good reason why we don't know the name of Tom Riddle's mother, and then, so little about her. Was Marvolo her father's name--first or last? There's got to be something about the Marvolo--we only learned about the Riddles and nothing about Tom's maternal and magical relatives. Yes, it's time to learn more about the circumstances of the birth of Tom Riddle. mh bobbin From klevasseur at earthlink.net Fri Jan 14 23:30:26 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:30:26 -0000 Subject: Family Ties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121975 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Harry looks like his father, and Tom Riddle look like them both. And > we know old wizarding families are all interrelated. (although some > have red hair, others like the Malfoys are blond). Tom, James and > Harry are from the line with Black hair. Maybe even the Black family > line somehow. > > Where I am going with this is maybe James' is related in some way to > Tom Riddle's mother. > > And, now this is far out... but what if I am right that LV is > imortal because he is caught in a time trap because of the time- > turner. He can only get out of the trap by killing all of the males > in the line of his family... This lets Lily out, she is not in his > family line, only James and Harry are. > > snip > Tonks_op (too much time on my hands, I have got to get a life.) Ms. Luna has a question/comment...I thought that LV was going to kill baby Harry because of what he thought was in the prophecy? Also, if your supposition is correct about hair color, Neville has dark hair too.....Did TMR say that Harry LOOKED like him or resembled him in that they were both orphans and half-bloods? Ms. Luna...needs to get a a life too, too much Harry Potter on the brain!! ;-) From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Fri Jan 14 23:31:48 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:31:48 +1100 Subject: Draco/Snape/Harry (James) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <761F1E5C-6684-11D9-9325-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 121977 I was just lying in bed thinking about the Snape/Harry dynamic when something occurred to me. Draco, like James was raised as a privileged only son by parents who love him (not that I think Lucius is the ideal Dad!) Harry, like Snape, was raised in an abusive household. How interesting of JKR to mix things up like this! I wonder how we will find the relationships between the three living members of this set developing next book! OotP has really been fascinating to read with this in mind. There seems to be quite a lot of potential for these three to finally break their set attitudes as they mature and encounter new situations. I guess that seems an odd way to speak of Snape, but in many ways he seems trapped in the past, unable to let go of his resentments agains the Marauders. Possibly the insight into Harry's childhood gained in the last book could finally lead him out of that trap - he may finally be able to see Harry as a separate being from James, even identify WITH him, in the right situation. Harry, as yet, has shown very little evidence TO SNAPE of how his incursion into Snape's memories has affected his view of his father and Snape. Yet we know that it has really shaken him. I think it is probable that Snape too is processing what he has learned. Outwardly the dynamic hasn't changed, but inwardly it is a different matter. Draco, too, has been thrown out of his accustomed patterns. This could be a crucial point in his development. How will he react to the overturn of his life once it sinks in? He is only in the early stages of processing this: grief / anger / denial. Crucially, how is his mother taking it? We know almost nothing about her, and yet her influence over Draco could be vital. Does she love Lucius? We know she didn't want Draco too far away, so she is attached to him. Does she support LV, or hate him? She could blame LV for getting Lucius into this situation. She seems reserved, with no known friends or allies. Is she alone at this point? Plotting revenge? She MIGHT be happy to be finally left in peace without her abusive husband - who knows what goes on behind the closed doors of the Malfoy manor? Oooh! I WANT MY NEXT BOOK! Jocelyn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 23:39:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:39:06 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121978 Alla wrote: "How do you know that Draco is nastier than usual Slytherin, since he is the ONLY Slytherin we can can consider among the kids for now?" Del replies: Precisely because we don't see any other Slytherin being as nasty. Well, maybe Pansy Parkinson. Where nastiness is concerned, Draco and Pansy are leaders, they are one of the extremes in the group "Slytherin", which means that the average Slytherin is necessarily less nasty than they are (sorry, my -very basic- statistical training coming up again : any group contains extremes, and the majority of the items in the group are *usually* somewhere between those two extremes). Alla: Sorry for beating the same horse over and over again, but I just want to understand. We don't see any other Slytherins doing ANYTHING yet (basically) - we don't see them doing anything GOOD or anything truly NASTY. They only exist in the story as extras, so far, IMO only. Croud, which form house Slytherin. Since we don't see them acting either positively or negatively, why are you so sure that Draco and Pansy are the extremes and not typical? And actually, as nameless croud, Slytherins do not act very nicely - Nora couple days ago gave the example of Slytherins not stopping Draco when he insults Hermione, we also talked about Quidditch and even though you said yesterday that basically nobody plays nice in Quidditch, I am thinking more about fairness and I would say that Gryffindor ( and two other houses) play much more fair than Slytherin does. You don't see Slytherin offering the remach, because the Seeker of the other team was hurt, for example. Alla wrote previosly: "What do you mean you would consider "typical Slytherin" as Sorting Hat presents him? Sorting Hat does not give us any new characters, it only gives us traits or "qualities" by which it supposedly chooses Slytherins" Del replies: Exactly. I would personally follow those traits when judging the Slytherins in general, rather than the specific traits of *one* Slytherin. The Hat tells us that the Slytherins are ambitious, cunning and so on, and those traits are those that matter to me when talking Slytherin, not Draco's traits. We don't know how closely Draco adheres or differs from the typical Slytherin (though we do know that the Hat put him there without any hesitation, but just like in Harry's case, we don't know how much Draco's desire influenced the Hat). Just like Neville, the Twins and Hermione represent 3 very different types of Gryffindors, and like Luna and Cho represent 2 very different types of Ravenclaws, I would say that Draco most probably represents only one of several different types of Slytherins. Alla: Not sure I follow. Are you saying that typical Slytherin has only those traits of character Sorting Hat names? Wouldn't it make placement even more simplistic than I think it already is? :) Alla wrote: "I would say all Slytherins we KNOW so far, not just heard their names, believe in pureblood ideology or believed at one point of their lives. (I am talking about Snape and Regulus)" Del replies: I agree. But I see it as the other way around : the only Slytherins we get to see are the most visible ones, and they are visible precisely because they are extremists in their actions : they *act* on their beliefs, so we know they hold those beliefs. But that doesn't in any way mean that all the other Slytherins believe in the pureblood ideology to the same extent. > > Alla: OK, I got it I think. You make the positive reference, because you don't see other Slytherin croud acting negatively. TO ME and to me only it is more logical to make a negative reference based on those characters JKR already introduced in the story. I don't think I can infer that other Slytherins are much better than Draco, because I don't see any of them. To me it would be to think the best of those people, because I WANT them to be better than Draco and Pansy, but this is not MY story :o), this is JKR's story and unless I SEE good Slytherins, I am uncapable of thinking that they exist only because I would like them to. Del: huge snip I'm not sure I'm making much sense to you, and if I'm not, I apologise. Alla: I snipped your excellent statistic explanation and I think it makes perfect sense in the real world. I am not sure if at least some of those various Slytherin types exist in JKR world. They should and I hope they are, but till I see them, I am not sure that JKR wants them to be. Alla wrote previously: "I believe and of course it is only my opinion that by making Draco so visible Rowling means for us to consider him as a typical Slytherin." Del replies: She could be doing just that, but I would be very disappointed, because that would mean that it's not just Draco that is very 2D, it's all the Slytherins, it's Slytherin House itself. Alla: Yes, I will be dissapointed too. Alla wrote previously: "Remember that password to Slytherin dorms was "pure blood" in CoS? I think it hints at something." Del replies: Do we know who chooses the passwords? It's not impossible that a single pureblood ideologist Prefect chose that password. After all, "Mimbulus Nimbletonia" in OoP seems to have been chosen (by Hermione?) or the benefit of a single student : Neville. Alla: Possible, but again, I think it can also be hint at general atmosphere in the Slytherin. Just my opinion, Alla From klevasseur at earthlink.net Fri Jan 14 23:45:47 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:45:47 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121979 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "johnkclark" wrote: > > > "AyanEva" wrote: > > > Harry's rush of anger always strikes me > > as odd and almost out of place. > > I was just surprised Harry didn't get angry much sooner.In the last > 5 years at school 3 of Harry's teachers had tried to kill him and > another teacher removed all the bones in his arm and attempted to > erase his memory and turn him into a vegetable. I have found that > when my mother, father and godfather get murdered, and I have to cut > my hand open and write with my own blood, and bitten by a spider the > size of a small elephant and then I get tied to a tombstone and > tortured so horribly I want to die, I tend to get a bit grumpy. But > perhaps that's just me, perhaps I'm just ill tempered by nature. > > > snip> Let's not forget that being attacked by Dementoids, chased around a chamber by a Basilisk, constantly being told you're going to die by some old bat with large glasses, having your best friend turn against you and the *girl of your dreams* going out with someone else...these things would also add to the grumpy factor. (I love your humor, laughed out loud when I read this post!!) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 00:02:14 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:02:14 -0000 Subject: Family Ties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121980 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ms_luna_knows" wrote: > Ms. Luna has a question/comment...I thought that LV was going to kill baby Harry because of what he thought was in the prophecy? Also, if your supposition is correct about hair color, Neville has dark hair too.....Did TMR say that Harry LOOKED like him or resembled him in that they were both orphans and half-bloods? > > Ms. Luna...needs to get a a life too, too much Harry Potter on the brain!! ;-) Tonks: Yes, there is the prophecy of course. What is a person who is obsessed with the Harry Potter books to do until the next one comes out? Find connections where none exist, perhaps. I probably don't know what I am talking about half the time. What kind of an Auror detective am I anyway!!? I was trying to figure out a reason LV would need to kill Harry and James, but not Lily. And since the three of them look somewhat alike... well, it was just a weird guess. I am going to type out everything I know about Harry and print it out and study it for awhile. ... hum.. maybe I should get a job soon. Tonks_op From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 17:41:37 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:41:37 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121981 >Vivian writes: >I agree with you. I've been saying this for quite a while now. >By the way people really hate time turner theories on this site. I hate the idea of the time turner in general. Why not use it to go back and save Sirius? Why was it okay to use it to save him from the Dementors but not okay to use it to save him from falling through the veil? If I were Harry, I'd be demanding the thing. I'd probably even steal it to try and save Sirius. *Terrible things happen to wizards that meddle with time*. Well, nothing happened to them when they meddled with it last time. Does Dumbledore have the power to know when using the time turner is a good idea and when it's a bad idea? If so, he's bloody more powerful than we ever suspected. It worked great to further the plot and wrap things up nicely in PoA, but I wish they would have smashed it to smithereens after that in order that it never be used again. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Fri Jan 14 17:42:01 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:42:01 -0000 Subject: Suggestions please: Mysteries Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121982 "Jim Flanagan" wrote: >> >> Why was it necessary to have such an elaborate plot to transport >> Harry to Voldemort in GoF? It took nearly the whole school year, >> and there were many opportunities for a slip-up along the way. > Couldn't the ersatz Moody have kidnaped him by force, or slipped him >> a disguised portkey in a much easier, and more certain, way? Oh, there were probably lots and lots of ways that LV could have taken Harry. But LV wanted to stick it to Dumbledore in a big way. He wanted to be able to say, "I took your little golden child right out from under your nose and you couldn't do a thing about it." I actually was immensely proud of JKR for this whole plotline because it's EXACTLY what I would expect from LV. Even the cliche scene where he hands Harry back his wand to fight it out rather than just frying him on the spot (what IS it with evil dudes?) is actually quite in character for LV because he wanted to show his useless DEs that he still had "it". I hope he has lots and lots of other plots going at the same time because one of my greatest fears for the series is that LV loses it and becomes a lame bad guy in the end. I just hate it when the bad guys are brilliant through a series or a book and then do something utterly stupid and/or out of character in the end in order that he be defeated. Nicky Joe From ayaneva at aol.com Fri Jan 14 18:01:45 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:01:45 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121983 AyanEva wrote: Harry's rush of anger always strikes me as odd and almost out of place. Eggplant responded: I was just surprised Harry didn't get angry much sooner.In the last 5 years at school 3 of Harry's teachers had tried to kill him AyanEva says now: Yes, but I'm only referring to the context of that particular moment, not cumulative. And that's another reason why I was suprised at Harry; he hasn't thrown a tantrum yet despite everything that he's been through, but when he does get angry, it's at a very odd moment. Nothing out of the ordinary was occuring, yet he inwardly flies off the handle. That and I still can't figure out why he blames Snape for Sirius' death. I'm of the opinion that it was actually Harry's fault, in a round about sort of way (forgetting the mirrors, getting suckered in by the dream, charging recklessly into the MOM). But as one who likes to visit the 'Prince of Lies' wearing my FEATHERBOA, while begging for 'Mercy,' I may be biased in favor of Snape. *ducks things thrown at her by Sirius fans* AyanEva originally said: What if it's Voldemort feeling a rush of anger and hatred towards Snape, but again, Harry's unable to distinguish b/w his own emotions and Voldemort's? Egglpant responds: There is another reason I don't think your theory is correct, the theory that Harry's bad mood is due to Voldemort messing directly with his mind; it just wouldn't make a very interesting story if his anger and grief turned out to be Voldemort pulling strings. Canned grief in a tragedy is as unworthy as canned laughter in a comedy. AyanEva now answers: I agree, but I never said that every negative emotion that Harry feels is influenced by Voldemort. I'm still only referring to this one particular moment in time, in light of what happened previously. I'm not questioning the source of his moodiness throughout the entire book (not in this post anyway!). Like I said before, it would seem a bit repitative to use the Voldemort thing more than once, but it could make things very interesting regarding the relationship b/w Harry and Professor Snape. I'd really like to see what happens b/w those two, Eggplant says: I think at some point in the next 2 books it will all starts to become too much and Harry will come very close to turning evil; he will certainly be tempted. It would be far more interesting than another Voldemort mind trick, and that's why I think Rowling will make it happen. AyanEva responds: Why not tempted!Harry (<--- can I do that?) AND a Voldemort trick? Voldie's been a bit unconvincing as a supervillian thus far, he needs to do something to spice it up a bit. I don't see why there wouldn't be another Voldie mind trick, the red-eyed creep certainly hasn't gone away. And how long can Harry keep him shoved out w/ Love anyway? He wasn't loving much of anything by the end of the school year. I don't think JK would have the mind connection play such a huge role and then never use it again. I think I'm gettin' the hang of this posting thing! :-D AyanEva From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 00:26:17 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:26:17 -0000 Subject: His mother's eyes (was: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/TT/ LV mortality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ms_luna_knows" wrote: Carol said: > > Lily places an elaborate Protego (shield charm) on Baby Harry, perhaps involving an incantation like the one kemper hypothesized (as opposed to the mere name of the spell), and, using her finger, marks Harry's forehead with an (defense) eihwaz rune, like a priest marking a baby's forehead with a cross in a baptismal service. The incantation specifies that the charm will be activated by her self- sacrifice. Shortly afterwards, she is murdered, sacrificing herself for Harry and activating the charm. Voldemort tries to kill Harry, and the powerful Protego erupts through Harry's forehead, leaving an eihwaz-shaped opening that later turns into a scar. The Protego deflects the AK onto Voldemort, who is not killed because of the protections he put on himself > The force of the Protego explodes not only Voldemort but > > everything around him, and the house crashes on dead Lily and > > Baby!Harry. (Dead James is somewhere outside the house where he dies duelling with Voldemort.) While the wound is open, some of Voldemort's powers and possibly some of his anger enters into Harry. > > > > I think an explanation like this allows the scar to be caused by a cut when the AK hit (AKs normally don't leave any mark) and at the same time allows the scar to be a symbol of his mother's protection, the eihwaz (defense) rune. > > > > As noted in an earlier post, JKR did say that the shape of the scar wasn't the most important thing about it, but she didn't say that the shape wasn't important at all. > > Carol > Ms. Luna said: The question I have deals with DD sealing the charm > himself by placing Harry with the Dursley's. If Lily's charm is activated to the extent that it protects baby Harry from an AK curse, why would DD need to *seal* it by placing Harry > with the Dursley's? Seems to me that the charm Lily put on Harry would have been sufficient to protect Harry through his young years without having to put him through the neglect he endured at the hands of the Dursley's. Tonks replies: Let's tweak this just a bit. Say that DD being a very wise and powerful wizard, the best in his time is the one that puts the charm on Harry. DD heard the prophecy, waited for the end of July, knows that 2 babies are born. He talks to both set of parents. He puts a special charm involving old magic, a magic only a few know, on both boys. He does it like a priest does when baptizing a child. Instead of the mark of the cross, he uses the rune symbol. Both children have the charm and the invisible symbol on their foreheads. It takes the death of a blood relative, *freely given* to activate it. When LV attempts to kill Harry and the killing curse hits Harry, the mark becomes visible. Since the protection involves the blood of the victim (Lily), the child must continue to live with a blood relative of Lily. This is why DD puts Harry with the Dursleys, or more specifically, Petunia. Tonks_op From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Jan 15 00:27:11 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:27:11 -0000 Subject: Family Ties In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121985 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ms_luna_knows" > wrote: > > Ms. Luna has a question/comment...I thought that LV was going to > kill baby Harry because of what he thought was in the prophecy? > Also, if your supposition is correct about hair color, Neville has > dark hair too.....Did TMR say that Harry LOOKED like him or > resembled him in that they were both orphans and half-bloods? > > > > Ms. Luna...needs to get a a life too, too much Harry Potter on the > brain!! ;-) > > Tonks: > > Yes, there is the prophecy of course. What is a person who is > obsessed with the Harry Potter books to do until the next one comes > out? Find connections where none exist, perhaps. I probably don't > know what I am talking about half the time. What kind of an Auror > detective am I anyway!!? I was trying to figure out a reason LV > would need to kill Harry and James, but not Lily. And since the > three of them look somewhat alike... well, it was just a weird guess. > > I am going to type out everything I know about Harry and print it > out and study it for awhile. ... hum.. maybe I should get a job > soon. > > Tonks_op Honestly Tonks, if it weren't for the *weird guesses* this group would get pretty tired! I mean, who would have guessed, except maybe one of the weird guesses, that Moody in GoF was actually Couch? That blew my mind!!! Never in a million years would I have even attempted to guess that someone was not actually who they said and acted and looked like!! I say, keep on guessing, keep our sad minds busy with strange, out of the ordinary theories, give us something to do until July 16...... ;-) Ms. Luna From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Jan 15 00:45:48 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:45:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121986 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "AyanEva" wrote: > > > > AyanEva wrote: > > Harry's rush of anger always strikes me > as odd and almost out of place. > > > Eggplant responded: > > I was just surprised Harry didn't get angry much sooner.In the last > 5 years at school 3 of Harry's teachers had tried to kill him > > > AyanEva says now: > > Yes, but I'm only referring to the context of that particular moment, > not cumulative. And that's another reason why I was suprised at Harry; > he hasn't thrown a tantrum yet despite everything that he's been > through, but when he does get angry, it's at a very odd moment. > Nothing out of the ordinary was occuring, yet he inwardly flies off > the handle. That and I still can't figure out why he blames Snape for > Sirius' death. I'm of the opinion that it was actually Harry's fault, > in a round about sort of way (forgetting the mirrors, getting suckered > in by the dream, charging recklessly into the MOM). But as one who > likes to visit the 'Prince of Lies' wearing my FEATHERBOA, while > begging for 'Mercy,' I may be biased in favor of Snape. *ducks things > thrown at her by Sirius fans* > > big snip> > AyanEva I'm going to try to redeem myself a bit after my previous *silly* post to this thread. I have said before, and I don't think anyone was listening or even read the post, that Harry is a teenager...14 or 15 at this point. Being a teenager he is going through puberty and therefore has a bit more built up angst than a *normal* non pubesent (sp?) person. I have first hand knowledge of this type of build up and *out of nowhere* blow up/explosion of emotion that can come out of a hormone driven teenage boy. (I have a 13 year old living under my roof at this very moment, and I have no idea who is going to come out of his room, it could be the very sweet, nice boy, or the angry *everyone hates me* boy, or the *i'm mad as hell and I don't know why* boy....you get the picture.) Anyway, I believe that JKR must also have intimate knowledge of how a teenage boy reacts and is using this knowledge with Harry's emotions. I think it is very simple in a way. Teenagers blow off all the time, Harry is actually holding it together remarkably well, considering all he has gone through. With regards to the blaming Snape for Sirius's death....again, the teenage mind works in very strange ways. And to Harry's way of thinking Snape should have tried harder to help Harry, despite his feelings toward Harry...and I believe that is why Harry blames Snape. If Snape had continued with Harry's occulmency lessons, Harry wouldn't have seen the vision/dream, Harry wouldn't have tried to save Sirius, Sirius wouldn't have gone to the MoM to save Harry and Sirius wouldn't have died. It's just the way a teenager's mind works! Ms. Luna From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Jan 15 00:55:59 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:55:59 -0000 Subject: His mother's eyes (was: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/TT/ LV mortality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121987 ---> Ms. Luna said: > The question I have deals with DD sealing the charm > > himself by placing Harry with the Dursley's. If Lily's charm is > activated to the extent that it protects baby Harry from an AK > curse, why would DD need to *seal* it by placing Harry > > with the Dursley's? Seems to me that the charm Lily put on Harry > would have been sufficient to protect Harry through his young years > without having to put him through the neglect he endured at the > hands of the Dursley's. > > Tonks replies: > > Let's tweak this just a bit. Say that DD being a very wise and > powerful wizard, the best in his time is the one that puts the charm > on Harry. DD heard the prophecy, waited for the end of July, knows > that 2 babies are born. He talks to both set of parents. He puts a > special charm involving old magic, a magic only a few know, on both > boys. He does it like a priest does when baptizing a child. Instead > of the mark of the cross, he uses the rune symbol. Both children > have the charm and the invisible symbol on their foreheads. It takes > the death of a blood relative, *freely given* to activate it. When > LV attempts to kill Harry and the killing curse hits Harry, the mark > becomes visible. > > Since the protection involves the blood of the victim (Lily), the > child must continue to live with a blood relative of Lily. This is > why DD puts Harry with the Dursleys, or more specifically, Petunia. > > Tonks_op Very good Tonks....the *tweaking* has helped clear out the cobwebs a bit. What an intriguing theory! I can picture in my mind old DD performing the charm...he looks much like an old priest! One more question though..Why didn't DD tell Harry that he had placed this charm on him, or encouraged his parents to perform it, and that this charm is why his scar is shaped like it is at the end of OoTP? It seems like information that Harry could have understood and accepted, much like the information DD told him there at the end of OoTP. Ms. Luna From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 00:57:41 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:57:41 -0000 Subject: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM (was: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121988 Carol earlier: > > Since they were all in black (robes, cloaks, hoods, and masks), > they would have blended into the shadows anyway and no such spell > would have been needed. IIRC, the place was dimly lit, possibly only > by the Prophecy orbs themselves. Harry and friends may have had > their backs turned to them as well. (They emerged from left and > right but they could have come from behind along both sides of the > shelves while Harry and his friends were all focusing their > attention on the Prophecy orb.) Maybe Lucius was watching to see > when Harry would pick up the orb and gave the DEs the signal to move > forward and surround them. > (snip) > > > Dungrollin replies: > > Sorry to pick on you, Carol, as I know several others have suggested > this. But how exactly does "Black shapes were emerging > out of thin air" equate to "Someone yelled 'Now!' and they all > legged it round the corner of the row (which Harry had, BTW, just > searched behind) and arrived in time to surround the kids, panting > slightly from the unexpectedly sudden burst of exercise, but > nevertheless taking the children completely by surprise"? Silencing > charm on their footsteps, perhaps? > Carol replies: OTOH, "emerging out of thin air" is Harry's perception, meaning that he had no idea where they came from. And I didn't suggest that Malfoy yelled now. I had in mind a silent signal, with the DEs moving silently forward. I think that the DEs, wearing black from head to foot, would not have needed a disillusionment charm since they were already the color they would have to appear (black) to blend into the sahadows. A disillusionment charm doesn't maek a person invisible. It merely acts as camouflage, which is exactly what the black cloaks would do. And they wouldn't have been hiding where Harry expected to find Sirius. Just my opinion. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 01:13:02 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:13:02 -0000 Subject: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM (was: Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: <18A520DA-660F-11D9-9325-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121989 Carol earlier: > > One tiny thing about that scene bothers me. The narrator says early on that Harry could see their eyes through slits in their hoods, which doesn't make much sense. Hoods go over the head and around the face, not over it. Later, though, JKR has at least three of them (Dolohov, MacNair, and Bellatrix) remove their masks, so clearly it's the mask, not the hood, that has slits for the eyes. A tiny detail, but as an editor, I'd have pointed it out and asked JKR to fix it or fixed it myself and queried it with "Edit okay?". > Jocelyn responded: > I was assuming that the hoods were more like the hoods you see in the classic depiction of executioners. Rather like a sack over the head with a slit for the eyes? I have always heard that particular garment described as a hood, although it is quite different from the hood one thinks of in connection with a cloak. > > Do you know the sort I mean, or should I try and hunt up a picture? > > > ---------- Carol again: Like Buck's would-be executioner (presumably Macnair, though he's not named) wears in the PoA film? That's an idea, but the term "masks" is definitely used later. I picture them as hooded and cloaked, with masks over their faces. Babyhead loses his and Macnair and Dolohov remove theirs in front of Harry, which is how their identity is revealed. Maybe JKR is using two different terms for the same item, but I'd rather she were consistent! Thanks for the idea, though. You may well be right. Carol From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 01:42:04 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:42:04 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121990 Alla wrote: "Sorry for beating the same horse over and over again, but I just want to understand. We don't see any other Slytherins doing ANYTHING yet (basically) - we don't see them doing anything GOOD or anything truly NASTY. They only exist in the story as extras, so far, IMO only. Croud, which form house Slytherin. Since we don't see them acting either positively or negatively, why are you so sure that Draco and Pansy are the extremes and not typical?" Del replies: Keep beating the horse :-) I *think* I got it this time. Why am I so sure Draco and Pansy are the extremes and not typical? Well, mainly because nobody else is *visible*. This ties in with what I said about the adult Slytherins we know : I believe we see them because they are extremists. Similarly, I believe Draco and Pansy are so visible because they are extremists, and that anyone else who would be as nasty as those two would also be as visible as they are. This happened in OoP for example : the IQ gave an opportunity for the nastier Slytherins to express themselves. But only a fraction of Slytherin House composed the IQ : the other Slytherins remained invisible and neutral, even though they were given a golden opportunity to express any nastiness they had, which to me indicates that many of them simply *are* not as nasty as Draco and the IQ. Am I making sense? Alla wrote: "And actually, as nameless croud, Slytherins do not act very nicely - Nora couple days ago gave the example of Slytherins not stopping Draco when he insults Hermione, we also talked about Quidditch and even though you said yesterday that basically nobody plays nice in Quidditch, I am thinking more about fairness and I would say that Gryffindor ( and two other houses) play much more fair than Slytherin does." Del replies: In both cases, it's the Slytherin Quidditch team we're talking about : 7 kids out of a whole House. And not just any 7 kids either : it takes some specific traits to enter the Slytherin Quidditch team, like physical strength and the will to use it in any way possible to help the team win. The Slytherin Quidditch team has apparently been composed mainly of big brutes for several years, Draco being the exception. So I sure wouldn't expect much of *them*. There *is* an example of the whole Slytherin House going nasty : it's the "Weasley is our king" song. But I would take this more as an example of group mentality and House support during sports than anything else. Too many nice RL people turn into savages when supporting their favourite team. And the adult wizards didn't do much better at the QWC. Alla wrote: "You don't see Slytherin offering the remach, because the Seeker of the other team was hurt, for example." Del replies: No, but I don't see the Gryffindors or the Ravenclaws doing it either. The way I read it, JKR wanted to make a point that Cedric was *exceptionally* fair-minded. Alla wrote: "Are you saying that typical Slytherin has only those traits of character Sorting Hat names?" Del replies: Yes. What I was trying to explain is that the typical Slytherin is a mythical beast, just like the typical Gryffindor, the typical Hufflepuff and the typical Ravenclaw. They don't exist, none of them. Which is why I cannot equate Draco to the typical Slytherin. When talking about "the Gryffindors" I won't use any of the Gryffindors I know as the typical example of a Gryffindor, and I won't use Draco or any of the Slytherins we know as an archetype when talking of "the Slytherins". The *only* archetypes we could use fairly IMO would be the simplistic beings described by the Hat. But they don't exist, so we're left to deal with real people who are never completely representative of their Houses. Alla wrote: "You make the positive reference, because you don't see other Slytherin croud acting negatively. TO ME and to me only it is more logical to make a negative reference based on those characters JKR already introduced in the story. I don't think I can infer that other Slytherins are much better than Draco, because I don't see any of them. To me it would be to think the best of those people, because I WANT them to be better than Draco and Pansy, but this is not MY story :o), this is JKR's story and unless I SEE good Slytherins, I am uncapable of thinking that they exist only because I would like them to." Del replies: But that goes both ways :-) You think they don't exist because JKR didn't write them, I think they exist because JKR didn't say they don't exist. Take the famous problem of the number of students in Harry's class. We still don't know if Harry, Ron, Neville, Dean, Seamus, Hermione, Lavender and Parvati are the only Gryffindors in Harry's year. Sometimes it seems like they are because they are the only ones we ever hear about, but sometimes it seems like they definitely aren't (Harry had *30* classmates listening to him arguing with Umbridge in DADA in OoP???). Whichever way we go, there's something JKR isn't telling us. Another example is Theo Nott. Harry had been having classes with him for *4 years* before OoP and the narrator had never even mentioned him, and Harry didn't know his name?? Obviously, Harry's world is in no way restricted to what JKR tells us about it. So as long as she doesn't clearly say : "there aren't any nicer Slytherins, they are all like Draco", I will keep imagining that they are there, because it wouldn't make any sense for me if they didn't exist : it wouldn't be real. (And if JKR does say that they don't exist, I hope she'll give a better explanation than just "they're all rotten"). Del From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sat Jan 15 02:27:21 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:27:21 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) Message-ID: <88.1e1e0b10.2f19d989@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 121991 In a message dated 1/14/2005 11:47:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, imamommy at sbcglobal.net writes: and as they only get it in Hogsmeade they aren't really supposed to have it on campus. imamommy ***************************************************************** Chancie: My only question to that is why, (if they aren't supposed to have it at school) is it in the kitchens, and hasn't anyone gotten trouble for bringing it into the common room? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat Jan 15 02:55:13 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:55:13 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dolohov's curse (Was: More About Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41E920C1.6246.33B3450@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 121992 On 13 Jan 2005 at 14:33, Geoff Bannister wrote: > Geoff: > The UK editions lack internal illustrations, which I believe are in > the US versions and thus tend to have a lower page count. The usual > UK OOTP edition runs to 766 pages. > > I think the publisher is also a guide. UK editions are from > Bloomsbury, US from Scholastic(?) - US friends, please smack my > wrists if I'm wrong on that. Australian editions of the two most recent Harry Potter novels were produced by Griffin Press. They are, to all intents and purposes, identical to the British Bloomsbury editions right down to the Bloomsbury imprint on the spine. The only differences are found on the information page at the front of the book which indicates Griffin Press' involvement, and will normally list the edition as something like 'First Australian Edition'. I believe Griffin now produces copies of the earlier novels as well but the first three were initially released here in the British editions. 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 drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat Jan 15 03:01:41 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:01:41 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dolohov's curse (Was: More About Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: <41E920C1.6246.33B3450@localhost> References: Message-ID: <41E92245.32364.3411FD7@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 121993 On 15 Jan 2005 at 13:55, Shaun Hately wrote: > Australian editions of the two most recent Harry Potter novels were > produced by Griffin Press. They are, to all intents and purposes, > identical to the British Bloomsbury editions right down to the > Bloomsbury imprint on the spine. The only differences are found on > the information page at the front of the book which indicates > Griffin Press' involvement, and will normally list the edition as > something like 'First Australian Edition'. Oh - sorry, a possible error here. Apparently there are sometimes textual differences between the Australian editions and the British editions - British edition apparently sometimes use different fonts, for letters and the like, while the Australian editions maintain one font throughout. I've never actually checked this. 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 dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 06:18:32 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 06:18:32 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121994 > AyanEva says now: Yes, but I'm only referring to the context of that particular moment, not cumulative. And that's another reason why I was suprised at Harry; he hasn't thrown a tantrum yet despite everything that he's been through, but when he does get angry, it's at a very odd moment. Nothing out of the ordinary was occuring, yet he inwardly flies off the handle. That and I still can't figure out why he blames Snape for Sirius' death. I'm of the opinion that it was actually Harry's fault, in a round about sort of way (forgetting the mirrors, getting suckered in by the dream, charging recklessly into the MOM). But as one who likes to visit the 'Prince of Lies' wearing my FEATHERBOA, while begging for 'Mercy,' I may be biased in favor of Snape. *ducks things thrown at her by Sirius fans* Alla: Welcome, Eva! The thing is don't see Harry flying off the handle at this particular moment at all. The more I think about it , the more I tend to agree with Geoff - he answers Snape with sarcasm and cold fury and manages to keep himself pretty much "in check" IMO, only. But of course he is angry and even though you are saying that nothing happens at that moment except Harry's encounter with Malfoy, I see Harry's anger as very "cumulative", kind of " look what you did to me all this year" and of course he blames Snape for Sirius death' . My usuall "assigning blame' part goes as follows. Of course Voldemort and Bella go first, but among the "good guys" I assign the lion share to Dumbledore then to Snape (since I believe his five years emotional abuse of Harry lead to Harry's mistrust of him and his hideous teaching of Occlumency lead in a round about way to Sirius death) I also assign some blame to Harry, but significantly lesser one, since I believe that adults around him , especially Dumbledore and Snape, screw up more than Harry did. But if you think of it everybody , including Harry screwed up somehow in OOP. That seemed to be the way to act in that book. :o) Many, many discussions were held about Occlumency and I am sure will be held again. :o) Is Harry right to blame Snape for Sirius' death? If he turns out to be truly loyal to the cause, probably not, although regardless I think Harry has many many legitimate complaints about Snape's teaching of the subject. But Ms.Luna explained perfectly why Harry blames Snape for Sirius' death specifically. Teenager's mind indeed works in a strange and interesting ways. :o) I think I am starting to ramble, so to make a long story short, Harry' s behaviour in that scene makes perfect sence to me and I am pretty sure that he will forgive Snape eventually, even though I much prefer Harry giving Snape the taste of his own medicine, at least for a little while, but I am slightly biased in Harry's favor. :o) Again, welcome and if you find this post to be not very organised, please blame it on the fact that it is time for me to go get some sleep. :o) Just my opinion, Alla From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sat Jan 15 06:19:40 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 06:19:40 -0000 Subject: His mother's eyes (was: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/TT/ LV mortality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121995 Tonks replies: > > Let's tweak this just a bit. Say that DD being a very wise and > > powerful wizard, the best in his time is the one that puts the charm > > on Harry. DD heard the prophecy, waited for the end of July, knows > > that 2 babies are born. He talks to both set of parents. He puts a > > special charm involving old magic, a magic only a few know, on both > > boys. He does it like a priest does when baptizing a child. Instead > > of the mark of the cross, he uses the rune symbol. Both children > > have the charm and the invisible symbol on their foreheads. It takes > > the death of a blood relative, *freely given* to activate it. When > > LV attempts to kill Harry and the killing curse hits Harry, the mark > > becomes visible. > > > > Since the protection involves the blood of the victim (Lily), the > > child must continue to live with a blood relative of Lily. This is > > why DD puts Harry with the Dursleys, or more specifically, Petunia. > > > > Tonks_op > > Very good Tonks....the *tweaking* has helped clear out the cobwebs a bit. What an > intriguing theory! I can picture in my mind old DD performing the charm...he looks much > like an old priest! One more question though..Why didn't DD tell Harry that he had > placed this charm on him, or encouraged his parents to perform it, and that this charm is > why his scar is shaped like it is at the end of OoTP? It seems like information that Harry > could have understood and accepted, much like the information DD told him there at the > end of OoTP. > > Ms. Luna Luckdragon: Are you talking about the sowilo rune symbol. If this is correct why wouldn't someone recognize the symbol and remark on it's significance. Especially Sirius or Lupin. If we are to accept that it cannot be counteracted then it would be safe to assume it will ensure Harry's victory. If it can be counteracted, why has Voldemort not dealt with that above anything else. When next we see LV will he be sporting his own symbol. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 15 06:49:55 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 06:49:55 -0000 Subject: Chivalry was Re: Salazar & Slytherin - Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121996 Carol: > I'd say it's fair to state that "a certain disregard for the > rules"--not necessarily in a noble cause--is at least as much a > Gryffindor trait as a Slytherin one. > Pippin,chiming in late: The Sorting Hat says, "Their daring, nerve and chivalry/Set Gryffindors apart..." Chivalry is the code of knightly behavior, so respect for rules *is* something the Hat looks for in potential Gryffindors, but it is also looking for the spirit of chivalry; basically, that the strong should protect the weak. Harry sometimes breaks the rules but does so to uphold the chivalrous ideal, and when he does he is praised by Dumbledore, and even McGonagall. But when he is caught breaking rules for his own purposes, he is punished. I think Slytherin's disregard for rules could be its saving grace. Slytherins might find it easier than the other houses to abandon ideals that had become outmoded. Pippin From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 15 07:45:59 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 07:45:59 -0000 Subject: Dolohov's curse (Was: More About Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: <41E92245.32364.3411FD7@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 121997 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: Shaun Hately: > Oh - sorry, a possible error here. Apparently there are sometimes > textual differences between the Australian editions and the British > editions - British edition apparently sometimes use different > fonts, for letters and the like, while the Australian editions > maintain one font throughout. I've never actually checked this. Geoff: For information, the British editions usually italicise "documents" - letters, Umbridge's decrees, items from the "Daily Prophet" and similar items. I assume that the Australian editions do italicise emphasised words? Geoff http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com Enjoy a virtual visit to the Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sat Jan 15 07:50:05 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:50:05 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dolohov's curse (Was: More About Snape and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: References: <41E92245.32364.3411FD7@localhost> Message-ID: <41E965DD.11316.983D67@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 121998 On 15 Jan 2005 at 7:45, Geoff Bannister wrote: > Geoff: > For information, the British editions usually italicise "documents" - > letters, Umbridge's decrees, items from the "Daily Prophet" and > similar items. > > I assume that the Australian editions do italicise emphasised words? Yes, italics are used as appropriate. There may be no differences. I've just been told by some people that there are. I keep meaning to see about getting a British edition just to check. 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 imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 15 08:19:12 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:19:12 -0000 Subject: Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) In-Reply-To: <88.1e1e0b10.2f19d989@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122000 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/14/2005 11:47:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, > imamommy at s... writes: > > and as > they only get it in Hogsmeade they aren't really supposed to have it > on campus. > > imamommy > > > > > ***************************************************************** > > Chancie: > > My only question to that is why, (if they aren't supposed to have it at > school) is it in the kitchens, and hasn't anyone gotten trouble for bringing > it into the common room? > imamommy: Y'know, after I wrote this I was thinking, didn't a *Professor* give harry a butterbeer? Remus J. Lupin, in fact. Hmm. I think the students have snuck butterbeer into the common room and dorms; let's face it, there's not a lot of adult supervision and most of the prefects probably wouldn't care (Percy and perhaps Hermione being possible theoretical exeptions). As to the kitchens, either Winky is sneaking it in (I'm sure the house elves have access to go to Hogsmeade for shopping, etc.) or else adult house elves can have it? Can anybody from the UK help with what one might expect in a boarding school like this? And what is your take on butterbeer being alcoholic? Thanks imamommy From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 15 08:33:30 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:33:30 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122001 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > I (Vivian) wrote: > > I agree with you. I've been saying this for quite a while now. > By the way people really hate time turner theories on this site. > > Nicky Joe Responded: > I hate the idea of the time turner in general. Why not use it to go > back and save Sirius? Why was it okay to use it to save him from the > Dementors but not okay to use it to save him from falling through the > veil? If I were Harry, I'd be demanding the thing. I'd probably > even steal it to try and save Sirius. *Terrible things happen to > wizards that meddle with time*. Well, nothing happened to them when > they meddled with it last time. Does Dumbledore have the power to > know when using the time turner is a good idea and when it's a bad > idea? If so, he's bloody more powerful than we ever suspected. It > worked great to further the plot and wrap things up nicely in PoA, > but I wish they would have smashed it to smithereens after that in > order that it never be used again. snip imamommy: There is a bit of a contradiction here, in the way JKR uses the time turner. In PoA there is only one version of events; we at first think there are two, but in fact there is only one, the one in which they save Buckbeak, Harry casts the Patronus, and Sirius flies into the wild blue on Buckbeak. But wizards killing their other self? Presents a logic problem, doesn't it? Let's say you are sitting quietly when You walk into the room. You are taken aback; what are You doing there? Must be some Evil!Polyjuiced Dude. So you kill You. Then you find the time turner and realize what you did to You. Do you think you would really take the TT in the future if you knew that you were going to kill You? Let's flip it around. Let's say something You do when You go back in time results in your (past self's) demise. Then you have a paradox, because You won't be alive to go back in time and kill yourself. Why can't we go back and save Sirius? Because Sirius fell through the veil. That only way Harry could TT to save him is if he had evidence that he *had* TT'd to save him. IMO, this is how DD knew to send them back in PoA. He knew Buckbeak got away, he knew Hermione had the TT, he knew someone had cast a Patronus from across the lake...he added up the facts and figured out what needed to happen. I think that was all the foresight DD needed on that one. So we can't go back and save the dead, because they weren't saved. Clear as mud? imamommy From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 08:39:25 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:39:25 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Time-turner not a quick fix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122002 I (Vivian) wrote: I agree with you. I've been saying this for quite a while now. By the way people really hate time turner theories on this site. Nicky Joe Responded: I hate the idea of the time turner in general. Why not use it to go back and save Sirius? Why was it okay to use it to save him from the Dementors but not okay to use it to save him from falling through the veil? If I were Harry, I'd be demanding the thing. I'd probably even steal it to try and save Sirius. *Terrible things happen to wizards that meddle with time*. Well, nothing happened to them when they meddled with it last time. Does Dumbledore have the power to know when using the time turner is a good idea and when it's a bad idea? If so, he's bloody more powerful than we ever suspected. It worked great to further the plot and wrap things up nicely in PoA, but I wish they would have smashed it to smithereens after that in order that it never be used again. vmonte again: I think the reason why Dumbledore says: "Terrible things happen to wizards that meddle with time" because terrible things have happened. DD is not completely all knowing, and he doesn't have the power to predict when using a time-turner is always going to work. We have only been told about the TT in one case, and it just happens to be on a time it did work. We don't know if it has been used previously--but IMO it must have. It was rather easily given to Hermione wasn't it? And do you really think it was for school? IMO DD/MM must have known that she was going to need it later on. Since SS/PS the children have been receiving the training necessary to accomplish certain goals (SSSusan and I have discussed this here previously). Are they being trained for something in the future? Yes, I believe so. I don't like TT stories either; I've always hated them, except for how JKR has used it. IMO the next time we actually see (read about) a TT being used it will not work out favorably. What do you suppose Harry or Hermione would do if Ron's parents were killed in book 6? How about if Fred and George got one? It has been previously discussed, on this site, that perhaps Fred and George are already in possession of a TT. One poster even suggested that F&G used a TT to find out what was going to happen at the Quidditch National in GoF. Remember the bet? I think that someone, with no experience using a TT, is going to use one causing catastrophic consequences. DD on the other hand, obviously has more experience using one, and would know its dangers. (I still think though, that he has made mistakes while using it. We just aren't privy to that information yet.) BTW a TT will not be used to save Lily or James. IMO, I think that L&J made a choice to die to save their son Harry. I think they believed that the only way Harry would survive would be if they sacrificed their lives. What if they let Wormtail be the keeper on purpose? It's interesting that with all that DD knows he has no idea of what exactly happened at GH. I think that James and Lily were running the show that night. Vivian From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Jan 14 23:48:18 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 23:48:18 -0000 Subject: His mother's eyes (was: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/TT/ LV mortality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122003 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Protego erupts through Harry's forehead, leaving an eihwaz-shaped > opening that later turns into a scar. Interesting thought. But the scar is described as a lightning bold. And that would mean the sowulo rune, and not the eihwaz. Maybe I'm influenced by the picture on the cover of part one (Bloomsbury edition), where the Sowulo is depicted, but I've never seen a lightning bold which was pictured like an eihwaz. Sowulo means blessing, sun power, life work. I think these meanings are also quite applicable. Gerry From ayaneva at aol.com Sat Jan 15 02:22:16 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:22:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122004 Ms. Luna says: I have said before, and I don't think anyone was listening or even read the post, that Harry is a teenager...14 or 15 at this point. Being a teenager he is going through puberty and therefore has a bit more built up angst than a *normal* non pubesent (sp?) person. AyanEva responds: I'm probably making this more complicated than necessary, but my degree's in Psychology, I can't help it! :-D Besides, I'm having fun now that I've started talking. My posts are still moderated by the list elves, so I apologize for any delay in responding to you. I'm only a few years out of my own puberty. I just don't think the scene *fits*; but I suppose it's a matter of personal opinion, whether the scene seems out of place or not. I think it seems a bit odd because it's so sudden. I didn't have a particularly normal time as a teenager either, so I understand "irrational" behavior a bit :-). But even the most irrational behaviors have an explanation, whether it's environmental, biological, or psychological. Harry's response, in the context of this specific situation, IMO, can't be explained adequately by anything in the environment, but *maybe* a biological or psychological factor. However, the latter two theories are getting into needlessly complex territory. Yes, he's got years of pent up frustration and the effects of those who mistreated him, but I can't fathom why he chooses *that* particular moment with Snape to express it. It just doesn't fit the circumstances no matter how you look at it. You could say that he just snapped, that Snape blaming him put him over the edge, but if that's the case, I should think the reaction would be more severe than what it was. It was a moment of fury and then it was gone. It's the sudden appearance and then seeming disappearance that I find nagging. So, something external is affecting Harry or he's *this* close to developing a nasty psychological disorder. My only other explanation is that he's projecting his own problems onto Snape. I can't put my finger on it, but his reaction just seems off. I wish I could explain it better, but I'm trying my best! I just love these books because you can do so much with interpreting the characters. AyanEva From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Sat Jan 15 12:08:56 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:08:56 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3ADE9F90-66EE-11D9-9325-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 122005 On Saturday, January 15, 2005, at 01:22 pm, AyanEva wrote: > It was a moment of fury and then it was gone. It's the sudden > appearance and then seeming disappearance that I find nagging. I was thinking last night about a particular incident while I was at school that seems a bit pertinent. I look back on it as one of those leaps we make into maturity. I was in year 10 - say around15? My cat was run over by my Dad that morning. It was horrible. I cried and cried, my Dad felt awful and I was late to school. It was math, and my teacher that year was probably one of the worst I ever had. When she asked why I was late I said "My Dad ran over my cat this morning." Her response was "That's no excuse." I looked at her and fully understood in that instant that there was no point getting angry or trying to explain further. She was either incapable or unwilling to understand. I suddenly felt a wave of cold fury run over me and I took a calming breath before I said levelly, "Then you will have to accept it as an explanation", snapped my mouth closed, turned and walked to my desk. That was the first time I ever related to a teacher as an adult. Suddenly the playing field was level, and I no longer deferred, feared or prevaricated. She was an idiot and in that moment she had no power over me. The feeling didn't last, but I have never forgotten it. It was a coming-of-of-age moment. I wonder if Harry could have been having that sort of moment. Jocelyn From jennifer_maccherone at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 13:05:12 2005 From: jennifer_maccherone at yahoo.com (nifferhpfan) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:05:12 -0000 Subject: Rune symbol on forehead (was His Mother's eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122006 > Carol said: > > > Lily places an elaborate Protego (shield charm) on Baby Harry, > perhaps involving an incantation like the one kemper hypothesized > (as opposed to the mere name of the spell), and, using her finger, > marks Harry's forehead with an (defense) eihwaz rune, like a priest > marking a baby's forehead with a cross in a baptismal service. Niffer writes: Carol, when you wrote this a lightbulb went off in my head. Of course the scar is the shape of a rune! But instead of Eihwaz, I think it is Sowelu, which means Wholeness, Life Force, or the Sun's Energy. It too looks like a lightning bolt, but it fits Harry much better. Listen to this information from The Book of Runes by Ralph Blum, "Sowelu stands for wholeness, that which our nature requires. It embodies the impulse toward self-realization and indicates the path you must follow, not from ulterior motives, but from the core of your individuality. Seeking after wholeness is the Spiritual Warrior's quest. And yet what you are striving to become in actuality is what, by nature, you already are. Become conscious of your essence and bring it into form, express it in a creative way. A Rune of great power, making life force available to you, Sowelu marks a time for regeneration down to the cellular level." It also says, "There is a prayer, known as the Gayatri, that embodies the spirit of the Rune of Wholeness. Address the sun in this fashion: You who are the source of all power, Whose rays illuminate the world, Illuminate also my heart So that it too can do Your work While reciting the Gayatri, visualize the sun's rays streaming forth into the world, entering your heart, then streaming out from your heart's center and back into the world. This is a powerful and life- enhancing prayer." I'm not certain if the scar is a result of a charm by Lily, or if it is just a symbol for what Harry is, a Spiritual Warrior with a heart full of love. Perhaps Hermione will help Harry perform an important Gayatri/Wholeness charm (she is learning about Runes)later. But I think it is definitely fits Harry. Thank you Carol and Kemper for giving me something to think about. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 15 14:19:50 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:19:50 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122007 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "AyanEva" wrote: > My only other explanation is that he's projecting his own problems onto Snape.< Pippin: Of course he is! Harry is feeling horribly guilty over the death of Sirius, partly because he failed at occlumency, but mostly, I think, because of this, "Sirius had risked everything, always, to see Harry, to help him..." (OOPch 36) It would be too painful for Harry ( and also, I gather, for some of us listies) to acknowledge that Harry had some part in the failure of the lessons, and that Sirius came to the MoM because Harry needed him. Instead, Harry seizes on the idea that Snape engineered the failure of the occlumency lessons and goaded Sirius into leaving the house, though Dumbledore tells him that Snape is not to be blamed for those things. IMO, the surge of rage Harry feels toward Snape is really Harry's own anger at himself. At some level he knows it's not rational, still, he's not cool when he says, "I'm trying to decide what curse to use on Malfoy, sir." The adverb Rowling applies is "fiercely." He's still angry when he goes to talk to Hagrid, and doesn't really settle down until he's had a good cry by the lake. Pippin From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Jan 15 14:51:06 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:51:06 -0000 Subject: FILK: Mad Gurg Their Great Chieftain Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122008 Mad Gurg Their Great Chieftain (OOP, Chap. 20) To the tune of Noel Coward's Mad Dogs and Englishmen Original text here: http://www.sabrizain.demon.co.uk/malaya/coward.htm THE SCENE: Hagrid's hut. HAGRID tells the trio of his unsuccessful mission to the Giants HAGRID: Sans magical means keeping quite unseen we went With Fudge's Ministry pursuing, we to them thought, "Nothing doing!" And they gave us chase but soon they misplaced our scent But passing through the Polish border We were forced to face some troll-ish disorder The giants dwell in their citadels' great height Where they all ominously, dangerously fight! Mad Gurg their great chieftain weighs over a half a ton. His tribe is in decline though his skin is like a rhino. Eighty or seventy we saw by the light of sun They're none of them gigantic romantics Since their big gang-rout they all now hang out in their rugged mountain lairs On the Gurg all dote as they bring dead goats to augment his savoir- faire He stays still atop his hill to take praise from ev'ryone For Mad Gurg their great chieftain weighs over a half a ton. With Madam Maxime our two-person team set out And to the giants we bought gifts to which they did not give short shrift It seemed so secure as we went to their sure redoubt For Dumbledore said to have faith in the effects of the Gubraithian Flame's clout Twas a bitter joke that just as we broke the ice They fell back into their perennial vice Bang bang bing bang bang bang bing bing bing bong bang bop bash bop .. Mad Gurg their late chieftain was not who in this fight won Next morning found him dead of the fact they cut his head off. Those complex matters that vex are just what the giants shun If you don't keep it plain-spoke, they slay folk For a coup d'etat is the true way the new Gurg moves up the ranks The grievous wrath of one Golgomath left me hanging by my shanks Then Maxime fired off a beam from her wand and they all were stunned For Mad Gurg their next chieftain opted to with DEs run Mad Gurg their next chieftain opted to with DEs run He forged a solemn treaty of friendship with Death-Eaties To their lair came cruel McNair to make sure we were undone And seize from all the giants compliance. There were hidden caves that some shelter gave To the foes of the regime But a massacre very soon occurred in accord with Gurgish themes "We're so screwed," we did conclude, as we had to cut and run For myself and Madam Max were sent back upon Square Sent back upon Square Sent back upon Square Sent back upon Square Sent back upon Square Sent back upon Square Sent back upon Square One! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 15:47:02 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:47:02 -0000 Subject: His mother's eyes (was: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/TT/ LV mortality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122009 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" wrote: > Luckdragon: > Are you talking about the sowilo rune symbol. If this is correct why wouldn't someone recognize the symbol and remark on it's > significance. Especially Sirius or Lupin. If we are to accept that it cannot be counteracted then it would be safe to assume it will ensure Harry's victory. If it can be counteracted, why has Voldemort not dealt with that above anything else. When next we see LV will he be sporting his own symbol. Tonks here: As JKR says the shape is not the most important thing about the scar. First I think the ancient magic is know by only a few very skilled wizards like DD, so even if the symbol were always the same when the ancient magic was applied most people whould not know what it ment. And the important thing is the magic not the symbol. Perhaps other symbols could have been used with the same protection. For example one could follow this thought by saying that the ancient magic can also be transmitted with the sign of the cross as well. By the way a lightening bolt is a symbol for protection in Tibet. Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 15 15:48:26 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:48:26 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (and a little about Tolkien) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122010 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > Renee: > In a way, you have a higher opinion of Lupin than I have, if you > think he's of the same stature as Saruman; I don't put him at such a level (but then, I don't interpret JKR's remark that he's a great man the way you do). > To me, this analogy simply doesn't work. Saruman turns out to be evil the first time we 'see' him in action (in Gandalf's account in the Council of Elrond), even though he has been mentioned before. Unlike Lupin, he's unmasked quite early in the story, he never builds any kind of relationship with the main character, he never protects, helps or supports him in any way and the main character doesn't regard him with anything remotely resembling affection. > Rather than being an example of 'you can't trust anyone even if they're being nice' he's a prime example of the corruption of power from an early stage of LotR onward. < Pippin: True, Tolkien's not as ruthless with his good guys as Rowling. Only Faramir is allowed to imagine the agony of knowing that a kindly and beloved protector fell into evil -- "Boromir, O Boromir! what did she say to you, the Lady that dies not? What did she see? What woke in your heart then?" And he's partly consoled by the thought that whether he erred or not, Boromir died well. But in Rowling, people have to live with their mistakes. The moral, in both cases, is not, 'you can't trust anyone even if they're being nice'. The moral is, 'people should be trusted according to the choices they make, not their kindly manner.' It's a minor point in Tolkien, but a major one in Rowling, IMO. The Dursleys shower their child in kindness and it doesn't mean Dudley, er, diddly. Renee: > Lupin must have done so, or DD wouldn't accept him in the renewed Order of the Phoenix. He just didn't do it in Harry's presence. < Pippin: *Does* Dumbledore trust everyone in the Order? Lupin is never allowed to be alone in Harry's presence after PoA. And what is Dumbledore checking for, when he sends Phineas to Grimmauld Place to see if "the coast is clear"? Lupin's always a part of Harry's escort in OOP, *except* when he's most vulnerable, visiting Mr. Weasley right after the snake vision. And we're specifically told it's not the full moon. Interesting that no one attacks Lupin in the MoM, isn't it? What if Dumbledore knows the DE's won't attack if it'd mean nailing their own spy? While Hermione trusts Lupin, something seems to hold Harry back. When his scar hurts in GoF, he writes to Sirius, and never thinks of Lupin, and when he needs to talk about his father's past, it's Sirius he particularly wants, though Lupin could have answered the questions just as well. > Renee: > Harry's the hero, but he's also going through a learning process. He can do both: being helped, and (therefore) helping someone else. This makes more sense to me, a matter of input and output. And Lupin's detached attitude doesn't prevent him from helping Harry when it's necessary (Patronus), keeping him from running through the Veil (did you ever explain why Lupin did this if he's ESE?. The way he is at the end of OotP, he is unfit to help Snape; Harry himself needs help first. > Pippin: Harry's help is going to come from his own generation, I think, from Luna, who shows that your sense of worth need not depend on what others think of you, and Neville who shows that you don't have to be proud to be brave. You did notice, perhaps, that Lupin didn't actually teach Harry to produce a corporeal patronus? He stopped the lessons while Harry was still only able to produce a silver vapor -- not enough to drive a dementor away. As for Lupin and the veil, Dumbledore had turned and was watching and everyone still thought Harry had the prophecy. Voldemort would not be best pleased if Harry went through the veil, bearing the prophecy with him, while, as far as he knows, there is another child who could yet fulfill it. Pippin never bored with Tolkien/Rowling comparisons From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 16:10:00 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:10:00 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Time-turner not a quick fix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122011 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: >> vmonte again: > > I think the reason why Dumbledore says: "Terrible things happen to > wizards that meddle with time" because terrible things have happened. > DD is not completely all knowing, and he doesn't have the power to > predict when using a time-turner is always going to work. We have > only been told about the TT in one case, and it just happens to be on a time it did work. We don't know if it has been used previously- -but IMO it must have. > > It was rather easily given to Hermione wasn't it? And do you really > think it was for school? IMO DD/MM must have known that she was going to need it later on. Since SS/PS the children have been receiving the training necessary to accomplish certain goals (SSSusan and I have discussed this here previously). Are they being trained for something in the future? Yes, I believe so. (snip> I think that someone, with no experience using a TT, is going to use one causing catastrophic consequences. > Vivian Tonks here: I think that the TT has been used before and DD knows about it, and it was used by TR/LV and it was what he did to prevent dying. All of this talk about killing your self and how that would mess up things in time. Why are we told that if it is not important. If you can kill your other self, maybe you can also cause yourself to be reborn in some sort of loop, like the phoenix does. I am sure *terrible things can happen to wizards that meddle with time* has happened. Also TT is one of those very advanced wizard skills that again only a few would know of. Maybe Tom Riddle got ahold of DD's somehow and messed around with it. I think TTers must be rare and only a few ever have them. Otherwise there would be more stories of the terrible things. Maybe the TT that Hermionie used was DD's. And yes he gave it to her and through her to Harry because they will be needing it again later and had to practice using it. Tonks_op From inkling108 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 16:13:56 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:13:56 -0000 Subject: Rune symbol on forehead (was His Mother's eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122012 Carol said: > > > > Lily places an elaborate Protego (shield charm) on Baby Harry, > > perhaps involving an incantation like the one kemper hypothesized > > (as opposed to the mere name of the spell), and, using her finger, > > marks Harry's forehead with an (defense) eihwaz rune, like a > priest > > marking a baby's forehead with a cross in a baptismal service. > > Niffer writes: > > Carol, when you wrote this a lightbulb went off in my head. > Of course the scar is the shape of a rune! > > But instead of Eihwaz, I think it is Sowelu, which means Wholeness, > Life Force, or the Sun's Energy. It too looks like a lightning > bolt, but it fits Harry much better. > > Listen to this information from The Book of Runes by Ralph > Blum, "Sowelu stands for wholeness, that which our nature requires. > It embodies the impulse toward self-realization and indicates the > path you must follow, not from ulterior motives, but from the core > of your individuality. Seeking after wholeness is the Spiritual > Warrior's quest. And yet what you are striving to become in > actuality is what, by nature, you already are. Become conscious of > your essence and bring it into form, express it in a creative way. > A Rune of great power, making life force available to you, Sowelu > marks a time for regeneration down to the cellular level." (snip) Another symbolic possibility for the lightning bolt shape is Kaballistic. (Kabbalah, also spelled Cabalah or Qabalah, was very big in European magic circles in the Renaissance). The standard Glyph of the Kabbalah shows ten sepehirot. The first symbolizes the highest, most divine and most abstract level and the tenth material life here on Earth. (In between are nine sephirot symbolizing everything along the way from here to there). When the divine inspiration goes down to earth it forms a pattern as it moves through the sephirot known as the lightning flash. Same is true for the process working in reverse -- movement from earth to divine forms the same pattern going up through the sephirot. This might fit in with Harry's destiny as the One sent by the providential forces to overcome Voldemort's reign of terror on Earth. Inkling From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 17:02:15 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:02:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122013 pippin_999 Wrote: > Harry is feeling horribly guilty > over the death of Sirius Yes, and part of the blame can be put at Harry's feet, perhaps 2%, but Dumbledore and Snape should feel far more guilty, I'd put their responsibility well into the double digits. > Harry seizes on the idea that Snape > engineered the failure of the occlumency lessons I've read the book several times and I still think Harry might have been absolutely correct about that. Giving Snape every benefit of the doubt if he was not downright sabotaging the lessons was at least not teaching anywhere near as well as he was capable of, his heart wasn't in it. > and goaded Sirius into leaving the > house, though Dumbledore tells him > that Snape is not to be blamed > for those things. No, he only said Snape's goading was not the reason Sirius left the house, he did not excuse Snape's crummy Occlumency lessons. And anyway, I no longer consider everything Dumbledore says as gospel; we now know he can be disastrously wrong. However I do think Dumbledore was correct when he said Sirius's death was almost entirely his fault; I also think he was right when he said Harry was not nearly as angry with him as he should be. > At some level he knows it's not rational I think Harry's anger was very rational, even Dumbledore knew that. > he's not cool when he says, "I'm trying > to decide what curse to use on Malfoy, sir." I though is was a very cool remark, in fact it ranks up there with another famous remark by Harry, Dirty Harry that is: "Go ahead punk, make my day!" Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 17:16:43 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:16:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122014 Pippin_999 Wrote: Harry is feeling horribly guilty over the death of Sirius Eggplant: Yes, and part of the blame can be put at Harry's feet, perhaps 2%, but Dumbledore and Snape should feel far more guilty, I'd put their responsibility well into the double digits. Alla: I can go even with assigning Harry let's say ... 10% of the blame (all numbers are relative of course), but surely no more than that. :o) JMO. Pippin: snip. At some level he knows it's not rational Eggplant: I think Harry's anger was very rational, even Dumbledore knew that. Alla: Eggplant, I absolutely agree. I never understood how Harry blaming Snape is irrational. Now, it may very well turn out when we have all evidence presented that Harry was WRONG to blame Snape for the disaster(I am talking about Occlumency and Sirius death, both), but with the evidence we have NOW and especially what Harry has, I will say that Harry has PLENTY of RATIONAL BASIS to blame Snape. Even if Harry has to go with the fact that he felt worse after the lessons, I'd say he is very rational to feel suspicious of Snape. Besides, yes, Harry had been wrong many many times about Snape, I think that can be red herring too. I think it is a possibility that Harry may turn out to be right for once. Just my opinion, Alla From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sat Jan 15 19:06:45 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:06:45 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) References: <1105731655.27660.380.m14@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000c01c4fb35$5cc26a20$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 122015 Replying to this > > > What is Butterbeer, and why, seeing that > > > it contains alcohol, are the students > > > allowed to have it? imamommy wrote: > I'm a Yank, so I don't know if this is right, but aren't the drinking > laws more lax through most of Europe? . > > I first thought maybe it was like rootbeer, but after the scene with > Winky I started assuming it was mildly alchoholic, and I always > imagined it as sweet (butter rum Lifesavers come to mind), and as > they only get it in Hogsmeade they aren't really supposed to have it > on campus. > > Ogden's Old Firewhisky seems to be a different story. As far as I can recall, there's nothing in canon that says that there are any underage drinking laws at all in the WW. When Hagrid first takes Harry to Diagon Alley, they access it through the Leaky Cauldron, and Harry again goes there to stay at the beginning of POA. Clearly, if one of the main ways into Diagon is via a pub, then there can't be any prohibitions against children going in. Similarly, we see the students at the 3 Broomsticks and the Hog's Head in later books without any suggestion that they are doing anything wrong by being on licensed premises (if indeed the Ministry does insist that WW pubs have licenses!) So it's quite possible that there are no legal problems about there being alcohol in Butterbeer. I'm sure the school has strict rules against the students being drunk however. I'm not sure whether there's any canon which specifies what drinks are available in Hall so there may not be any evidence either way as to whether students are allowed, for example, to have wine with their meals. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 15 20:32:36 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:32:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122016 Pippin: > > Harry seizes on the idea that Snape > > engineered the failure of the occlumency lessons Eggplant: > I've read the book several times and I still think Harry might have been absolutely correct about that. Giving Snape every benefit of the doubt if he was not downright sabotaging the lessons was at least not teaching anywhere near as well as he was capable of, his heart wasn't in it. Pippin: > > and goaded Sirius into leaving the > > house, though Dumbledore tells him > > that Snape is not to be blamed > > for those things. > > No, he only said Snape's goading was not the reason Sirius left the house, he did not excuse Snape's crummy Occlumency lessons.< Pippin: Harry: Snape stopped giving me Occlumency lessons. He threw me out of his office. Dumbledore: I am aware of it. I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you myself, though I was sure at the time that nothing could have been more dangerous than to open your mind even further to Voldemort while in my presence -- Harry: Snape made it worse, my scar always hurt worse after lessons with him -- How do you know he wasn't trying to soften me up for Voldemort, make it easier for him to get inside my-- Dumbledore:I trust Severus Snape. But I forgot-- another old man's mistake--that some wounds run too deep for the healing. --OOP ch 37 Pippin: I agree that Harry has just reason to be angry at any number of people, especially Dumbledore. If your life depended on a wounded man being able to run a marathon, would you be angry at him for failing, or should you be angrier at the person who could have done it for him and didn't? Either Snape was wrong to stop the lessons, in which case they can't have been making Harry weaker OR the lessons were harmful, in which case it wouldn't have been wrong to stop them. But Harry doesn't think it through, he's just determined to blame things on Snape. That's irrational, IMO. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 20:34:39 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:34:39 -0000 Subject: Stupid Question- Butterbeer Info In-Reply-To: <159.4860cd38.2f1895b6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122017 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > OK I know this is a stupid question, but I figured I'd go ahead and ask > it anyway. (Hey, it's not like it ever stopped me before right!) > > What is Butterbeer, and why, seeing that it contains alcohol, are the > students allowed to have it? > > > Chancie bboyminn: Others have pretty much answered the question, and I have addressed it several times before, and will try to merge all the information into this one post. Back in the old days, and even today in specialty drinks, 'fizzy' beverages like rootbeer and regular beer have bubbles are a result of fermentation of yeast (brewing yeast, not baking yeast). The difference between rootbeer and reqular beer as far as alcohol content is how long it is fermented. The long the process, the more alcohol is created. Next point, in the UK there is a standard for what constitutes a 'SOFT' drink. By law, it must have one half of one percent (0.5%) or LESS alcohol to be classified as 'soft'. If classified as 'soft', there are no restrictions on it sale to minors. There are many regional variations of adult drinks that fall into the 'soft' catgory. For example, in the summertime Brits will sometimes drink Shandy or Shandygaff which is a light 'summery' form of beer; half beer/lager and half leamonade (Sprite, 7-UP, etc) or as an alternative, half ginger beer/ale/brew. (also, non-alcohol beers/ales/wines, near-beer, and others) Standard Lager/beer alcohol content is in the range of 6% which would make a Shandy 3% which is still more than enough to get drunk on. However, they also produce a 'soft' Shandy which many adults drink for the taste when for various reasons they can't have alcohol. In addition, kids get a great thrill out of drinking the 'soft' version of this adult drinks. To equal the 6% alcohol of a ONE beer/ale, one would have to drink *12* bottle of 'soft' beer/ale/wine/shandy. To get drunk, or at least tipsy, you would have to drink between 36 and 48 bottle of 'soft' drink. Good luck with that. It is likely that Butterbeer with it rich thick foam, a typical characteristic of truly fermented beverages as opposed to CO2 injected beverages, is indeed fermented in the traditional old fashioned way. That fermentation is likely to leave a trace of alcohol which would not effect a typical kid in any way unless they drank a couple of cases. However, House-Elves are very small creatures and they may be highly susceptible to the trace amounts of alcohol. In a sense, it would be like giving a highly susceptible human infant or very small dog alcohol; it wouldn't take much to produce an effect. As to the myth that alcohol burns/evaporates away when it is cook or heated, well, while partly true, it's mostly a myth. A friends mother made Rum Balls (like cookies) one time, and believe me, a few rum balls and you were feeling it. The same is true of Rum cake and other cooked food with alcohol in them. However, you must consider how much alcohol is used. It's extremely unlikely that you can squeeze a quart of rum into a rum cake. Therefore the dose of alcohol in each piece of cake, or whatever, is not that great. So, unless an adult or kid were unusually sensitive to the alcohol, the amount in most cooked foods would not be significant. True some alcohol does evaporate, but a substantial percentage can remain. The question then becomes was there really that much alcohol there to begin with. As to Hot Butterbeer, I don't that the amount that would evaporate between pouring and heating the beverage, and delivering it to the table would be significant. Of course, the total amount there (0.5%) isn't significant to start with. I've discovered the best way to produce your own Butterbeer is to add butterscotch/butterrum flavoring to Vanilla Creme Soda (equivalent to butterscotch topping sauce on vanilla ice cream). Dispite this best method, don't expect it to taste as wonderful as the books make it seem. JKR herself said it was 'sickly' sweet, and indeed it is. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From ayaneva at aol.com Sat Jan 15 17:32:36 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:32:36 -0000 Subject: Snape According to Erik Erikson's Theory of Personality Part 1 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122018 Ok, I've been dying to share this with someone for a while, so I'm going to post it here in a series of parts. I had to do this for a Theories of Personality class a couple of summers ago. The assignment was to use one of the theories that we learned and analyze a fictional character. Keep in mind that I don't necessarily agree with the entire theory or everything that I wrote, but I had to fit the canon to the theory. And my prof. didn't really know much about Harry Potter, so the beginning background stuff. Eh, whatever. Enjoy! You can tell me what you think, discuss it, rip it apart b/c it's stupid, agree or disagree. I only ask that you read it and have fun w/ it! :-D Ok, I'm on a posting frenzy now. -------------------------------------- Severus Snape is a Potions Professor at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. He is generally described as being an extremely unpleasant individual. He hold grudges, has a quick temper and little patience, and has no close relations to speak of. Severus suffered through a very stressful and dysfunctional family life and childhood. His adolescent and teen years at Hogwarts were hardly an improvement. Having developed few practical social skills, Severus was unable, or unwilling, to form close friendships and his only acquaintances were those whose academic interests were similar. Because Hogwarts is divided into four houses that maintain their own code of conduct and expectations, Severus only role models were those who belonged to his less than savory house of Slytherin. Under his cold demeanor, Severus Snape is extremely sensitive and constantly striving to gain acceptance and recognition from society. However, his maladaptive behavior and undeveloped social skills usually incur the opposite effect. Much of the Severus Snape's case study was completed using Neo-Analytical theory to explore his internal state, but there are some Behavioral techniques that bear mentioning in relation to the development and effect of Severus' observable behavior The Neo-Analytical approach to personality has its origins in psychoanalysis. However, neo-analytical psychologists do not agree that human sexual drive states explain all types of human behavior the motivation behind such behavior. More emphasis is placed on social interactions and less emphasis is placed on the classical psychoanalytical personality constructs of the Id, Ego, and Superego. Erik Erikson postulated the most widely studied neo-analytical theory pertaining to the development of personality in his Life Span and Identity Crises theory of personality. Erikson's theory states that personality is influenced mostly by society and culture and the development of personality is a life-long process. Mutuality, when a child shapes a parent's behavior, and vice-versa, plays an important role in Erikson's theory as well. The Life Span and Identity Crises theory is determine by the epigenetic principle, in which personality develops in eight stages. The ability to enter into and complete each successive stage of personality development is dependent upon the successful completion of the previous developmental stage. Similar to Freud's stages of development, each stage in the Life Span and Identity Crises theory has an optimal age of occurrence. AyanEva (end part 1) From ayaneva at aol.com Sat Jan 15 17:35:00 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:35:00 -0000 Subject: Analysis of Snape Part 2 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122019 When analyzing the personality of Severus Snape, given the information provided in Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone (Rowling, 1997), Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban (Rowling, 1999), Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire (Rowling, 2000), and Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix (Rowling, 2003), it is easier to begin the analysis at Stage Two, Autonomy versus Shame and Doubt, rather than Stage One, Trust versus Mistrust. There is more evidence that can be used in defense of Erikson's theory indicating a failure to complete Stage Two, as opposed to a Stage One completion failure. Further extrapolation will occur when examining the completion of Stage Seven, Generativity versus Stagnation, and Stage Eight, Integrity versus Despair due to the fact that Severus, at around the age of 34, is still roughly within the age span of Stage Six, Intimacy versus Isolation. During the second stage of development in the Life Span and Identity Crises theory, a child is supposed to develop autonomy, while at the same time minimizing shame and doubt. If the parent is overprotective or under-attentive, the child will not develop a sense of autonomy. In Order Of The Phoenix, the reader is privy to a memory from Severus Snape's childhood. In this rather unpleasant recollection, the reader sees that a, "hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired boy [Severus] cried in a corner it was unnerving to think that the crying little boy who had watched his parents shouting was actually standing in front of him with such loathing in his eyes " (Rowling, 2003). The last half of the citation is indicative of a maladapted personality, but that will be discussed further in a later stage of development. Presently, it is worth noting the possible effect of mutuality in the case study of Severus Snape. Severus' father seems extremely irritable, verbally (if not physically) abusive, and indifferent to the emotional responses of his son. Snape's mother ascribes to the profile of an abused individual, exhibiting learned helplessness. The child Severus' emotional response, as well as future behavior, seems to imply a great deal of emotional sensitivity. Severus, however, is left alone in a corner and ignored while his father verbally abuses his mother. Often, verbal abuse in families evolves into physical abuse and it is probable that this abuse was not limited to only the mother. Severus' emotional sensitivity could only serve to exacerbate the irritability of his father and cause his father to further `lash out' at his family, leading Severus to engage in submissive behavior. The father's alternating indifference and overbearing nature ensures Severus' failure to achieve Autonomy and instead suffering from Shame and Doubt. AyanEva From ayaneva at aol.com Sat Jan 15 17:36:17 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:36:17 -0000 Subject: Analysis of Snape Part 3 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122020 At the same time, one can extrapolate from the analysis of Stage Two development and assume that Severus' mother's inability to protect herself and her son and the unpredictability of the interpersonal reactivity of Severus' father led Severus to fail in the completion of Stage One, Trust versus Mistrust, during which a child must learn to trust the caregiver. The inability to learn trust ultimately guaranteed the aforementioned failure at Stage Two, Autonomy versus Shame and Doubt. Stage Three of Erikson's developmental model is Initiative versus Guilt. In this stage, a child must be given a positive response to challenges and his initiative should be encouraged. If the child's attempts are not encouraged, the child will feel guilty for independent behavior and will cling to the caregiver. At this point in Severus Snape's case study, the failure to successfully complete Stage Three is evidenced by his decision to model his father's affinity for the Dark Arts, presumably in an attempt to please his father and identify with him. While it is not specifically stated in the Harry Potter books that Snape's father was involved in the Dark Arts, it is implied. The Dark Arts are not common knowledge and are regarded with suspicion. Severus apparently knew more dark spells than anyone in his year when beginning at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry (Rowling, 1999) and excelled in Defense Against the Dark Arts for this reason. Severus was sorted into Slytherin house; everyone in Slytherin had familial traditions steeped in the Dark Arts and with the rise of the Dark Lord, usually became Death Eaters (Rowling, 1997). For a short time, Severus was also a Death Eater (Rowling, 2000). Many of the students who were once, and are currently, in Slytherin also come from dysfunctional families. While Severus excelled in the Dark Arts, it is doubtful that his proficiency was due to any sense of initiative, rather his abilities were due to a sense of guilt caused by his perceived failure to please his father, which in turn resulted in a fruitless attachment due to fear of independent behavior that may have been contrary to wishes of his father. Severus' inability to act independently according to his own desires and wishes and his inability to appease his father led to a sense of inferiority, causing him to fail to successfully complete Stage Four, Industry versus Inferiority. In Stage Four, Industry versus Inferiority, the adolescent should develop a work ethic without inferiority and parents and teachers should encourage the growth and productivity of the child. AyanEva From ayaneva at aol.com Sat Jan 15 17:37:15 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:37:15 -0000 Subject: Analysis of Snape Part 4 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122021 If the child is unable to move freely between his home environment and his peers, he will develop a sense of Inferiority in place of Industry. Severus, as previously stated, entered this stage with a feeling of inferiority. Around this time, he also began attending Hogwarts. When entering a new environment, it is imperative that an individual come from a previously stable and supportive environment and have the ability to trust others in order to form a stable social environment. Unfortunately, Severus was introverted, mistrustful, lacking in self-confidence, determined to gain his father's affections, isolated, and came from a volatile home environment, "a greasy-haired teenager sat alone in a dark bedroom, pointing his want at the ceiling, shooting down flies " (Rowling, 2003). Due to his initial state upon immersion in a new environment, Severus failed to make any friends, gain the support of teachers (he certainly did not have the support of his parents), and had no place at school or at home, particularly since he was sorted into the most reviled house in the entire school. In fact, his academic environment was, in many instances, more difficult to accept than his home environment. Following the initial memory of Snape's parents fighting, the reader is invited to ponder the following images, "A girl was laughing as a scrawny boy tried to mount a bucking broomstick (Rowling, 2003). Severus' difficulties at school including a number of humiliating experiences in which he was mercilessly picked on by his fellow classmates and rival Gryffindor house members (Rowling, 2003). As a result of his social shortcomings, Severus failed to gain a sense of Industry and instead reinforced his self-image of Inferiority. Due to Severus' lack of interpersonal relationships, his low self-esteem, troubled family life, and failure to achieve any sense of Industry, he also failed to complete Stage Five of Erikson's personality model, Identity versus Identity Confusion. During Stage Five, a young adult should develop a sense of self. He must have role models with whom he can communicate freely and the freedom to make his own decisions. Obviously, Severus had no one with whom he could associate and no role models. He was never truly allowed to make his own decisions as he was controlled by his desire to earn his father's (and mother's) affection. The adult responsibilities that tend to accompany Stage Five were avoided when Severus joined the Death Eaters. The Death Eaters' actions were entirely controlled by Lord Voldemort. Lord Voldemort seems to have embodied the idea a father figure to Snape in a rather twisted sense. The Dark Lord paid attention to young Severus and could be pleased with some degree of difficulty. AyanEva From ayaneva at aol.com Sat Jan 15 17:38:16 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:38:16 -0000 Subject: Analysis of Snape Part 5 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122022 After a short period of time, the current Headmaster of Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore, replaced Voldemort as the father figure in Severus' life. Severus' loyalties seem to lie with whichever individual is most appreciative of his efforts and can be pleased. Albus showed him more affection, acceptance, and understanding than Voldemort and therefore, Severus switched sides. Unfortunately, Severus' affiliation with the side of good does not compensate for his dysfunctional personality development. Severus Snape's continued attempts to complete the First Stage of the Life Span And Identity Crises have led to his inability to complete all subsequent stages, including Stage Six, Intimacy versus Isolation. Severus, so far, has been unable to form close relationships. His extreme introversion, emotional sensitivity, history of rejection and abandonment, and lack of social skills leads to a cold, if not hostile, response to anyone who attempts to engage him in any manner that is more than merely superficial. It should also be noted the various virtues that Severus has failed to develop as a result of his failure to successfully complete the stages of develop of Life Span And Identity Crises theory of personality development. Severus has no hope, very little will (if his poor hygiene is any indication), no true sense of purpose, no fidelity, and he feels no love for himself or for others. Severus does not care much for himself, although he has displayed his concern for the well being of Harry Potter. He also displays great wisdom, probably a result of sheer necessity. If Severus' personality traits continue to remain stable, he will not achieve any sense of Generativity (Stage Seven, Generativity versus Stagnation) or Integrity (Stage Eight, Integrity versus Despair). His eventual success or failure, however, cannot be exactly determined because personality traits can change. Another method for studying personality is the Behaviorist approach. Behaviorists are concerned solely with observable behavior that is controlled and determined by the environment. This approach is not at all concerned with the internal states of the individual. AyanEva From ayaneva at aol.com Sat Jan 15 17:40:37 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:40:37 -0000 Subject: Analysis of Snape Part 6 - End Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122023 Last bit of the paper, hope you enjoyed it! Food for thought ------------------------------------------------ B.F. Skinner believed that all adult behavior could be traced back to the consequences of punishments and rewards received as a child. The consequences a person's behavior shapes his personality; this concept is termed Operant Conditioning. There are far fewer variables to discuss regarding Severus Snape's personality when studying it from a Behavioral perspective. Severus was most likely sporadically rewarded as a child for behavior that pleased his father. This behavior was most likely that which was most similar to his father's own personal desires, rather than behavior influenced by his son's interests. Severus would have been punished for any other behavior that did not fall within the narrow confines of actions that met his father's approval. Conversely, Severus may not have been rewarded or punished, simply ignored. Therefore, he was always attempting to engage in behavior that would result in either a reward or punishment; either way, he was still receiving attention, even if it was negative. Severus' father's behavior was certain to attract few friends and by modeling that behavior, Severus' had few friends as well. Those around him normally have negative reactions towards him due to his unsociable behavior. Societies negative reactions cause Severus to behave in an even more undesirable manner, perpetuating the cycle of negativity and isolation. Having only developed the behavior necessary to interact with his father, Severus must adapt to his social environment by seeking out father figures with whom he may interact in a similar manner to his biological father. These father figures manifested themselves in the forms of the Dark Lord and Albus Dumbledore. Erik Erikson's theory of Life Span And Identity Crises examines the internal drive states of an individual as they are determined and affected by their social environment. B.F. Skinner's theory of Operant Conditioning is concerned only with the observable effects of the internal consequences of the social environment on an individual's personality, which in turn, influences their displayed behavior. (End of paper) AyanEva (who forgot to sign the other posts in the series, sorry! I was overly excited about posting!) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 15 20:45:47 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:45:47 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122024 AyanEva wrote: >> I'm probably making this more complicated than necessary, but my degree's in Psychology, I can't help it! I'm only a few years out of my own puberty. I think it seems a bit odd because it's so sudden. Yes, he's got years of pent up frustration and the effects of those who mistreated him, but I can't fathom why he chooses *that* particular moment with Snape to express it. You could say that he just snapped, that Snape blaming him put him over the edge, but if that's the case, I should think the reaction would be more severe than what it was.<< Jocelyn responded with an experience she'd had: > My cat was run over by my Dad that morning. It was horrible. I cried and cried, my Dad felt awful and I was late to school. It was math, and my teacher that year was probably one of the worst I ever had. When she asked why I was late I said "My Dad ran over my cat this morning." Her response was "That's no excuse." I looked at her and fully understood in that instant that there was no point getting angry or trying to explain further. She was either incapable or unwilling to understand. I suddenly felt a wave of cold fury run over me and I took a calming breath before I said levelly, "Then you will have to accept it as an explanation", snapped my mouth closed, turned and walked to my desk. That was the first time I ever related to a teacher as an adult. Suddenly the playing field was level, and I no longer deferred, feared or prevaricated. She was an idiot and in that moment she had no power over me. The feeling didn't last, but I have never forgotten it. It was a coming-of-of-age moment. I wonder if Harry could have been having that sort of moment.< SSSusan now: Another psych major here, though far removed from my puberty, AyanEva. I think Jocelyn's example is a very interesting one to compare to Harry's situation. I could see this as being a very similar kind of coming-of-age moment or decision about how he was going to "take" Snape from now on. It'll be interesting to get our hands on Book 6 and see just how Harry communicates with Snape, whether we get that sense that he's made the decision to no longer defer, fear or prevaricate. AyanEva also wrote: >> My only other explanation is that he's projecting his own problems onto Snape.<< Pippin responded: > Of course he is! Harry is feeling horribly guilty over the death of Sirius, partly because he failed at occlumency, but mostly, I think, because of this, "Sirius had risked everything, always, to see Harry, to help him..." (OOPch 36) It would be too painful for Harry (and also, I gather, for some of us listies) to acknowledge that Harry had some part in the failure of the lessons, and that Sirius came to the MoM because Harry needed him. Instead, Harry seizes on the idea that Snape engineered the failure of the occlumency lessons and goaded Sirius into leaving the house, though Dumbledore tells him that Snape is not to be blamed for those things. IMO, the surge of rage Harry feels toward Snape is really Harry's own anger at himself.< SSSusan: I am quite purposely avoiding the Assigning Percentages of Blame Game which has now begun, because I think the focus here is simply on whether Harry does blame Snape and whether it's projection that's going on, not whether it is "right" of him to do so. I don't even care if it is "right" just now, but I do believe that Pippin is correct that Harry is doing it and why. There is SO much in that head of Harry's right in that moment that I think it is totally human nature [and not just for a teen] to project the blame onto Snape because he can't handle looking at his own role in it just yet. And Snape, being Snape, is a lovely, convenient receptacle for Harry's projection of blame because of their history and because of the animosity Harry knew Snape held towards Sirius. Geoff stated, way earlier in this thread: > I tend to interpret Harry's comment as being a change from a rush of hatred to a cold fury and giving a sarcastic answer very tongue- in-cheek; it is almost a way of telling Snape to get stuffed without actually being blatantly rude....< SSSusan: I think Geoff is right. I believe it does make sense that this progression of emotions could have reasonably occurred, that it's not really "odd" at all. I mean, let's look at what all is in this tiny little scene. There stands Draco, Harry's school nemesis for 5 years, threatening to kill Harry because of "what he's done" to his father. So we have Draco and all he's represented as Harry's personal tormenter for 5 years, as well as a reference to Lucius, whom Harry hates for his role in the diary scheme and in the MoM battle, which led to Sirius' death. We also have Snape, Harry's staff-level personal tormentor, the man whom Harry believes detests every fiber of his being and whom he believes has punished him unfairly over & over & over again, the man whom he believes was leaving him more vulnerable to Voldemort with his Occlumency lessons, the man who hated Sirius and whom Harry probably suspected of doing a little victory dance over Sirius' death. All this comes together in this one brief moment. Projection, rage, fury, frustration, grief, perhaps a thrill at what he *could* do to Draco. How might we see him reacting to all this? Just what Geoff said: a rush of hatred towards Draco & Lucius; cold fury for Snape's appearing, yet again, to foul things up for Harry -- AND representing fault in Harry's mind for Sirius' death. Then there's the "snap" or revelation that Jocelyn referred to ? sort of an "I don't give a shit anymore" moment ? and thus the sarcastic or smart- aleck, think-whatever-you-want-Snape moment where he says, "Trying to decide what curse to use on Malfoy, Sir." It's true that I could've seen Harry *stick* with the anger & rage he was feeling a moment before, but the switch to this last emotion or tone also makes sense to me, too. It's not that he's not angry any more; it's how he's going to deal with it that's adjusted. Like I said above, it'll be interesting to see, in HBP, whether Harry keeps up this kind of tone & attitude with Snape [assuming I'm reading it correctly here, that is]. Siriusly Snapey Susan From ayaneva at aol.com Sat Jan 15 17:49:25 2005 From: ayaneva at aol.com (AyanEva) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:49:25 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: <3ADE9F90-66EE-11D9-9325-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122025 Jocelyn said: >> I was thinking last night about a particular incident while I was at school that seems a bit pertinent. I look back on it as one of those leaps we make into maturity. I was in year 10 - say around15? I looked at her and fully understood in that instant that there was no point getting angry or trying to explain further. She was either incapable or unwilling to understand. I suddenly felt a wave of cold fury run over me and I took a calming breath before I said levelly, "Then you will have to accept it as an explanation", snapped my mouth closed, turned and walked to my desk. That was the first time I ever related to a teacher as an adult. Suddenly the playing field was level, and I no longer deferred, feared or prevaricated. She was an idiot and in that moment she had no power over me. The feeling didn't last, but I have never forgotten it. It was a coming-of-of-age moment. I wonder if Harry could have been having that sort of moment. << AyanEva responds: I'm glad you posted that! If this is the case, I can't wait to see what happens next b/w Harry and Snape. This could be really interesting; I hope your idea is correct. JKR could be setting up for two things: 1) Some sort of understanding b/w Harry and Snape, initiated by Harry having a similar experience to the one that you described. Now, we just need Snape to realize that he has no power over Harry anymore. Once he does that, I think maybe they can manage to call a temporary truce. I'm wondering if that's not what happened when we read of Snape's reaction to Harry's response. 2) Snape refuses to get a clue and this causes trouble later on. For the record, I'm not saying I think my proposed theory is actually correct, I just think it's an interesting possibility. But I love yours too, it's much more simple and still has fascinating possibilities. Pippin wrote: >> At some level he knows it's not rational, still, he's not cool when he says, "I'm trying to decide what curse to use on Malfoy, sir." The adverb Rowling applies is "fiercely." He's still angry when he goes to talk to Hagrid, and doesn't really settle down until he's had a good cry by the lake. << AyanEva responds: Oooh. I missed that word, "fiercely." And conveyed that whole idea so much better than I; see that's why I was afraid to post! j/k So, my next question: What do you think will happen when Harry comes to terms that it was, IMO, mostly his fault that Sirius died? Or will he come to terms w/ it? I keep thinking that Harry's anger towards Snape is going to get in the way at some really crucial moment and screw up a lot of things. This idea is too short for a whole new post, so I'll just throw it in here. It seems to be that in book 5, we see what happens when Harry is put in charge and left to face a problem on his own. He didn't fair to well, despite having Ron and Hermione. This concerns me, he mangled the situation. How is he going to be ready to face Voldie by book 7?! And no, I'm not trying to incite the Harry fans! ;-) I really am curious about his performance in TOTP. AyanEva From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Jan 15 17:28:53 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:28:53 -0000 Subject: Bellatrix's age (Was: Narcissa Malfoy ) In-Reply-To: <20050114165824.8527.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122026 > Juli: > We already know that Snape and the Marauders are about > the same age, so if Bella is about Snape's age, this > means she and Sirius are both the same age also, which > is about 36. Based on the Black tapestry and where the sisters are at and the order of their names, I would place Narcissa as the youngest and Bellatrix as the oldest. She's probably around Lucius' age. "phoenixgod2000" From kirsty_lowson at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 18:22:24 2005 From: kirsty_lowson at yahoo.com (Kirsty Lowson) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:22:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Runes and Butterbeer In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050115182224.43790.qmail@web53707.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122027 All this talk of runes set me to checking things in my books (oh, it is good when your bookshelves are right next to your computer!) and I was looking at the back of OOP (UK Bloomsbury HB) when I noticed that there are loads of runes on the back. Are these significant to the story (as far as we know) or could they be prophetic? I''ve had a look in the archives and can't find discussion of them, so can someone either point me in the right direction or maybe work out what runes they are? I know no runes at all, apart from some Viking ones I learned in Primary 4 (erk... um... twelve-odd years ago!). On a side note, about butterbeer -- I always assumed it wasn't alcoholic, until the Winky episode. Then, well, I don't know. Either the WW has very different laws regarding alcohol to the MW, or it isn't really alcoholic. If it was, there is no way the students would get away with buying it in the Three Broomsticks -- it must be blatantly obvious every time there's a Hogsmeade weekend, if the village isn't pre-warned anyway! It could be similar to Germany, I suppose -- last I heard, you can buy beer from 14 and other alcoholic drinks from 16 (having said that, I was on a school exchange trip, so we might not have been told the exact truth... ;) Anyway, it can't be more than 2 or 3% -- WInky is getting through "6 bottles a day" and the Trio seem to be surprised she's in that state. Kirsty ===== "If men are always wrong, what does that mean when he tells a woman she looks beautiful?" ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From trekkie at stofanet.dk Sat Jan 15 18:35:40 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 19:35:40 +0100 Subject: Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) References: <88.1e1e0b10.2f19d989@aol.com> Message-ID: <005c01c4fb31$040c9800$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122028 > imamommy: > and as they only get it in Hogsmeade they aren't really > supposed to have it on campus. > > Chancie: > My only question to that is why, (if they aren't supposed to > have it at school) is it in the kitchens, and hasn't anyone > gotten trouble for bringing it into the common room? Most likely because Butterbeer is allowed for the OLDER students.. like 6/7 years... That at least would explain why it's in the kitchen. And also the teachers may like it. And if it's allowed for older students, it would be available in the common room too. ~Trekkie From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 19:19:13 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:19:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: Rune symbol on forehead (was His Mother's eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050115191913.44106.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122029 > > Carol said: > > Lily places an elaborate Protego (shield charm) on Baby > > Harry, perhaps involving an incantation and, using > > her finger, marks Harry's forehead with an (defense) > > eihwaz rune, like a priest marking a baby's forehead with > > a cross in a baptismal service. > > Niffer writes: > But instead of Eihwaz, I think it is Sowelu, which > means Wholeness, Life Force, or the Sun's Energy. It too > looks like a lightning bolt, but it fits Harry much better. > Juli: But if it is truly a rune why hasn't anybody noticed it? Even Hermione knows runes, she's taken that course, and she can't recognize a simple rune? I don't think so. What if it is just a scar shaped like a lighting bolt? Juli From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 21:13:26 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:13:26 -0000 Subject: Runes In-Reply-To: <20050115182224.43790.qmail@web53707.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122030 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kirsty Lowson wrote: > > All this talk of runes set me to checking things > in my books (oh, it is good when your bookshelves > are right next to your computer!) and I was > looking at the back of OOP (UK Bloomsbury HB) > when I noticed that there are loads of runes on > the back. > > Are these significant to the story (as far as we > know) or could they be prophetic? I''ve had a > look in the archives and can't find discussion of > them, so can someone either point me in the right > direction or maybe work out what runes they are? (snip)> > Kirsty > Tonks here: I was going to hold off on this till I got my hand on a Firebolt broom, but since you mentioned it today... The broom that is being sold as an official HP item has runes markings on it. (I will take a closeup picture of it next week when we get more in.) Now I know that JKR approves things that WB licenses, so this must mean something. And if it is also on the back of the book, I would say that it does mean something. I am surprised, however, that JKR uses runes; since the religious right is so paranoid about the books to start with... this will push them over the edge for sure. I don't know what they mean either, but I can find a book. So I will report more about this early next week. Tonks_op From baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 21:30:48 2005 From: baseball_07_05 at yahoo.com (Andrew) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:30:48 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Time-turner not a quick fix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122031 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > I (Vivian) wrote: > > I agree with you. I've been saying this for quite a while now. > By the way people really hate time turner theories on this site. > > Nicky Joe Responded: > I hate the idea of the time turner in general. Why not use it to go > back and save Sirius? Why was it okay to use it to save him from the > Dementors but not okay to use it to save him from falling through the > veil? If I were Harry, I'd be demanding the thing. I'd probably > even steal it to try and save Sirius. *Terrible things happen to > wizards that meddle with time*. Well, nothing happened to them when > they meddled with it last time. Does Dumbledore have the power to > know when using the time turner is a good idea and when it's a bad > idea? If so, he's bloody more powerful than we ever suspected. It > worked great to further the plot and wrap things up nicely in PoA, > but I wish they would have smashed it to smithereens after that in > order that it never be used again. > > vmonte again: > > I think the reason why Dumbledore says: "Terrible things happen to > wizards that meddle with time" because terrible things have happened. > DD is not completely all knowing, and he doesn't have the power to > predict when using a time-turner is always going to work. We have > only been told about the TT in one case, and it just happens to be on > a time it did work. We don't know if it has been used previously-- but > IMO it must have. > > It was rather easily given to Hermione wasn't it? And do you really > think it was for school? IMO DD/MM must have known that she was going > to need it later on. Since SS/PS the children have been receiving the > training necessary to accomplish certain goals (SSSusan and I have > discussed this here previously). Are they being trained for something > in the future? Yes, I believe so. > > I don't like TT stories either; I've always hated them, except for > how JKR has used it. IMO the next time we actually see (read about) > a TT being used it will not work out favorably. > > What do you suppose Harry or Hermione would do if Ron's parents were > killed in book 6? How about if Fred and George got one? It has been > previously discussed, on this site, that perhaps Fred and George are > already in possession of a TT. One poster even suggested that F&G > used a TT to find out what was going to happen at the Quidditch > National in GoF. Remember the bet? > > I think that someone, with no experience using a TT, is going to use > one causing catastrophic consequences. > > DD on the other hand, obviously has more experience using one, and > would know its dangers. (I still think though, that he has made > mistakes while using it. We just aren't privy to that information > yet.) > > BTW a TT will not be used to save Lily or James. IMO, I think that > L&J made a choice to die to save their son Harry. I think they > believed that the only way Harry would survive would be if they > sacrificed their lives. What if they let Wormtail be the keeper on > purpose? > > It's interesting that with all that DD knows he has no idea of what > exactly happened at GH. I think that James and Lily were running the > show that night. > > Vivian Harry can not go back in time and save Sirius because Sirius IS dead. If Harry were to go back and save him, we would have seen the affects of it. Unless Harry is somehow hiding to catch Sirius before he falls into the veil, and hide him from his past self, it is impossible for Harry to go back and save Sirius. A-Mac From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 15 21:58:02 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 21:58:02 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (and a little about Tolkien) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122032 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: Pippin: > You did notice, perhaps, that Lupin didn't actually teach Harry to > produce a corporeal patronus? He stopped the lessons while > Harry was still only able to produce a silver vapor -- not enough > to drive a dementor away. Geoff: I'm not entirely sure that you are taught to produce a "corporeal" Patronus; it may depend on your own ability. And I'm also not sure I agree with your last statement. Let's look at canon: 'The witch with the monocle cut across him in a booming voice. "You produced a fully-fledged Patronus?" "Yes," said Harry. "because -" "A corporeal Patronus?" "A - what?" said Harry. "Your Patronus had a clearly defined form? I mean to say, it was more than vapour or smoke?" "Yes," said Harry, feeling both impatient and slightly desperate, "it's a stag, it's always a stag." "Always?" boomed Madam Bones. "You have produced a Patronus before now?" "Yes," said Harry, "I've been doing it for over a year." "And you are fifteen years old?" "Yes, and -" "You learned this at school?" "Yes. Professor Lupin taught me in my third year, because of the -" "Impressive," said Madam Bones, staring down at him, "a true Patronus at his age... very impressive indeed."' (OOTP "The Hearing" p.129 UK edition) 'Three Dementors, three tall, black, hooded Dementors, were looking up at him. He didn't stop to think. Plunging a hand down the neck of his robes, he whipped out his wand and roared "Expecto Patronum!" Something silvery white, something enormous, erupted from the end of his wand. **** "That was quite some Patronus" said a voice in Harry's ear. Harry turned round to see Professor Lupin who looked both shaken and pleased.' (POA "Gryffindor versus Ravenclaw" pp.193/94 UK edition) '"Well - that thing - the Dementor - stood there and looked around (I mean, I think it did, I coldn't see its face) - and you - you -" "I thought you were having a fit or something," said Ron who still looked scared. "You went sort of rigid and fell out of your seat and started twitching -" "And Professor Lupin stepped over you and walked towards the Dementor and pulled out his wand," said Hermione. "And he said, 'None of us is hiding Sirius Black under our cloaks. Go.' But the Dementor didn't move so Lupin muttered something and a silvery thing shot out of his wand at it and it turned round and sort of glided away..."' (POA "The Dementor" p.67 UK edition) Now, what can we infer from this? Madam Bones seems to imply that not everyone can produce a corporeal Patronus. It would appear that even Lupin doesn't seem to produce a recognisable Patronus or Hermione would have given a clearer description of it - and his silver vapour, or whatever, did drive the Dementor away. Finally Harry says that his Patronus is "always" a stag. So how many Patronuses (or Patroni) has he produced? Furthermore, whatever he produced at the Quidditch match was certainly more than vapour or smoke. No, I feel that Harry's ability allowed him to shift a gear - quite early I suspect - and Lupin felt that he could handle things in that area. Geoff http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com Enjoy a virtual visit to the Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 22:02:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:02:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122033 > Pippin: > > I agree that Harry has just reason to be angry at any number of > people, especially Dumbledore. If your life depended on a > wounded man being able to run a marathon, would you be angry > at him for failing, or should you be angrier at the person who > could have done it for him and didn't? > > Either Snape was wrong to stop the lessons, in which case > they can't have been making Harry weaker OR the lessons were > harmful, in which case it wouldn't have been wrong to stop them. > But Harry doesn't think it through, he's just determined to blame > things on Snape. That's irrational, IMO. > Alla: I wonder if we again argue semantics here. Again, all that I am saying is that I strongly believe Harry's anger at Snape is by no means irrational. Now, to me to act irrationally or to think irrationally or to blame someone irrationally means "to do things without any logical reason or without any evidence for it, etc." If you apply different meaning to word "irrational", could you please tell me? Now, I am not saying whether Harry is right or wrong to blame Snape. To me it LOOKS like he is right, but I am perfectly willing to assume that Harry is wrong again and Snape was doing his best to help him to learn Occlumency, etc. You admit that Harry has a just reason to be angry at number of people (Snape is among them , right?) And then you are saying that because Harry does not SPECIFY what exactly he blames Snape for, that is irrational? I mean, isn't that clear? He blames him for everything Snape did to him this year. Pick any event and Harry will have a just reason to do so. Whether Snape was harming Harry during the lessons or whether he was wrong to stop them... Any of those two makes Snape to be in the wrong, so again why Harry's anger is irrational? Just my opinion, Alla From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 15 22:15:48 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:15:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122034 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: SSSusan: > Geoff stated, way earlier in this thread: > > I tend to interpret Harry's comment as being a change from a rush > of hatred to a cold fury and giving a sarcastic answer very tongue- > in-cheek; it is almost a way of telling Snape to get stuffed without > actually being blatantly rude....< > > > SSSusan: > I think Geoff is right. I believe it does make sense that this > progression of emotions could have reasonably occurred, that it's > not really "odd" at all. > > I mean, let's look at what all is in this tiny little scene. There > stands Draco, Harry's school nemesis for 5 years, threatening to > kill Harry because of "what he's done" to his father. So we have > Draco and all he's represented as Harry's personal tormenter for 5 > years, as well as a reference to Lucius, whom Harry hates for his > role in the diary scheme and in the MoM battle, which led to Sirius' > death. We also have Snape, Harry's staff-level personal tormentor, > the man whom Harry believes detests every fiber of his being and > whom he believes has punished him unfairly over & over & over again, > the man whom he believes was leaving him more vulnerable to > Voldemort with his Occlumency lessons, the man who hated Sirius and > whom Harry probably suspected of doing a little victory dance over > Sirius' death. > > All this comes together in this one brief moment. Projection, rage, > fury, frustration, grief, perhaps a thrill at what he *could* do to > Draco. How might we see him reacting to all this? Just what Geoff > said: a rush of hatred towards Draco & Lucius; cold fury for > Snape's appearing, yet again, to foul things up for Harry -- AND > representing fault in Harry's mind for Sirius' death. Then there's > the "snap" or revelation that Jocelyn referred to ? sort of an "I > don't give a shit anymore" moment ? and thus the sarcastic or smart- > aleck, think-whatever-you-want-Snape moment where he says, "Trying > to decide what curse to use on Malfoy, Sir." > > It's true that I could've seen Harry *stick* with the anger & rage > he was feeling a moment before, but the switch to this last emotion > or tone also makes sense to me, too. It's not that he's not angry > any more; it's how he's going to deal with it that's adjusted. Geoff: I equated this to the way I would probably have behaved in my teenage years in a situation where I had perhaps blown my top previously and reached a position of having a cold determination to get a point over; there is a difference between being blazing mad [which as a redhead in those days I was good at :-)] and a good dug-in deep-down intention not to let the other guy get the last word.... When I was in the Sixth Form, we used to have a pseudo-Latin saying, "Nil illegitimus carborundum" - "Don't let the b****** grind you down". I think Harry's mind was moving on those lines. I'm /much/ more polite nowadays. I hope this all makes sense. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Jan 15 22:22:23 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:22:23 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (and a little about Tolkien) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > True, Tolkien's not as ruthless with his good guys as Rowling. > Only Faramir is allowed to imagine the agony of knowing that a > kindly and beloved protector fell into evil -- "Boromir, O Boromir! > what did she say to you, the Lady that dies not? What did she > see? What woke in your heart then?" And he's partly consoled by > the thought that whether he erred or not, Boromir died well. But in > Rowling, people have to live with their mistakes. Renee: You mean there's no redemption for Rowling's characters once they've erred? That doesn't bode well for Snape, then. What if Dumbledore trusts him - to commit the ultimate betrayal at exactly the right moment? The agent of Evil who has "to accomplish something before the end", like Gollum did when he destroyed the Ring against his own intentions by falling into Mount Doom with it? That could explain why JKR was so stunned when the interviewer remarked there was a redemptive pattern to Snape... I agree with you: Tolkien/Rowling comparisons are fascinating. > Renee, previously: > > Lupin must have done so, or DD wouldn't accept him in the > renewed Order of the Phoenix. > Pippin: > *Does* Dumbledore trust everyone in the Order? Lupin is never > allowed to be alone in Harry's presence after PoA. And what is > Dumbledore checking for, when he sends Phineas to Grimmauld Place to see if "the coast is clear"? Renee: It's quite likely Dumbledore doesn't trust everyone, after VWI. But we don't know any particulars, and we don't know anything about 'allowed'; that's an interpretation, not a fact. And Lupin isn't the only character who's never seen alone with Harry in OotP. But I won't say "so that's a lot of suspects', because then we're back to the whodunit level again. It's not a matter of "who is so untrustworthy that he committed all the major atrocities in the series that weren't committed by Voldemort?" and then pulling a big bad wolf out of the black hat. IMO the important question when it comes to trust is: who can be trusted to do (or not to do) what? See also above, under Snape. Knowing that one of Lupin's big flaws is lack of responsibility, what would DD trust him to do? Don't shoot me if this sounds weird, but if the alchemy hypothesis is true and the HP series does indeed follow the stages of the Great Work, Lupin could be the "grey wolf", also called the "lupus metallorum" - think of the moment when Lupin's voice sounds metallic in PoA! - who must *devour* the lion in order to redeem it. This is a symbolical rendering of the alchemical purification process for contaminated gold (symbolised by the lion - Harry) with the use of antimony (symbolised by the grey wolf - Lupin). It could mean that Lupin, being irresponsible again, will do something to Harry which is necessary for Harry to attain the perfect purity he'll need to vanquish Voldemort. One important alchemict text says the lion has to cleanse his eyes with the wolf's blood and also refers to the curative properties of the antimony of which it is a symbol. We already know that Harry has weak eyesight and that this is somehow important to the plot. So, while still not buying into the ESE!Lupin theory, I wouldn't be too shocked if Lupin would screw up badly yet and harm Harry, thought with a beneficial effect. As for the Phineas Nigellus question, DD *doesn't* send him to 12GP to see if the coast is clear. Phineas is sent to tell Sirius that the Weasleys and Harry will arrive shortly. The sentence about the coast being clear is ambiguous, because it's followed directly by the arrival of Fawkes's warning feather which indicates that Umbridge knows the children are out of their bed. But even if it refers to Phineas, what danger would Lupin's presence mean when Sirius is present, too and Molly is coming with Harry? > Lupin's always a part of Harry's escort in OOP, *except* when > he's most vulnerable, visiting Mr. Weasley right after the snake > vision. And we're specifically told it's not the full moon. Renee: The first visit to St. Mungo's takes place by day. They leave after lunch and are back hours before dinner. So Lupin's absence is not related to the question whether the moon is full or not. We're also told he is frequently away running errands for DD, so I'd find it a little peculiar if he would always be at 12GP when Harry's there. And as he isn't there when Harry and the Weasley's arrive after the attack on Arthur, it's logical that he doesn't accompany them to St. Mungo's. Pippin: > Interesting that no one attacks Lupin in the MoM, isn't it? What > if Dumbledore knows the DE's won't attack if it'd mean nailing > their own spy? Renee: In the first place, we don't know that no one attacked Lupin in the MoM; that we don't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen; Harry can't see everything simultaneously. If soldiers emerge unscathed from a battle, does that mean nobody attacked them? Or could it mean they fought too well to be harmed/were just lucky? Bellatrix wasn't harmed either, but not because no one attacked her. By the way, I don't understand your question. Wouldn't the DE's nail a spy by *not* attacking him? > While Hermione trusts Lupin, something seems to hold Harry > back. When his scar hurts in GoF, he writes to Sirius, and never > thinks of Lupin, and when he needs to talk about his father's > past, it's Sirius he particularly wants, though Lupin could have > answered the questions just as well. Renee: Sirius is his godfather, with the emphasis on *father*. He latches on to the idea he has a parent in Sirius, something he's never had before. Lupin never become parental; in fact, he's the first adult in the series who treats Harry as an equal. And Harry likes him a lot; there are several instances in OotP that show he does (Lupin's arrival at No.4 Privet Drive, Harry's "pleasant squirm" when he first spots Lupin in the Pensieve Scene). I don't see him holding back. Pippin: > You did notice, perhaps, that Lupin didn't actually teach Harry to > produce a corporeal patronus? He stopped the lessons while > Harry was still only able to produce a silver vapor -- not enough > to drive a dementor away. Renee: Oh, I think Harry did produce a corporeal Patronus before he did so in the Time-turner sequence. He just didn't do it in the presence of real Dementors. I'm referring to the Quidditch match where Draco & Co. play their little joke on Harry. We read: "Something silver white, something enormous, erupted from the end of his wand. He knew it had shot directly at the Dementors but *didn't pause to watch*" (emphasis mine). This is not what happened the previous time he tried to cast a Patronus: "... he was able to produce an indistinct, silvery shadow every time the Boggart-Dementor approached him, but his Patronus was too feeble to drive the Dementor away. All it did was hover, like a semi-transparent cloud, draining Harry of energy as he fought to keep it there." A semi-transparent cloud verus something silver white and enormous indicates a change for the better. But then there's Lupin's reaction after the match. His words don't count, because he's under suspicion. But his reaction, registered by Harry, speaks loudly enough: he looks both shaken and pleased. Pleased, because Harry has finally produced a true Patronus. And shaken? Well, what about: because he recognised the stag and was reminded of his dead friend James? If Lupin stopped the lessons (and do we know for certain that he did?), it was because he had nothing more to teach Harry. Are we even sure Lupin himself can cast a corporeal Patronus? Also, teaching a charm is not like teaching history. The latter is knowledge, the former is mostly a skill. It involves basic knowledge like what incantation to use and what to focus on, but the student has to do it. If somebody can't learn to play a musical instrument, it could be the teacher's fault, but mostly it's lack of talent and/or dedication in the student. When it comes to acquiring a skill, there's only so much a teacher can do. The fact that few adult wizards can cast a proper Patronus suggests this is the case here as well. Pippin: > As for Lupin and the veil, Dumbledore had turned and was > watching and everyone still thought Harry had the prophecy. > Voldemort would not be best pleased if Harry went through the > veil, bearing the prophecy with him, while, as far as he knows, > there is another child who could yet fulfill it. Renee: If this is an argument for ESE!Lupin, then the fact that Lupin is never seen alone with Harry after PoA is not an argument, and the same goes for the episode with 'the coast being clear'. > Pippin > never bored with Tolkien/Rowling comparisons Actually, this whole thing reminds me of another book, a whodunit (!) this time: Eco's The Name of the Rose. In it, the sleuth William of Baskerville builds an elaborate theory to explain a series of murders, and everything fits his theory. Yet in the end, it turns out there was no plan; the theory was a construction, instead of a reconstruction. Renee From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 15 22:24:43 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:24:43 -0000 Subject: Runes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122036 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: Kirsty: > > All this talk of runes set me to checking things > > in my books (oh, it is good when your bookshelves > > are right next to your computer!) and I was > > looking at the back of OOP (UK Bloomsbury HB) > > when I noticed that there are loads of runes on > > the back. > > > > Are these significant to the story (as far as we > > know) or could they be prophetic? I''ve had a > > look in the archives and can't find discussion of > > them, so can someone either point me in the right > > direction or maybe work out what runes they are? > (snip)> > > Kirsty Tonks: > Now I know that JKR approves things that WB licenses, so this must > mean something. > > And if it is also on the back of the book, I would say that it does > mean something. I am surprised, however, that JKR uses runes; since > the religious right is so paranoid about the books to start with... > this will push them over the edge for sure. Geoff: I have all the UK Bloomsbury hardback HPs and have no runes on any of mine. It's not only the religious right - I'm an evangelical Christian and I am not totally happy about runes..... I don't intend to go over the edge though. I've had to defend my position on Harry on a number of occasions. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 22:29:28 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:29:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry shouldn't see Thestrals References: Message-ID: <01dd01c4fb51$ad6f6ce0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122037 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arynnoctavia" > wrote: >> It says in book 5 that Harry can see the Thestrals because he saw >> Cedric die, but if you look in book 4 that isn't true. >> [...] >> While down on the ground he hears "Kill the spare" A blast of green >> light blazes through his eyelids, and he hears something heavy fall >> beside him. > > So he witnessed Cedric dying, in a manner of speaking. He heard him > dying, though perhaps he didn't *see* him. He may not be an > eye-witness, but certainly an "ear-witness" (if there's such a word). > Besides, Harry might have been able still to reckognize shapes so he > saw him in some way. > Harry might not have seen him "die", but Harry did see Cedric dead. GoF: "Cedric was lying spread-eagled on the ground beside him. He was dead. For a second that contained an eternity, Harry stared into Cedric's face, at his open gray eyes, blank and expressionless as the windows of a deserted house, at his half-open mouth, which looked slightly surprised" charme From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 22:40:02 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:40:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Runes References: Message-ID: <01f301c4fb53$279610e0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122038 > Tonks: >> Now I know that JKR approves things that WB licenses, so this must >> mean something. >> >> And if it is also on the back of the book, I would say that it does >> mean something. I am surprised, however, that JKR uses runes; since >> the religious right is so paranoid about the books to start with... >> this will push them over the edge for sure. > > Geoff: > I have all the UK Bloomsbury hardback HPs and have no runes on any of > mine. > > It's not only the religious right - I'm an evangelical Christian and > I am not totally happy about runes..... I don't intend to go over the > edge though. I've had to defend my position on Harry on a number of charme: I'm confused. Runes are part of culture, and included much the same way many of the other dynamics of the books are derived by JKR. I'm mean we have creatures of Greek mythology, names and other assorted HP particulars which are derived by a variety of other legends and cultures. Forgive me, but why would runes be any different to the religious right, or to your way of thinking, Geoff? Please understand I am not being coy or argumentative in asking this, either. I really don't know! :) charme From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Sat Jan 15 23:23:47 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:23:47 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ok, Stupid Question (butterbeer) In-Reply-To: <000c01c4fb35$5cc26a20$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: <819FF7A9-674C-11D9-9325-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 122039 On Sunday, January 16, 2005, at 06:06 am, manawydan wrote: > > Replying to this >>>> What is Butterbeer, and why, seeing that >>>> it contains alcohol, are the students >>>> allowed to have it? >>>> I have been following this thread with interest. A lot of the WW's practices hearken back to the middle ages. During that period people drank something called ale quite freely. Although the name reminds us of modern beer, ale was only very slightly alcoholic - the main point of brewing it was to purify it so that it was safe to drink - unlike much water which was contaminated by animals and by people whose understanding of hygiene was rudimentary at best. Ale was considered healthy for everyone to drink with breakfast and all day. I suspect the origins of butterbeer lie with mediaeval ale. Jocelyn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 23:37:23 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (Hester Prinn) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:37:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) Message-ID: <20050115233723.45718.qmail@web50901.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122040 There's been a lot of posts lately, touching on Professor Snape and accusing him of everything from incompetent teaching to out and out sadism. And while I could respond to each and every post, (thereby opening myself to a death by one thousand pin-pricks ) I thought I'd save myself some time and defend him in one fell post. (And let me state up front -- I'm not dealing with ESE!Snape or any of the popular conspiracies. I'm just taking Snape as he's been presented by JKR so far and assuming no sudden twists.) First things first, Snape is not the nicest of men. He's quick to take offense, slow to forgive, and he's got a rapier wit he's not afraid to use. Plus, he loves him his House. However, he's a damn fine teacher, brave to a fault, and quite willing... well... maybe not willing, but certainly able to put his personal feelings aside to get a job done. ***Snape the Educator*** Ah, I can hear the wailing now: "A damn fine teacher?!?" you say. "But he's so mean! And he makes the little childrens cry!" But this I will insist on, and even back up with canon: "'You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potion-making,' he began. He spoke in barely more than a whisper, but they caught every word -- like Professor McGonagall, Snape had the gift of keeping a class silent without effort." (PS scholastic paperback ed. pgs. 136-7) "There was no real need for the call to order; the moment the class had heard the door close, quiet had fallen and all fidgeting stopped. Snape's mere presence was usually enough to ensure a class's silence. [...] "'[S]o whether you are intending to attempt N.E.W.T. or not, I advise all of you to concentrate your efforts upon maintaining the high-pass level I have come to expect from my O.W.L. students.'" (OotP scholastic ed. pgs. 231-2) "'Well, the class seems fairly advanced for their level," [Umbridge] said briskly to Snape's back." (ibid pg. 363) Everything in the books points to Snape having complete control over his classroom: they silently listen to every word he says. He gets a maximum of information pounded into his students' heads: his students not only pass their O.W.L's, but do so at a high level. And he even pushes his students to a level of study beyond Ministry standards (which, granted, may be low, but still, Snape is taking his students above and beyond). All of those things combined make for one kick-ass teacher. Though he is scary. Scary and strict tend to go hand in hand. After all, the students (and this includes Harry and Ron) are nervous enough around McGonagall. Scary and strict does not mean bad teacher. I can feel you itching to bring up Neville. Why oh why does Snape pick on poor Neville? On the very first day of class Neville manages to melt Seamus's cauldron, cover himself in boils and burn holes in the shoes of his fellow students. Oh and the class, she was disrupted. Neville's first impression was not a good one. And I did say that Professor Snape is not a nice man. However, Harry notes that Neville seems happy during their potions practical for the O.W.L's (ibid pg. 716). Which suggests that Neville may have actually done all right on his exam Which would suggest that despite his not so nice methods, Snape is still one heck of a teacher. ***The Bravery of Professor Snape*** Snape's bravery goes hand in hand with the role he plays for Dumbledore - a role a lot of folks seem to overlook. He's a spy. He spies on Death Eaters for Dumbledore, and by OotP, he's spying on Lord Voldemort. The same Lord Voldemort who Crucios the minions he *likes*. I shudder to think of what he'd do to someone who actually betrayed him. That Snape would take this risk, instead of fleeing like Karkaroff did, means that he has a ton of courage. And frankly, I think he deserves some props for it. ***Snape and Harry*** And here's where we really get down to it, because the story is told from Harry's POV. Harry has no love for Snape, and he's quite sure Snape hates him. Everything we know about Snape we learn through Harry's eyes, and the first impression, at least on the surface, is not good. Beyond the whole, "Argh! My scar!" thing that we later learn was caused by Quirrell's Vapor!Mort turban of doom, Harry's first Potions class is less than smooth. That is where Harry decides Snape hates him. But what was Snape doing there? As posited above, Snape is a good teacher. His opening speech smacks of a well rehearsed drama establishing several things at once. Snape knows his subject, and it's a cool one ("bottle fame" and "stopper death" -- what's not to love?). His students had better do their reading if they don't want to get humiliated like the first poor dumb schmuck the professor called on. And they better listen to every word he says. Note how he snaps at the class for not taking down the correct answers to the questions he asked Harry. There's no canon for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Snape starts off his first year's class in exactly the same way, every year. Of course, he picked Harry to be the poor dumb schmuck this time, and I think there were several motives behind his choice. The ugly, petty motive was that Harry is the son of James. A motive I don't think Snape is above. But Harry is also a celebrity, and Hogwarts is abuzz. The students are all excited, but the teachers aren't immune either. (Witness Flitwick falling off his desk in excitement in PS on pg. 133.) Snape is establishing that Harry's fame will not get him anywhere in Snape's classroom. Harry will be judged on his potion abilities and nothing more. This particular motive is not a bad one. Snape has not met Harry yet, and I imagine there was a real worry that his fame would go to his head. Snape is nipping a potential problem in the bud. I think it's important to notice that Snape doesn't take points for Harry's ignorance. Harry talks back to Snape, and Snape takes a point away from Gryffindor, "for [his] cheek." (PS pg. 138) But there's another motive that Snape would have forefront in his mind. Especially with the recent Death Eater activity. Remember, Snape is not just a teacher, he's a spy. And the known top dog of the Death Eaters appears to be (and Snape would most likely know for sure - though we, the readers, don't) Lucius Malfoy. It makes a whole lot of sense for Snape to seem very anti-Harry Potter in front of Malfoy's son, Draco. In fact, it would be stupid for Snape to appear any other way. These three motives: hatred and distrust of anything Marauder related, keeping Harry humble, and the need to act as a loyal Death Eater continues to inform Snape's behavior throughout all five books. I think that they probably ebb and flow in their level of importance to Snape, though I'm betting that his mission as a spy is never fully forgotten. Of course, Harry is too young and too naive, especially in book one, to realize any of these motives, and so he settles on the simple, "Snape hates me." I doubt Snape feels that strongly about Harry in the beginning. I think Harry frustrates the hell out of Snape, as Snape spends most of his time trying to keep Harry safe and Harry keeps stumbling into danger, but I honestly think 'hate' is too strong a word. ***The Difference an OotP Makes*** Then Voldemort goes and gets himself a body, and everything changes. Before the end of GoF, Harry could be excused for not realizing Snape's role as a spy. Dumbledore has told Harry he trusts Snape, but typically doesn't share details (not that he should in this case). But the final scene in the infirmary should have given Harry a clue. "'Severus,' said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, 'you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready... if you are prepared...' 'I am,' said Snape. He looked slightly paler than usual, and his cold, black eyes glitted strangely. 'Then good luck,' said Dumbledore, and he watched, with trace of apprehension on his face, as Snape swept wordlessly after Sirius. It was several minutes before Dumbledore spoke again." (GoF Scholastic Hardback ed. pg. 713) Of course, Harry was in a state of shock at the time, but in OotP he's in the heart of the Order, and Snape shows up several times to give reports and then disappear. The fact that Harry couldn't figure out what a former Death Eater who still appeared to be respected by current Death Eaters, might possibly be doing for the Order, leaves me to believe that Harry has a block when it comes to Snape. It made so much sense for Snape to up his nasty behavior towards Harry. He's supposed to appear friendly towards Voldemort's side, and he's constantly in the presence of children of known Death Eaters. The easiest way to keep up appearences is to be mean to Dumbledore's golden child, especially as Dumbledore's grip on the school is slipping. The fact that Harry so closely resembles someone Snape obviously loathed probably made Snape's job easier, but I honestly think that until Harry stuck his head into Snape's Pensieve, most of it was role-play. Once Harry did the equivalent of reading Snape's personal journal, I do think Snape was genuinely furious with Harry. And frankly, Snape's anger was understandable. Throughout the Occlumency lessons, Harry's behavior was pretty bad, and he was obviously not trying. I know this has been debated 'til the cows come home, but barring any ulterior motive not yet revealed, Snape was trying to teach the boy, and the boy was unwilling to learn. Snape was endangering his role by spending private time with Harry, and Harry was basically making Snape's risk meaningless. On the surface, that could be seen as reason enough to no longer give Harry Occlumency lessons. Harry never asks for the lessons to resume, so Snape could easily conclude that Harry would continue to ignore his instructions. And here's a possible ulterior motive -- their last lesson was interrupted by Draco Malfoy. Perhaps there was an unreasonable chance of Snape the spy being exposed. Much has been made of the final interaction between Snape and Harry. How could Snape be so mean and cruel as to actually uphold the rules of Hogwarts by disciplining a student that admitted to trying to curse another student? Put aside the fact that Snape was actually fairly mild in his treatment of Harry. HE. IS. A. SPY!!! Harry was attempting to curse Draco Malfoy. Only a great fool would have done nothing out of sympathy towards Harry and once again risk exposure. Snape, no matter what you think of him, is no fool. So that's my defense of Snape. Every school has its scary teacher and every war has its spies. Snape fulfills both roles with singular style. I hope that by series end, Harry finally realizes, and the readers are finally shown, just how good a man Snape (the greasy, snarking, bastard) really is. Betsy, who just realized that it may actually have been faster to answer all the seperate posts. :) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! ? What will yours do? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 00:19:30 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:19:30 -0000 Subject: Runes In-Reply-To: <01f301c4fb53$279610e0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122041 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" wrote: > > > Tonks: > >> Now I know that JKR approves things that WB licenses, so this must mean something. And if it is also on the back of the book, I would say that it does mean something. I am surprised, however, that JKR uses runes; since the religious right is so paranoid about the books to start with... this will push them over the edge for sure. > > > > Geoff: > > I have all the UK Bloomsbury hardback HPs and have no runes on any of mine. > > It's not only the religious right - I'm an evangelical Christian and I am not totally happy about runes..... I don't intend to go over the edge though. I've had to defend my position on Harry on a number of > > charme: > > I'm confused. Runes are part of culture, and included much the same way many of the other dynamics of the books are derived by JKR. I'm mean we have creatures of Greek mythology, names and other assorted HP particulars which are derived by a variety of other legends and cultures. Forgive me, but why would runes be any different to the religious right, or to your way of thinking, Geoff? Please understand I am not being coy or argumentative in asking this, either. I really don't know! :) > > charme Tonks here: I will let Geoff answer for himself. From my point of view, runes are a form of divination and represent the occult more than the rest of the HP books do. Yes, I know it is part of the magic world, but so is Necromancy (a dark art) and she doesn't put that in the books. I think she is careful what she calls attention to. Some things like divination she down plays and devalues. So I think the XC's who oppose the HP books on the grounds of it being real witchcraft (=evil to them) will see this as proof. Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 00:22:56 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:22:56 -0000 Subject: Draco's anger - A Fair and Balanced View In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122042 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Potioncat: > I think JKR went out of her way to show that Snape was not there > when the conversation started and only came out of the dungeon as > Harry was drawing his wand. > > Snape may have had good reason to suspect Malfoy started it. He may > have had good reason to think Potter started it. But it's in > character for him to punish the Gryffindor student, not the > Slytherin. We also do not know what would have happened if > McGonagall hadn't come in. He could have sent them ont their way, > with a warning about fighting. He could have sent Harry to bed > without supper. At any rate, by this time, what's 10 little points? > It isn't detention. > > I think he was breaking up a fight and protecting Harry and Draco > from each other. I don't think he was harrassing Harry. bboyminn: Amazing how our own personal emotions can cloud or color a particular scene for each different individual. Here is my read on that last scene. First, Harry didn't pull his wand with the real intent of cursing/hexing Draco. Draco made the first move, and as always, Harry was more than willing to defend himself. But in the absense of a direct and clear intent on Draco's part, I'm confident Harry wouldn't have thrown the first curse. Next, regarding Snape's punishment, I don't really think that was for fighting. It was for Harry's snarky attitude. When Snape entered the Entrance Hall and asked what was going on, a wise student would have pocketed his wand and said, 'nothing'. In that case, Snape would have told them all to move along. Instead, with a definite case of attitude, Harry said he was trying to decide what curse to use on Draco. Not a wise thing to say to any teacher and certainly not wise to say to Snape, but I'm sure at that point every last nerve Harry had was stretched to the limit, and he was in no mood to keep his attitude in check for anyone. So, it was for Harry's smart mouth and cheeky attitude that Snape took the 10 points. Snape then took additional glee in pointing out the Gryffindor had no more points to take. In addition, there wasn't a fight. If Draco and Harry really wanted to go to it, they would have done it. And if Harry, who got his wand out first, really wanted to curse Draco, then Draco would have been cursed. But I say again, that Harry's only real intent, relative to Draco, was to defend himself. When Snape arrive, instead of defusing the situation, Harry inflamed it, and paid a price for that; a price for his 'cheek', not for any real intent to curse/hex. All and all, I don't think the encounter between Snape and Harry was the point of that scene. I think Draco's anger and bitterness toward Harry was the real point; a point of foreboding. The arrival of Snape followed by the arrival of McGonagall were there to lighten the scene and create a distraction from the foreshadowed increased hostility between Harry and Draco. So, overal, I think people have overblown this scene, and missed the real point. Harry wasn't going to Hex anyone other than in his own self-defense. Snape took 10 points, get over it; ten points is not a big deal. Harry inflamed the situation with his snarky comment, and could have gotten away with no punishment if he had simply played it cool. Admittedly and understandable, Harry was in no mood to play it cool with anyone. > > > I know Snape is a real jerk. I don't argue that. But I don't think > he was torturing Harry in this scene. > > Potioncat bboyminn concludes: I think it was Del who said that Snape was not being especially nasty in this scene. He was simply a teacher doing his job; admittedly in a very Snapely way. True, other's would have been more sympathetic toward Harry. But, also, Harry would have been far less likely to 'smart-ass' any of the other teachers. And logically, Snape is not a teacher that it is wise to 'smart-mouth' under any circumstances. Again, the heart of the scene was Draco's new more inflamed more dnagerous attitude toward Harry, and I think in the next book the 10 point will have been forgotten, but Draco will certainly not have forgotten. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 16 00:49:28 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:49:28 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <20050115233723.45718.qmail@web50901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122043 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hester Prinn wrote: Betsy: > Everything in the books points to Snape having complete control over his classroom: they silently listen to every word he says. He gets a maximum of information pounded into his students' heads: his students not only pass their O.W.L's, but do so at a high level. And he even pushes his students to a level of study beyond Ministry standards (which, granted, may be low, but still, Snape is taking his students above and beyond). All of those things combined make for one kick-ass teacher. > > Though he is scary. Scary and strict tend to go hand in hand. After all, the students (and this includes Harry and Ron) are nervous enough around McGonagall. Scary and strict does not mean bad teacher. His students had better do their reading if they don't want to get humiliated like the first poor dumb schmuck the professor called on. And they better listen to every word he says. Note how he snaps at the class for not taking down the correct answers to the questions he asked Harry. There's no canon for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Snape starts off his first year's class in exactly the same way, every year. > > Of course, he picked Harry to be the poor dumb schmuck this time, and I think there were several motives behind his choice. The ugly, petty motive was that Harry is the son of James. A motive I don't think Snape is above. But Harry is also a celebrity, and Hogwarts is abuzz. Snape is nipping a potential problem in the bud. I think it's important to notice that Snape doesn't take points for Harry's ignorance. Harry talks back to Snape, and Snape takes a point away from Gryffindor, "for [his] cheek." (PS pg. 138) Geoff: I speak as a teacher with 32 years experience of teaching mainly Maths and Computing. I had a similar control to Snape. I could walk into my class and quieten them down without saying a word. But I also based my teaching on two principles: Be firm but fair, and never ask a student to do anything I would not do myself. Judging by the number of contacts I still have with old students, this theory worked pretty well. Snape used methods to pull the rug from under Harry in ways which were calculated to make him look small and foolish.... 'Snape, like Flitwick, started the class by taking the register and, like Flitwick, he paused at Harry's name. "Ah, yes," he said quietly, "Harry Potter. Our new - /celebrity/."Draco Malfoy and his friends Crabbe and Goyle sniggered behind their hands.' )PS "The Potions Master" pp.101/02 UK edition) Why say anything at all? The easiest thing with someone you might think had a big head or an inflated opinion of themselves would be to not acknowledge anything beyond them answering their name. '"Potter!" said Snape suddenly. "What would I get if I added powdered root of asphodel to an infusion of wormwood?" Powdered root of what to an infusion of what? Harry glanced at Ron who looked as stumped as he was; Hermione's hand had shot into the air. "I don't know, sir" said Harry. Snape's lips curled into a sneer. "Tut, tut - fame clearly isn't everything." He ignored Hermione's hand. "Let's try again. Potter, where would you look if I asked you to find me a bezoar?" Hermione stretched her hand as high into the air as it would go without her leaving her seat but Harry didn't have the faintest idea what a bezoar was. He tried not to look at Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle who were shaking with laughter. "I don't know, sir." "Thought you wouldn't open a book before coming, eh, Potter?"' (ibid. p.102) Harry has answered his questions politely and waht does he get? Sneering and sarcasm which was completely uncalled for. What sort of encouragment is this to a boy in his first class to take an interest in this subject? I have a next door neighbour who is continually in conflict with his teenage son and always criticises him; he never finds anything to praise him - there is always something wrong. Result - the boy is underachieving and has a low self-esteem. This is the foundation that Snape is laying. 'At this, Hermione stood up,her hand stretching towards the ceiling. "I don't know," said Harry quietly. "I think Hermione does, though, why don't you try her?" ***** Snape said, "And a point will be taken from Gryffindor for your cheek, Potter." ***** ...Neville, who had been drenched in the potion when the cauldron collapsed, moaned in pain as angry red boils sprang up all over his arms and legs. "Idiot boy!" snarled Snape, clearing the spilled potion away with one wave of his wand. "I suppose you added the porcupine quills before taking the cauldron off the fire?" Neville whimpered as boils started to pop up all over his nose. "Take him up to the hospital wing," Snape spat at Seamus. then he rounded on Harry and Ron who had been working next to Neville. "You - Potter - why didn't you tell him not to add the quills? Though he'd make you look good if he got it wrong, did you? That's another point you've lost for Gryffindor." This was so unfair that Harry opened his mouth to argue but Ron kicked him behind their cauldron.' (ibid. pp.103/04) Fear is not a way to establish a satisfactory working relationship with a class. Harry was not being cheeky; he spoke quietly and was trying to get Snape to look at Hermione - and also get him off his back. In the later incident, the blame should have been apportioned between Seamus and Neville who were the "team". I expect if Harry and Ron had tried to help these two, Snape would have bounced them for interfering. They were on a hiding to nothing. Like Harry I started at a new school when I was 11. We had a woodwork teacher who revelled in sarcasm and constant criticism. I was keen to learn and was considered a bit of a swot at that age but I, like everyone else in the class, hated the teacher's guts. I can see that beginning to show in Harry at the end of the last quote. I agree that Snape know his potions extremely well; it's his social skills which are lacking. You can control your class and be strict either by being scary or by showing the class that you are also on their side and that the whole thing is a team effort. I know which one I found successful over those 32 years. Geoff http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com Enjoy a virtual visit to the Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 16 01:29:08 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:29:08 -0000 Subject: Runes In-Reply-To: <01f301c4fb53$279610e0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122044 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" wrote: > > Geoff: > > I have all the UK Bloomsbury hardback HPs and have no runes on any of > > mine. > > > > It's not only the religious right - I'm an evangelical Christian and > > I am not totally happy about runes..... I don't intend to go over the > > edge though. I've had to defend my position on Harry on a number of charme: > I'm confused. Runes are part of culture, and included much the same way > many of the other dynamics of the books are derived by JKR. I'm mean we have > creatures of Greek mythology, names and other assorted HP particulars which > are derived by a variety of other legends and cultures. Forgive me, but why > would runes be any different to the religious right, or to your way of > thinking, Geoff? Please understand I am not being coy or argumentative in > asking this, either. I really don't know! :) Geoff: The "religious right", which I think is more noticeable in the US than the UK represents the ultra-evangelical group who have campaigned against Harry Potter because of perceived witchcraft and black magic which I would object too as well if I thought that was the intent of JKR. It should be remembered that "acceptable" writers such as Tolkien and Lewis also make use of magic in a similar way. Because JKR has indicated her Christian leaning and her membership of the Church of Scotland, I believe that her writing will overtly or covertly reveal something of what she holds to be true. I take comments by Dumbledore such as "death is but the next great adventure" (PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.215 UK edition) and "it is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities" (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) as underscoring very basic Christian truths. I have read in depth at least two books written by leading Christians which draw parallels between the teaching of the Bible and the events of the books and many of my church friends who like myself would describe themselves as evangelicals are in agreement with the views expressed by these authors. What I do have a concern over is matters which, as Tonks remarked, might be seen as leaning to the occult and thus to black magic. There are runes and runes. Basically, runes can be used as a form of written communication. After all, Tolkien uses a runic script for the dwarves and Sindarin Elves. Then there are the runes which we have been discussing ? runes of power ? which do leave me wondering where they fit in our interpretation of good and bad magic. There is also the fact that in the long series of Rosicrucian posts, Hans has, on occasion, used portions of the Old and New Testaments in a way which I believe to be out of context with the intention of Jesus or the quoted writer. There is a very wide range of opinion on this group. As I said in a recent post, threads are cyclical. For example, we had a series of posts on runes about a year ago and the subject has come round again. There are also cycles of perception as to who is driving the "spiritual" side in interpreting the world of Harry. Last year, at one point, Wiccans and atheists were convinced that the Christians on the group were getting the lion's share and, at other times, the positions were reversed. In truth, I do not want to look for sub-texts and hidden agendas in the books; I am not by nature a conspiracy theorist. I read the books because I like the characters and the story lines. Some readers will groan if I say again that I identify with Harry when I look back at the way in which I thought and acted as an adolescent. I sometimes think that we get deeply involved in the nuances of the Wizarding World and produce various wacky theories (and some not so wacky) to keep our little grey cells ticking over until 16th July and take ourselves a little too seriously. I know that I do. I now need to take myself off to bed. I don't usually find myself thinking deep thoughts at 01:25! From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 01:32:14 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:32:14 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122046 pippin_999" wrote: I said Dumbledore did not excuse Snape and his Occlumency lessons and you then quoted some stuff from the book that in no way contradicted what I said. > Either Snape was wrong to stop the lessons, > in which case they can't have been making Harry weaker Agreed, if that turned out to be true then Snape was wrong to stop the lessons. > OR the lessons were harmful, in which case > it wouldn't have been wrong to stop them. Agreed, if that turned out to be true then Snape was wrong for being a very crummy teacher of Occlumency. Either way he was wrong. > But Harry doesn't think it through, Harry thought it through very well and came up with the correct answer, or at least a very plausible answer; only time will tell if he was correct but I think he probably was. >That's irrational, IMO. Not IMO. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 01:36:49 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:36:49 -0000 Subject: Salazar & Slytherin - More Quality of Qualities. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122047 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: bboyminn: Quick replys to both Del and Carol. > > bboyminn wrote: > > I think Dumbledore was simply acknowledging /aspects/ of Harry > > that parallelled the aspects of Slytherin. There was no > > implication of /quality/ of qualities judgement (did that make > > sense?). > > Del replied: > > It makes sense in itself, but it doesn't make sense to me in the > context. Harry was feeling low because he was *afraid* he might be a > better Slytherin than Gryffindor. ... I personally think that DD was > telling him that, yes, he did have those traits, but that he should > consider them as positive traits, and that they weren't even his > only good traits. > Carol responds: > I'm not sure who to agree with here. ... surely the qualities > Dumbledore chooses to list as being valued by Salazar Slytherin, > resourcefulness and determination, would be considered by most > people, ..., as good ... At any rate, I agree with Del that > Dumbledore is attempting to comfort Harry, ... bboyminn: True, Dumbledore is comforting Harry, but the comfort is not in comparing him to Slytherin. The comfort is in letting Harry know that independant of any Slytherin-like characteristics he may have, there is a greater and far more important reason for him to be where he is, and that is choice. The whole scene is leading up to Dumbledore's immortal words which I shall paraphrase, it is our choices far more than our /aspects/ that tell us and the world who and what we really are. Then Dumbledore showed Harry Gryffindor's sword to further solidify Harry as a true Gryffindor. One last point, certainly Harry has characteristics that could have been nurtured by Slytherin, I have already admitted that. But those same characteristics can also be nurtured in a different way by Gryffindor. In addition, Harry has some essense of Voldemort in him, the ultimate Slytherin, and the Sorting Hat would have surely seen that essense and responded to it. The Sorting Hat is concerned with WHAT it sees in a student, not why. The Hat would never ponder why is saw Slytherin/Voldemort in Harry any more than it would question why is saw Gryffindor in Neville. All that said, with Voldemort-essense influence, I think the Hat saw both strong Slytherin and strong Gryffindor characteristics in Harry, and while it considered Harry's plea of 'not Slytherin', I think it had more than enough information to make the same decision without Harry's request. > > Bboyminn wrote: > > I think the Sorting Hat knew well where Harry truly belong, > but it wanted to make sure Harry knew. ... > > Del replied: > > To me, when the Hat confirmed in CoS that Harry had been hard to > > place, it sure didn't sound like the Hat had known all along where > > he was going to place him. > Carol responds: > Just a reminder, as Steve (I think) has pointed out in earlier > threads, the Hat doesn't even bring up Slytherin until Harry thinks > "*Not Slytherin! Not Slytherin!*" Only then does it state that he > would do well there and ask him if he's sure, in essence offering > him the choice ... bboyminn: In my original post, I acknowledge that Harry had aspects of himself that would allow him to do well in any of the Houses. I still say that Gryffindor aspects out weighed Slytherin. But will further acknowledge that Gryffindor and Slytherin aspects were probably greater than either Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw. > Carol continues: > > I don't see this as a test but a way of making sure that this is > what Harry wants. ... bboyminn: Del brought up my use of 'test' in his post too, and also didn't favor it. I now regret having chose that word as I did not mean it in the context that others took it. I meant to 'evaluate' rather than to quiz, and I guess my own examples somewhat forced the unintended 'quiz' context. The Sorting Hat's job is to probe deep inside each student, to probe down to their core and true essense, and discover it, and with that information determine which is the appropraite House. That is the test I was referring to; we have a question, data upon which to base an answer, and the answer. > > Bboyminn wrote: > > Slytherins disregard the rules, Gryffindors know WHEN to disregard > > the rules. Those are functionally similar, both are willing to > > break the rules, but they are founded in much different > > motivations. " > > Del replied: > > I disagree. > > In PoA, for example, Harry bent the rules for his own very private > > profit when he went to Hogsmeade without authorisation. .... > Carol responds: > If Slytherin House is notable for rule-breaking, it's ironic that > Snape is the rule-enforcer in the first four books. > > ...edited... > > I'd say it's fair to state that "a certain disregard for the > rules"--not necessarily in a noble cause--is at least as much a > Gryffindor trait as a Slytherin one. > > Carol, ... bboyminn: I think Del is confusing mischief rule breaking, which I suspect is uniform among all houses, and to some extent, among all studetns, with serious rule breaking, whether based on serious intent or on the breach of serious rules. Draco frequently tries to attack Harry both physically and psychologically. Harry primarily defends himself, and Harry is unlikely to attack anyone if he's left alone. That's a big difference. True Harry sneaks out to Hogsmeade, but who would likely be hurt by that, and when we consider the quality, quantity, and potential for hurt, we must do so from the perspective of a schoolboy who wants to go to the village. From that perspective, it's unlikely that any harm could be caused; but remember that's a schoolboy perspective. Wandering around to the Prefects Bathroom, was a violation of curfew, but in all likelihood, if Harry had asked permission to work on the clue afterhours when he wouldn't be disturbed or distracted, he would have likely gotten permission. So, I don't see that as such a horrendous breach of the rules. True, he used the Inv-Cloak to sneak off to the library after hours, but who does that hurt? On the otherhand, Draco attacking Harry verbally and physically does hurt, and certainly reflects a completely different regard for rule breaking than Harry's action do. Draco's disregard for the rules are primarily to his benefit and the detriment of others. Harry rule breaking, when it really counts, is for the greater good, and to his own great potential detriment. On those lesser occassions when he breaks the rules for his own benefit, it is usually at the risk of his own detriment rather than that of others. See the difference? The key to isn't 'rules', it's the nature of 'disregard'. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 01:41:22 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:41:22 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <20050115233723.45718.qmail@web50901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122048 Hester Prinn wrote: There's been a lot of posts lately, touching on Professor Snape and accusing him of everything from incompetent teaching to out and out sadism. And while I could respond to each and every post, (thereby opening myself to a death by one thousand pin-pricks ) I thought I'd save myself some time and defend him in one fell post. (And let me state up front -- I'm not dealing with ESE!Snape or any of the popular conspiracies. I'm just taking Snape as he's been presented by JKR so far and assuming no sudden twists.) First things first, Snape is not the nicest of men. He's quick to take offense, slow to forgive, and he's got a rapier wit he's not afraid to use. Plus, he loves him his House. However, he's a damn fine teacher, brave to a fault, and quite willing... well... maybe not willing, but certainly able to put his personal feelings aside to get a job done. Alla: All right, how can I not answer this one? :o) Keep in mind, that I will be quoting a lot. First and foremost I keep asking this question all the time and I did not get the satisfactory answer yet. So, maybe you can help me out :o) Since when in order to be a good human being, you don't have to be "nice" human being? I hear this argument all the time. Snape is a good man, but he is not a nice man. You know, in my book " not nice" quite often equals "bad" in a worst sense of this word. Nora in 121315 said: "Is it proper to draw the line between methods and broader objectives for Snape, who often *does* seem intent upon causing emotional harm to the students (I'm thinking specifically Neville here, but there are other instances, oft-debated, that come to mind)? You know, the also oft-debated 'sadistic' descriptor (JKR's words, not only mine), for someone who gets enjoyment out of the discomfiture of others. I see that intention sneaks its way back into your formulations fairly quickly, which opens a whole new can of worms, the means and ends can. Rowling has opened that can with the formulation of Slytherin ethoi as "any means to achieve their ends", which has been so far implicitly condemned. .. "I think niceness is an underrated virtue, to be honest. I'm talking about the genuine article, without the connotations of fakeness that it so often carries. I would rather formulate it this way: to treat people in a way that is not nice is not a trivial thing, but rather a statement of how you regard that person and their right to subjectivity. It is not generally possible to be a *good* person without treating people well. So you can be someone who is not a good person, but still does some good things." Hester: > I can feel you itching to bring up Neville. Why oh why does Snape pick on poor Neville? On the very first day of class Neville manages to melt Seamus's cauldron, cover himself in boils and burn holes in the shoes of his fellow students. Oh and the class, she was disrupted. Neville's first impression was not a good one. And I did say that Professor Snape is not a nice man. However, Harry notes that Neville seems happy during their potions practical for the O.W.L's (ibid pg. 716). Which suggests that Neville may have actually done all right on his exam Which would suggest that despite his not so nice methods, Snape is still one heck of a teacher. Nora in 113106 said: "Snape was Neville's worst fear in PoA. Granted, Neville is tough and he seems to have gotten past some of that...but that is telling. Let me throw in a great quote here, although it doesn't completely apply. "What is moral cruelty? It is not just a matter of hurting someone's feelings. It is deliberate and persistent humiliation, so that the victim can eventually trust neither himself nor anyone else." If Neville were less tough, or had less supportive friends, I can see him turning out that way. And it's absolutely no excuse for Snape that he didn't, unless you *want* to play a strict no-harm-no-foul rule on ethics, here. I don't think any of us do, because the results across the board are unpleasant. [Pr*nk arguments, anyone? No one *actually* got hurt, right? What's the problem, then?] [I break my own rule here--I don't argue Prank threads without the evidence we're missing. But it's a good illustration of why the unknown or elusive intention needs to be factored in, not just the results.]" Hester: > ***Snape and Harry*** > > And here's where we really get down to it, because the story is told from Harry's POV. Harry has no love for Snape, and he's quite sure Snape hates him. Everything we know about Snape we learn through Harry's eyes, and the first impression, at least on the surface, is not good. Beyond the whole, "Argh! My scar!" thing that we later learn was caused by Quirrell's Vapor!Mort turban of doom, Harry's first Potions class is less than smooth. That is where Harry decides Snape hates him. But what was Snape doing there? As posited above, Snape is a good teacher. His opening speech smacks of a well rehearsed drama establishing several things at once. Snape knows his subject, and it's a cool one ("bottle fame" and "stopper death" -- what's not to love?). His students had better do their reading if they don't want to get humiliated like the first poor dumb schmuck the professor called on. And they better listen to every word he says. Note how he snaps at the class for not taking down the correct answers to the questions he asked Harry. There's no canon for this, but I wouldn't be surprised if Snape starts off his first year's class in exactly the same way, every year. > > Of course, he picked Harry to be the poor dumb schmuck this time, and I think there were several motives behind his choice. The ugly, petty motive was that Harry is the son of James. A motive I don't think Snape is above. But Harry is also a celebrity, and Hogwarts is abuzz. The students are all excited, but the teachers aren't immune either. (Witness Flitwick falling off his desk in excitement in PS on pg. 133.) Snape is establishing that Harry's fame will not get him anywhere in Snape's classroom. Harry will be judged on his potion abilities and nothing more. This particular motive is not a bad one. Snape has not met Harry yet, and I imagine there was a real worry that his fame would go to his head. Snape is nipping a potential problem in the bud. I think it's important to notice that Snape doesn't take points for Harry's ignorance. Harry talks back to Snape, and Snape takes a point away from Gryffindor, "for [his] cheek." (PS pg. 138) Alla: Forgive me, but I am now going to quote from my post 113925, because I said it quite a few times. "In regard to your next point - please, please, don't think that I am picking up on you, please feel free to disagree as much as you can, but I think that if I hear again "slapping Harry's ego down" as justification of Snape's abuse of him, I am going to bang my head against the wall. :o) Harry did not have ANY ego to be slapped down, when Snape attacked him on the first lesson. Harry did not have any ego to be slapped down, when Snape kept reminding him how bad his dead father was. Harry did not have any ego to be slapped down, when in GOF he tried to find Dumbledore to tell him about Moody and Snape kept mocking him instead, etc.,etc. Harry is being angry in OOP (and often undeservingly) was so not the equivalent of swollen ego, but normal adolescent reaction at being fed up of people keeping him in the dark, IMO." Alla wrote in 112968: I am trying to pick the strongest reason for my partial (although very strong one) dislike of Snape personality and the fact that Snape enjoys causing other human beings emotional pain comes back over and over again. I am having a lot of trouble calling such person a "good one" Hmmm. Which examples to choose?. 1. The first Potions lesson inn PS/SS was cited so many times, that I really don't want to do it again today. I may even agree with you that Potions, which Snape mentions especially putting "stopper in death" will become important at the end, but you are not saying that Snape KNEW that in PS/SS? I mean, it would be a nice foreshadowing, but what Snape got to do with it? How it makes his absolutely undeserved attack at Harry, who just been thrown out in the world unknown , looks less sadistic? 2. Then we have Snape ranting and raving about James all through PoA (you are just like your father, Potter). Since GoF is the book I reread most recently, I will quote couple scenes from there. 3. GOF, when Pansy throws at Hermione the copy of "Witch Weekly". Snape takes the magazine away from them. I can understand that. Even though Trio did not bring it to the lessons, you are not supposed to read the paper during the potions lessons, so I will pretend that Snape does not know who brought the magazine to class. I would even be able to let it pass, if Snape say took points and let it be, but he decides to read the magazine out loud. "The dungeon rang with Slytherin's laughter, and an unpleasant smile curled Snape's thin mouth. To Harry's fury, he began to read the article aloud. "Harry Potter's Secret Headache'... dear, dear, Potter, what's ailing you now? "A boy like no other, perhaps..." Harry could feel his face burning. Snape was pausing at the end of every sentence to allow the Slytherins a hearty laugh. The article sounded ten times worse when read by Snape. Even Hermione was blushing scarlet by now" - p.515, paperback, GoF 4. Harry trying to warn Dumbledore about Crouch Sr. was recently discussed and even though I don't consider it to be the example of ESE! Snape I definitely think of it as one of the best examples of Snape's sadistic nature. Here is the quote: "Mr. Crouch!" Harry shouted. "From the Ministry! He is ill or something - he is in the forest, he wants to see Dumbledore! Just give me the password up to ----" The headmaster is busy, Potter," said Snape, his thin mouth curling into unpleasant smile. "I've got to tell Dumbledore!" Harry yelled. "Didn't you hear me, Potter?" Harry could tell Snape was thoroughly enjoying himself, denying Harry the thing he wanted when he was so panicky. "Look," said Harry angrily, "Crouch isn't right --- he's --- he's out of his mind - he says he wants to warn----" - GoF, p.558, paperback. There is nothing in this scene that Harry even theoretically done wrong, he is worried about Crouch, he is scared and nervous. I am willing to assume that Snape knew that Dumbledore is in his office. What exactly stopped him from telling Harry to wait a minute and Headmaster will be here? I think nothing except Snape being Snape. Many argued that Harry is able to handle what Snape throws at him. yes, I said many times that Harry is not Neville, but why should it matter? I think Snape's intentions should matter, not Harry's strength. But, I think I posted earlier that Snape does manage to make Harry afraid of himself in OOP (to his delight, I am sure :o)). "Wondering what on earth was doing here, he jumped when Snape's cold voice came out of the corner. "Shut the door behind you, Potter." Harry did as he was told with the horrible feeling that he was imprisoning himself as he did so." -OOP, paperback, p.529 "Snape pulled out his wand from an inside pocket of his robes and Harry tensed in his chair, but Snape merely raised the wand to his temple and placed its tip into the greasy roots of his hair" - OOP, paperback, p.533. Hester: But there's another motive that Snape would have forefront in his mind. Especially with the recent Death Eater activity. Remember, Snape is not just a teacher, he's a spy. And the known top dog of the Death Eaters appears to be (and Snape would most likely know for sure - though we, the readers, don't) Lucius Malfoy. It makes a whole lot of sense for Snape to seem very anti-Harry Potter in front of Malfoy's son, Draco. In fact, it would be stupid for Snape to appear any other way. Alla: Not necessarily. In fact, I think it would make much more sense for Snape to be NICE to Harry, if he is indeed a double agent, Keep in mind that it is NOT a given that he is a spy, it is NOT a given that Voldemort does not know that Snape betrayed him, therefore I am not sure whether this motive even comes into play. Hester: Of course, Harry is too young and too naive, especially in book one, to realize any of these motives, and so he settles on the simple, "Snape hates me." I doubt Snape feels that strongly about Harry in the beginning. I think Harry frustrates the hell out of Snape, as Snape spends most of his time trying to keep Harry safe and Harry keeps stumbling into danger, but I honestly think 'hate' is too strong a word. Alla: Not sure about "hate", but pretty sure based on the above quotes in Occlumency disaster that Snape enjoys seeing Harry suffer because Snape sees James in him. Hester: > ***The Difference an OotP Makes*** > It made so much sense for Snape to up his nasty behavior towards Harry. He's supposed to appear friendly towards Voldemort's side, and he's constantly in the presence of children of known Death Eaters. The easiest way to keep up appearances is to be mean to Dumbledore's golden child, especially as Dumbledore's grip on the school is slipping. The fact that Harry so closely resembles someone Snape obviously loathed probably made Snape's job easier, but I honestly think that until Harry stuck his head into Snape's Pensieve, most of it was role-play. Once Harry did the equivalent of reading Snape's personal journal, I do think Snape was genuinely furious with Harry. Alla: Hmmm. Oscarwinning!Snape... I am sorry, I am not buying. First and foremost because I am not sure that Snape ever returned to Voldemort. I think that he either does something we don't suspect yet. or spies by unconventional methods, which have nothing to do with returning to Voldemort. JMO, of course. Hester: And frankly, Snape's anger was understandable. Throughout the Occlumency lessons, Harry's behavior was pretty bad, and he was obviously not trying. I know this has been debated 'til the cows come home, but barring any ulterior motive not yet revealed, Snape was trying to teach the boy, and the boy was unwilling to learn. Snape was endangering his role by spending private time with Harry, and Harry was basically making Snape's risk meaningless. Alla: This was indeed debated many times, but I would say that Harry's anger was understandable. And NO, we don't know whether Snape was willing to teach the boy, or Dumbledore simply forced him to do so. And I certainly would not call what Snape did "teaching", but more like falling into hysterics and insults, every time Harry did something he did not like. Hester: > Much has been made of the final interaction between Snape and Harry. How could Snape be so mean and cruel as to actually uphold the rules of Hogwarts by disciplining a student that admitted to trying to curse another student? Put aside the fact that Snape was actually fairly mild in his treatment of Harry. HE. IS. A. SPY!!! Harry was attempting to curse Draco Malfoy. Only a great fool would have done nothing out of sympathy towards Harry and once again risk exposure. Snape, no matter what you think of him, is no fool. Alla: NO, we DON'T KNOW for sure that he is spy. Hester: So that's my defense of Snape. Every school has its scary teacher and every war has its spies. Snape fulfills both roles with singular style. I hope that by series end, Harry finally realizes, and the readers are finally shown, just how good a man Snape (the greasy, snarking, bastard) really is. Alla in 113962 said: I DON'T think that Snape is motivated by sheer cruelty as to all his actions, or at least I HOPE he is NOT. I even hope that Snape had some noble (or at least close to noble) reasons for leaving Voldemort. But I definitely think that cruelty is one of his motivations in regard to Harry and I don't see how one contradicts another. I am not saying that Snape is JUST a nasty man who hates kids and can't tell Harry from James, but I am definitely saying that he IS a nasty man who hates kids and can't tell Harry from James, in addition to that character quality, he , IMO has many other qualities, some of which I like very much. Of course, he may turn out to be totally different kind of person at the end, you know, decent and noble, but he may also turn out to be worse than I imagine him to be - you know, traitor and ESE! after all. Too bad we don't know what Snape is thinking. :o)" Please forgive me for quoting so much and I hope Nora doesn't mind that I brought her posts into mine again. :o) Just my opinion, Alla From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Sat Jan 15 23:33:58 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:33:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050115233358.73985.qmail@web61201.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122049 > Renee: I rather see him confess his wrongdoings and shortcomings on several occasions. >Pippin: Only when speaking to Sirius and the trio, never to anyone who has the power to punish him. Arynn's answer: That would seem like a private conversation, and since we always see everything from Harry's point of view, we wouldn't know if that conversation HAD taken place. I'm assuming that that was all covered when Lupin told Dumbledore that he resigned. Mabey that's just me:) --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 02:14:41 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 02:14:41 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122050 >>Betsy: >Everything in the books points to Snape having complete control over his classroom: they silently listen to every word he says. He gets a maximum of information pounded into his students' heads: his students not only pass their O.W.L's, but do so at a high level. And he even pushes his students to a level of study beyond Ministry standards (which, granted, may be low, but still, Snape is taking his students above and beyond). All of those things combined make for one kick- ass teacher. >Though he is scary. Scary and strict tend to go hand in hand. After all, the students (and this includes Harry and Ron) are nervous enough around McGonagall. Scary and strict does not mean bad teacher.< >>Geoff: >I speak as a teacher with 32 years experience of teaching mainly Maths and Computing. >I had a similar control to Snape. I could walk into my class and quieten them down without saying a word. But I also based my teaching on two principles: Be firm but fair, and never ask a student to do anything I would not do myself. Judging by the number of contacts I still have with old students, this theory worked pretty well. >Snape used methods to pull the rug from under Harry in ways which were calculated to make him look small and foolish.... > >'Snape, like Flitwick, started the class by taking the register and, like Flitwick, he paused at Harry's name. "Ah, yes," he said quietly, "Harry Potter. Our new - /celebrity/."Draco Malfoy and his friends Crabbe and Goyle sniggered behind their hands.' >)PS "The Potions Master" pp.101/02 UK edition) > >Why say anything at all? The easiest thing with someone you might think had a big head or an inflated opinion of themselves would be to not acknowledge anything beyond them answering their name. > >'"Potter!" said Snape suddenly. "What would I get if I added powdered root of asphodel to an infusion of wormwood?" >Powdered root of what to an infusion of what? Harry glanced at Ron who looked as stumped as he was; Hermione's hand had shot into the air. >"I don't know, sir" said Harry. >Snape's lips curled into a sneer. >"Tut, tut - fame clearly isn't everything." >He ignored Hermione's hand. >"Let's try again. Potter, where would you look if I asked you to find me a bezoar?" Hermione stretched her hand as high into the air as it would go without her leaving her seat but Harry didn't have the faintest idea what a bezoar was. He tried not to look at Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle who were shaking with laughter. >"I don't know, sir." >"Thought you wouldn't open a book before coming, eh, Potter?"' >(ibid. p.102) > >Harry has answered his questions politely and waht does he get? Sneering and sarcasm which was completely uncalled for. What sort of encouragment is this to a boy in his first class to take an interest in this subject? I have a next door neighbour who is continually in conflict with his teenage son and always criticises him; he never finds anything to praise him - there is always something wrong. Result - the boy is underachieving and has a low self-esteem. This is the foundation that Snape is laying.< Betsy: But Snape is not Harry's father. Harry doesn't even have class with him everyday. And I haven't seen anything that suggests Harry is suffering from low self-esteem, let alone that he's an underachiever. In fact, he's does try and do well at Potions, just so Snape will have little to criticize him over. (Frankly, I think Neville suffers more under Snape than Harry does.) But most importantly, Snape was not just trying to teach in the first class. He does pick on Harry excessively much, but I think part of the reason is to make the correct impression on Draco Malfoy. Snape is a spy. It's imperative that he sets himself up as someone who loaths Harry Potter. And he does so, beautifully. (I won't deny that Snape may have gotten a certain enjoyment in watching a stand-in for James Potter squirm. Snape can be petty.) >>Geoff: >Fear is not a way to establish a satisfactory working relationship with a class. Harry was not being cheeky; he spoke quietly and was trying to get Snape to look at Hermione - and also get him off his back. In the later incident, the blame should have been apportioned between Seamus and Neville who were the "team". I expect if Harry and Ron had tried to help these two, Snape would have bounced them for interfering. They were on a hiding to nothing.< Betsy: Oh, I agree that Snape was setting Harry up for failure. I just think there was a reason for the behavior as I state above. Though I will argue that there was a bit of cheek in Harry's final response to Snape. I'm sure Snape was well aware that Hermione was raising her hand, he didn't need Harry to point this out to him. And the class did chuckle a bit, which would not please Snape at all. (As to Neville and Seamus - it's interesting that Harry agreed with Snape's assessment: Neville melted the cauldron.) >>Geoff: >Like Harry I started at a new school when I was 11. We had a woodwork teacher who revelled in sarcasm and constant criticism. I was keen to learn and was considered a bit of a swot at that age but I, like everyone else in the class, hated the teacher's guts. I can see that beginning to show in Harry at the end of the last quote. >I agree that Snape know his potions extremely well; it's his social skills which are lacking. >You can control your class and be strict either by being scary or by showing the class that you are also on their side and that the whole thing is a team effort. I know which one I found successful over those 32 years.< Betsy: I do agree that being terrifying is not the *best* way to teach. I think JKR does a great job at showing various teaching methods, and probably the best teacher she's shown so far is Lupin - in my opinion, anyway. He keeps his class engaged, gets the information across, and the students love him (at least as far as we've seen). But regardless, Snape is a good teacher. And he's a familar type. Probably most folks have a "scary" teacher story. When I was in 4th grade my teacher was so terrifying I had intense stomach pains every morning before heading to school. Snape is cut from the same cloth as she was. Interestingly enough, I look back on her somewhat fondly. Wouldn't want to be in her class again, but she taught me a lot. I'm not trying to argue that Snape is the best teacher at Hogwarts, but he is one of the better ones. Betsy, who'd like to be a "Lupin" if she were a teacher, but is afraid she'd actually be a "Hagrid". From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 02:49:13 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 02:49:13 -0000 Subject: Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122051 To respond to ALL of the post about Snape: 1. I think it is possible for someone to be a good person (not evil) and still an unpleasant person to be around. It is also possible to be an evil person and have everyone like you. A very smart psychopath can pull that off. So I think that being good or evil is the state of ones soul, while being nice or nasty is a behavioral thing. A fully developed mentally healthy person would be both good and nice. There are not too many of those people around. Most of us are flawed in one way or another. Even otherwise good and nice people do nasty things at times. 2. As to Erickson's developmental stages and Snape. You are assuming that the man we saw in the pensive was Snape's father, but we do not know that. But let's assume that whoever the man was that he was a father like figure during Snape's early development. Now I want to say here that just because the man was verbally and emotionally abusive does not automatically imply that he was also physically abusive. So we can not say that Snape was physically abused with any certainty. We will assume that he was indeed emotionally abused. And it is this emotional abuse that has prevented Snape from becoming a fully emotionally mature adult. I think there is evidence that Snape is very intelligent. Like many emotionally abused children he may retreat into books instead of interacting with other people. Snape's social skills are sadly lacking, as he apparently has not had good role models in this area. He has learned to turn off his emotions. He also has an internalized *bad parent* which comes out to play when he interacts with his students. I don't think that he can help that. Perhaps his learning occumency was a way of trying to block that part of himself, or to protect his true self from internal abuse by the internalized bad parent. There does not seem to be any mental health clinics in the WW. I suspect their approach to any form of mental illness however mild or sever is the same as the rest of the world up to the middle of the 20th century. That is to basically ignore it unless the person becomes a danger to society. So I do think that we, who are both good and kind, should cut Snape a little slack. He has had a rough life, he has made his mistakes (the full cost of which we do not know), and we need to have some compassion. Yes, even with the nasty bastard himself. If DD says that Snape is OK, I trust DD's judgment. Therefore Snape is a good person, a forgiven person with his scars still so visible to us all. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 03:01:02 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:01:02 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122052 Tonks: 1. I think it is possible for someone to be a good person (not evil) and still an unpleasant person to be around. It is also possible to be an evil person and have everyone like you. A very smart psychopath can pull that off. So I think that being good or evil is the state of ones soul, while being nice or nasty is a behavioral thing. A fully developed mentally healthy person would be both good and nice. There are not too many of those people around. Most of us are flawed in one way or another. Even otherwise good and nice people do nasty things at times. Alla: Thank you, Tonks. You helped me understand VERY important thing. If Snape defenders indeed use word "nice" as "pleasant person to be around", then YES it is indeed possible to be a good person and unpleasant person to be around, BUT I apply word nice as more than "pleasant person to be around", but indeed as general attitude to human beings around oneself. I maintain that Snape is guilty of significantly worse atttitude towards human beings around him (who may I add cannot really defend themselves from his abuse) than just "unpleasantness". Tonks: So I do think that we, who are both good and kind, should cut Snape a little slack. He has had a rough life, he has made his mistakes (the full cost of which we do not know), and we need to have some compassion. Yes, even with the nasty bastard himself. If DD says that Snape is OK, I trust DD's judgment. Therefore Snape is a good person, a forgiven person with his scars still so visible to us all. Alla: Well, it is good that you trust Dumbledore still. I don't trust him as good judge of character anymore. He misjudged people way to many times for my liking. Who is to say that he is not mistaken with Snape? But, I do want Snape to be redeemed at the end, I just don't think that he is YET. Just my opinion, Alla From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 03:57:43 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:57:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Runes References: Message-ID: <025401c4fb7f$887e1840$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122053 Geoff: The "religious right", which I think is more noticeable in the US than the UK represents the ultra-evangelical group who have campaigned against Harry Potter because of perceived witchcraft and black magic which I would object too as well if I thought that was the intent of JKR. It should be remembered that "acceptable" writers such as Tolkien and Lewis also make use of magic in a similar way. charme: First, thank you so much for your reply and explaining it - I hestitated before sending the original reply as I didn't want to offend anyone, nor do I wish to offend, annoy or provoke with my comments below. To the point of Lewis specifically and having re-read the Chronicles of Narnia recently, I was totally surprised any of the people whom I know to be "ultra conservative" or avowed members of the religious right (I know a few) thought of him as an acceptable Christian writer at all! What's even weirder is some of the same aforementioned acquaintances *disagree* on who is acceptable: most can stomach Lewis, but not Tolkien and definitely not JKR and Harry Potter. (I'm sure you hear the "whoooop" "whooop" of the soapbox siren - yep, that's me about to get on) This might sound testy and I don't mean it to at all (I repeat: I don't mean it to), but whether JKR means to provide a perception of witchcraft or black magic to me is irrelevant, because 1)this is a fictional story and 2)what she says isn't going to mean jack to what I believe spiritually. To me, so what f the religious right campaigns against HP and JKR? HP is entertainment, not fact, to me and the "religious right" has no right to tell me what I can't or cannot corrupt myself and my imagination with :) Take yourself for example: I'm sure you're a nice guy and mighty respectable, but if you objected to what I like to read, I'd hear you but I wouldn't listen, if that makes sense? There also are probably a lot of people who believe the same thing: millions of Potter fans and books sold can speak volumes. (Pardon the pun :)) Geoff: After all, Tolkien uses a runic script for the dwarves and Sindarin Elves. Then there are the runes which we have been discussing - runes of power - which do leave me wondering where they fit in our interpretation of good and bad magic. charme: I'm not sure about the these runes being depicted as runes of power, and mind you, I had *no idea* that runes were such a sticky wicket for some people. I thought that kind of concern was strictly relegated to the Oujia board so I was suprised to see the postings. To me, I think the way JKR incorporates them is indicative of comphrehension (to your point about written communication) of them rather than occult: we know about them as a subject, and then we also know about them as the writings on the Pensieve, I think. All to me possibly indicative of a language which wizards at one time may have used, maybe the way the Egyptians used glyphs. (JKR loves linguistics, doesn't she?) IMO, this is supported by JKR's own statements that the shape isn't the most important aspect, and I interpret this to mean that what the scar does for Harry and fact he has it rather than how it's shaped will be the important point in his having it at all. The first thing we know in the books is Harry's identified by his scar, then we discover the notion Harry's scar (via what happened to him at GH) could function as sort of an "alarm bell" for him as Fudge coined his question to DD about it. Then we find out why Harry got the scar in OoP per the prophecy - DD (who is the voice of JKR in a sense) seems to perceive that it symbolically marks Harry as LV's equal and the person to whom the prophecy describes. Identification yet again of who and what Harry is. Geoff: There is also the fact that in the long series of Rosicrucian posts, Hans has, on occasion, used portions of the Old and New Testaments in a way which I believe to be out of context with the intention of Jesus or the quoted writer There are also cycles of perception as to who is driving the "spiritual" side in interpreting the world of Harry. charme: Oh, I can't agree more about the spiritual interpretations. My oh my, there are a plenty, aren't there? This is the beauty of the written word: Bible or literature, each person has to decide what it means to him or her. It's the same about religion for each individual, isn't it? Otherwise, there wouldn't be as many religions nor denominations in Christianity. It's amusing to me that so much is made of the "spiritual" interpretations by the groups you rightly identified simply because it progresses from interpretation to religious mantra for some when there are far other more pressing events in the world to devote positive energy towards. I often think the same people need reminding this (HP) is a series of fiction, not a way of life. To each his own :) With that said, I personally don't strive to associate the books one way or the other with Christianity, the Bible, religion, creed or mantra. I now need to take myself off to bed. I don't usually find myself thinking deep thoughts at 01:25! charme: Again Geoff, many thanks for taking the time! Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/hbfile.html Please use accurate subject headings and snip unnecessary material from posts to which you're replying! Yahoo! Groups Links From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 04:03:45 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:03:45 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122054 I really hate to get into a Snape debate on his teaching methods but it is too compelling, can't help myself. First off Snape is not only a teacher but is also a spy, this can cause conflict in what Snape normally would have seen as a proper teaching method. Not only does Snape need to cross over between the spy and the teacher but also the fact of his appearance and eventually, at least to Harry, a former death-eater status. That's quite a performer who can take on such a work load and still manage to produce the most lament students to do well on their OWLS, at least the exams appear to have gone well for both Harry and Neville. Snape the spy is teaching class in front of death-eaters sons, would it not be wise for Snape to appear to be of Slytherin like tendency? Does Snape really have a choice not to be more than rude in front of his former colleagues sons? It does sell the point to them at the very least, which is very good if Snape wants to remain as the rest of his former colleagues have done; which is to appear to take up residence on the side of good. The next controversy is how far Snape goes with his appeared hatred for Harry or Neville. This position has always been of debate but you really need to remember that Snape is a sufficient Legilemence and can see who his students are and how far he can push them; namely Harry and Neville. Snape has already told us by way of telling Sirius in the beginning of the Occlumency Chapter of OOP, that he knows who Harry is and how much physiological punishment he can take: "But surely you have noticed that Potter is very like his father?" "Yes, I have," said Sirius proudly. "Well then, you'll know he's so arrogant that criticism simply bounces off him," Snape said sleekly. Snape knows how far he can push Harry or even Neville because he knows who they are through his legilemency powers. Take Neville he appears to be afraid but, as it all turns out, we see at the end of OOP that Neville has superior bravery. Snape could see this and knows that he can push Neville beyond his apparent limits. Snape has to maintain a status of appearing to be a death-eater and also a reformed death-eater and also teach lessons that may not always pertain to potions class. Then we get into the aspect of whether or not Snape is actually attempting to play the good side or not. I will defiantly admit to being a fence sitter on this one, which does not denounce what I have said above. Whether Snape is good or evil he still needs to play the part, this is why there have been more posts created on Snape than on Harry, or else one or the other will suspect him. No one can be accurately certain that Snape is good or evil, which is what makes him a great character! I do have a proposition as to why Snape came back to the side of the good. (Most likely has been done before with an acronym ta boot) This proposal concerns the mysterious life debt. What do we know about the life debt policy? It's a magical contact of sorts but we don't know for certain what it entails. Does the life debt make a person save the other party beyond their control to do so, if so did Snape come back to the side of good of his free will or was he empowered to come back, which caused him to leave Voldemort unwillingly? With Voldemort leaving is still leaving so Dumbledore can ascertain that Snape is no more a death-eater than I am because Snape can't go back. If Snape is bound by a life debt contract to James then Snape had to relinquish his former ways against his will. Let's take Pettigrew for an example of the life debt, Harry saved him and thus Pettigrew was bound to the life debt. Dumbledore does not appear to be the least bit concerned over Pettigrew's escape to Voldemort via the life debt (almost like he had a gleam in his eye) after the Shrieking Shack incident in POA. Then Dumbledore reacts quickly when Harry initially tells DD that Pettigrew drew blood in the graveyard but calms down instantly when he examines the area that the blood had been drawn from. Dumbledore has told Harry that Voldemort would not want a servant who is indebted to a life debt: "Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them " Pettigrew, in the instance of taking Harry's blood, saved Harry's life. Pettigrew didn't mutilate Harry or kill Harry for his blood. Is Pettigrew still indebted according to the life debt contract? I realize I strayed from the contents of the post but it does apply ? Snow From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Jan 16 04:28:48 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:28:48 -0000 Subject: Runes In-Reply-To: <025401c4fb7f$887e1840$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122055 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" wrote: > Geoff: > After all, Tolkien uses a runic script for the > dwarves and Sindarin Elves. Then there are the runes which we have > been discussing - runes of power - which do leave me wondering where > they fit in our interpretation of good and bad magic. > > charme: > > I'm not sure about the these runes being depicted as runes of power, and > mind you I'm not convinced that Runes will prove to be a particularly significant plot point in JKR - we haven't even met the professor who teaches the topic! The main narrative purpose of the runes thus far is to reinforce our perception of Hermione's braininess - and to contrast it with Ron and Harry's heartfelt desire to stay as far away as possible from so challenging an academic area (they'll stick with Divination, which they believe they can BS their way through). Books six and seven could prove me wrong, but so far I see this as very incidental to the plot. - CMC (political right, religious center) From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 04:47:23 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 04:47:23 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122056 vmonte: I couldn't help reading some of the previous Snape posts without adding some of JKR's documented comments about him. JKR: You always see a lot of Snape, because he is a gift of a character. I hesitate to say that I love him. [Audience member: I do]. You do? This is a very worrying thing. Are you thinking about Alan Rickman or about Snape? [Laughter]. Isn't this life, though? I make this hero?Harry, obviously?and there he is on the screen, the perfect Harry, because Dan is very much as I imagine Harry, but who does every girl under the age of 15 fall in love with? Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy. Girls, stop going for the bad guy. Go for a nice man in the first place. It took me 35 years to learn that, but I am giving you that nugget free, right now, at the beginning of your love lives. Snape's ancestry is hinted at. He was a Death Eater, so clearly he is no Muggle born, because Muggle borns are not allowed to be Death Eaters, except in rare circumstances. You have some information about his ancestry there. He can see Thestrals, but in my imagination most of the older people at Hogwarts would be able to see them because, obviously, as you go through life you do lose people and understand what death is. But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen things that Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this. Again, it's bad boy syndrome, isn't it? It's very depressing. [Laughter]. One of my best friends watched the film and she said, "You know who's really attractive?" I said, "Who?" She said, "Lucius Malfoy!" [EBF-04] Alla wrote: I hear this argument all the time. Snape is a good man, but he is not a nice man. You know, in my book " not nice" quite often equals "bad" in a worst sense of this word. vmonte responds: I agree. He was a Death Eater. And we are going to find out some pretty nasty things about his past. Hester wrote: I can feel you itching to bring up Neville. Why oh why does Snape pick on poor Neville? On the very first day of class Neville manages to melt Seamus's cauldron, cover himself in boils and burn holes in the shoes of his fellow students. Oh and the class, she was disrupted. Neville's first impression was not a good one. And I did say that Professor Snape is not a nice man. However, Harry notes that Neville seems happy during their potions practical for the O.W.L's (ibid pg. 716). Which suggests that Neville may have actually done all right on his exam Which would suggest that despite his not so nice methods, Snape is still one heck of a teacher. >From [Y-00] 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...horrible teachers like Snape are one of them! [Y-00] vmonte responds: Snape is a horrible teacher. Hester wrote: ***Snape and Harry*** And here's where we really get down to it, because the story is told from Harry's POV. Harry has no love for Snape, and he's quite sure Snape hates him. Everything we know about Snape we learn through Harry's eyes, and the first impression, at least on the surface, is not good. Beyond the whole, "Argh! My scar!" thing that we later learn was caused by Quirrell's Vapor!Mort turban of doom, Harry's first Potions class is less than smooth. That is where Harry decides Snape hates him. What about Snape? JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all. However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say that because there is more to him than meets the eye and you will find out part of what I am talking about if you read Book 4. [WBUR-99] SF: Hmm. Now Snape, we talked a little about him before. There's something about the letter S isn't there? JKR: Yes there is SF: Especially with an N in with it. You can't help saying it without snarling JKR: I could have very easily have called him Snicket but Snicket is a funier, kinder word SF: And sneeze and sneer and Snape and JKR: And snarl JKR: Yeees. You shouldn't think he's too nice, let me just say that. SF: Right I shall bear that in mind. Worth watching Serverus Snape JKR: He's worth keeping and eye on, definitely [RAH-03] vmonte responds: I'm not sure that Snape is going to turn out to be good in the end. Hester: snip Of course, he picked Harry to be the poor dumb schmuck this time, and I think there were several motives behind his choice. The ugly, petty motive was that Harry is the son of James. A motive I don't think Snape is above. But Harry is also a celebrity, and Hogwarts is abuzz. The students are all excited, but the teachers aren't immune either. Snape is establishing that Harry's fame will not get him anywhere in Snape's classroom. Harry will be judged on his potion abilities and nothing more. This particular motive is not a bad one. Snape has not met Harry yet, and I imagine there was a real worry that his fame would go to his head. Snape is nipping a potential problem in the bud. I think it's important to notice that Snape doesn't take points for Harry's ignorance. Harry talks back to Snape, and Snape takes a point away from Gryffindor, "for [his] cheek." (PS pg. 138) Alan Rickman: Well he's Professor of Potions and the current head of Slytherin House at Hogwarts - the school of wizardry that Harry attends, but he harbours a secret ambition to be a Professor of the Dark Arts. He isn't that taken with Harry though, probably because he finds him a little too popular for a first year pupil I suppose. I think at heart Snape is basically quite an insecure person, he's always longing to be something else that people will really respect like a black magician not just a school master. That's why he envies the more popular and successful boys like Harry. He does have his positive side though even though Harry's a thorn in his side he doesn't let it worry him too much. [UNREEL] vmonte: Mr. Rickman was given information about Snape by JKR. If he thinks that Snape is insecure and envious of the more popular boys (James, Harry), well I'm going to believe him. After all, fame and glory are both mentioned in his opening speech. Seems like he is still looking for the attention he did not receive as a child (penseive scene). Alla wrote: Harry did not have ANY ego to be slapped down, when Snape attacked him on the first lesson. Harry did not have any ego to be slapped down, when Snape kept reminding him how bad his dead father was. vmonte: I agree. Snape is jealous of Harry's celebrity. Alla: I am trying to pick the strongest reason for my partial (although very strong one) dislike of Snape personality and the fact that Snape enjoys causing other human beings emotional pain comes back over and over again. JKR: It's fun to write about Snape because he's a deeply horrible person [FE-99]. And.. JL: Prof Snape has always wanted to be the defense against the dark arts teacher. In book 5 he still doesn't get the job Why does Professor Dumbledore not allow him to be the defense against the dark arts teacher? SF: There JKR: That is an excellent question and the reason is that, I have to be careful what I say here, the reason is that to answer it fully would give and awful lot away about the remaining two books but when Professor Dumbledore took Professor Snape on to the staff and Professor Snape said I'd like to teach defense against the darks arts please and Professor Dumbledore felt that that might bring out the worst in Professor Snape. Somewhat JKR: So he said I think we'll let you teach potions and see how you get along there. [RAH-03]. vmonte responds: There is no way I would let a professor with sadistic tendencies teach a DADA class. Would you hire an alcoholic as a bartender? Hester: Of course, Harry is too young and too naive, especially in book one, to realize any of these motives, and so he settles on the simple, "Snape hates me." I doubt Snape feels that strongly about Harry in the beginning. I think Harry frustrates the hell out of Snape, as Snape spends most of his time trying to keep Harry safe and Harry keeps stumbling into danger, but I honestly think 'hate' is too strong a word. vmonte: I'm not sure he hates Harry either. Maybe it's more like fear. http://www.madamscoop.org/bytheme.htm#snape From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 04:51:53 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:51:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Runes References: Message-ID: <027d01c4fb87$19d93ac0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122057 > Tonks here: > > I will let Geoff answer for himself. From my point of view, runes > are a form of divination and represent the occult more than the rest > of the HP books do. Yes, I know it is part of the magic world, but > so is Necromancy (a dark art) and she doesn't put that in the books. > I think she is careful what she calls attention to. Some things like > divination she down plays and devalues. So I think the XC's who > oppose the HP books on the grounds of it being real witchcraft > (=evil to them) will see this as proof. > > Tonks_op >CMC said: > I'm not convinced that Runes will prove to be a particularly > significant plot point in JKR - we haven't even met the professor who > teaches the topic! The main narrative purpose of the runes thus far > is to reinforce our perception of Hermione's braininess - and to > contrast it with Ron and Harry's heartfelt desire to stay as far away > as possible from so challenging an academic area (they'll stick with > Divination, which they believe they can BS their way through). Books > six and seven could prove me wrong, but so far I see this as very > incidental to the plot. > > > - CMC (political right, religious center) charme: Another way to look at runes is the definition linguistically: they were an alphabet (albeit ancient) for Northern Europe at one time. I also think that's the way Hermoine (who I perceive not to trust divination per her experiences with Trelawney) studies them at Hogwarts. As CMC points out, the runes course probably would takes some brains. Tonks, would this still affect your point of view (runes as an ancient language in HP) if that were the way it's included? From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 05:50:51 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 00:50:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape References: Message-ID: <02ba01c4fb8f$56c431d0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122058 > Alla: > > > > I maintain that Snape is guilty of significantly worse atttitude > towards human beings around him (who may I add cannot really defend > themselves from his abuse) than just "unpleasantness". charme: You know, I was thinking about the "nice" thing and I have to say the only person I think whom we actively see Snape "nice" to is Prof McGonagall when he almost "sounds" delighted that she's been released from St Mungo's in OoP. I don't count how he treats Malfoy (it seems direct and neutral for the most part, even when dishing out punishment unfairly towards Harry and crew where Malfoy's antics are concerned.) He isn't "nice" to DD that way - very businesslike and sometimes curt, if you don't count his yelling pretty angrily at DD about Sirius towards the end of PoA. No, Snape is far from nice a great majority of the time under that model to me. > > Tonks: > > So I do think that we, who are both good and kind, should cut Snape > a little slack. He has had a rough life, he has made his mistakes > (the full cost of which we do not know), and we need to have some > compassion. Yes, even with the nasty bastard himself. If DD says > that Snape is OK, I trust DD's judgment. Therefore Snape is a good > person, a forgiven person with his scars still so visible to us all. charme: Where do we know Snape has had a rough life unless we're basing it on the Penseive scenes in OoP? 3 or 4 memories does not a childhood make, methinks. We don't know yet what all else Snape has experienced, what he chose to do willingly and if he knew the full ramification of his actions (which with as smart as he is supposed to be, one would think he probably did?) For me, it's too early for compassion or forgiveness, although I'd dearly love to be wrong since I am a Snape fan through and through. > > Alla: > > Well, it is good that you trust Dumbledore still. I don't trust him > as good judge of character anymore. He misjudged people way to many > times for my liking. > > Who is to say that he is not mistaken with Snape? > > But, I do want Snape to be redeemed at the end, I just don't think > that he is YET. charme, I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw the last several Snape missives posted in the last 48 hours. Maybe it's me, but I recall Snape is very skilled at Occulmency, so much so that I think we're supposed to believe he has fooled LV! Why then couldn't he hide his feelings and true nature from DD, too? DD says in OoP when getting the truth out of Kreacher that he himself is "sufficiently skilled" as a Legilimens - how much skill is that, I wonder? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 05:55:36 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 05:55:36 -0000 Subject: Runes In-Reply-To: <027d01c4fb87$19d93ac0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122059 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" wrote: > charme: > > Another way to look at runes is the definition linguistically: they were an alphabet (albeit ancient) for Northern Europe at one time. I also think that's the way Hermoine (who I perceive not to trust divination per her experiences with Trelawney) studies them at Hogwarts. As CMC points out, the runes course probably would takes some brains. > > Tonks, would this still affect your point of view (runes as an ancient language in HP) if that were the way it's included? Tonks replies: Well, of course, I am talking about a group of people who don't read the books anyway, so I don't think they are going to take the time to sort that out. And as you say the rest of us don't care what they think anyway. Except that their strong objections to the books keep other people from reading them, and I think there are important teaching in the books that everyone, especially children, should read. This discussion has inspired me to find out more about runes, and all the ways that they are used. Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 06:11:15 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:11:15 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122060 >> Hester Prinn wrote: (Actually - it was Betsy/Horridporrid. I sent this post from a different source using my SuperSeekrit Name by mistake. Sorry!) >First things first, Snape is not the nicest of men.< >>Alla: >All right, how can I not answer this one? :o) Keep in mind, that I will be quoting a lot. >First and foremost I keep asking this question all the time and I did not get the satisfactory answer yet. >So, maybe you can help me out :o) >Since when in order to be a good human being, you don't have to be "nice" human being?< Betsy: Okay, I'll see what I can do. :) "Nice" is a behavior word. It's being polite, making sure others are comfortable, writing thank you letters, showing sympathy to another's suffering. Whereas "Good" refers to a core set of beliefs. It's what motivates someone to put aside their own comfort to make life better for humanity. For example: When Crouch!Moody takes Neville aside after the Unforgivables class to make sure he's okay, and to buck him up a bit, Crouch!Moody was being "nice". But since Crouch!Moody had a hand in Neville's personal experience with the horror of Crucio and probably would Crucio Neville without blinking an eye, Crouch!Moody is not "Good". So Snape is not "nice" to Harry in the books, but he does try and assist in Voldemort's downfall and keep Harry alive. In that way Snape is "good". (Unless, of course, he's ESE!Snape - in which case he's not "good" at all. But that's a whole other ball of wax. ) Generally, folks that are nice are also good. But there are plenty of examples of not so nice folks who are still good -- the surly surgeon who joins Doctors without Borders to pick one. And usually someone who is not good is also not nice. But it's almost a cliche now that when a serial killer is captured, his neighbors say, "But he was such a nice man!" >>Alla: >I hear this argument all the time. Snape is a good man, but he is not a nice man. You know, in my book " not nice" quite often equals "bad" in a worst sense of this word.< Betsy: And usually this is so. Thank goodness life is generally more straightforward than epic fiction. :) But we like a bit of excitement in our fiction, and the "good" man who is not "nice" generally makes for a more interesting read. I think it's the whole Superman vs. Batman argument. How dark do you want your hero to be? Snape is dark. But that doesn't mean he's bad. >>Nora in 121315 said: >Is it proper to draw the line between methods and broader objectives for Snape, who often *does* seem intent upon causing emotional harm to the students (I'm thinking specifically Neville here, but there are other instances, oft-debated, that come to mind)? You know, the also oft-debated 'sadistic' descriptor (JKR's words, not only mine), for someone who gets enjoyment out of the discomfiture of others. Betsy: Hmmm. I was using the definition of sadism as someone who gets pleasure out of another's *pain*. (I think someone had suggested that Snape would be all over corporal punishment.) I do think Snape enjoys being feared, but I don't think he's trying to break Neville. (Which is good, because he doesn't. Break Neville, I mean.) I think he's got a very sharp wit, and he enjoys using it. I think he does *not* suffer fools. At all. And Neville (though I love him) is a bit of a fool. I think Snape spends very little time thinking about his students' emotional well-being. Whether building it up, or tearing it down. What he does think about is teaching them Potions and he has his methods. (I am not including Harry in this - he's a special case.) >>Nora (same message as above): >I think niceness is an underrated virtue, to be honest. I'm talking about the genuine article, without the connotations of fakeness that it so often carries. I would rather formulate it this way: to treat people in a way that is not nice is not a trivial thing, but rather a statement of how you regard that person and their right to subjectivity. It is not generally possible to be a *good* person without treating people well. >So you can be someone who is not a good person, but still does some good things.< Betsy: Nice can be good. But I live in the SouthEast of the United States (where "nice" can be used as an aggressive weapon) and I come from the NorthEast (where rudeness can be a finely honed skill and a weird sign of affection). Social skills are a good thing to have, but they're no guarantee of a person's depths of goodness. Just as another point of view. >>Nora in 113106 said: >Snape was Neville's worst fear in PoA. Granted, Neville is tough and he seems to have gotten past some of that...but that is telling. Let me throw in a great quote here, although it doesn't completely apply. >"What is moral cruelty? It is not just a matter of hurting someone's feelings. It is deliberate and persistent humiliation, so that the victim can eventually trust neither himself nor anyone else." >If Neville were less tough, or had less supportive friends, I can see him turning out that way. And it's absolutely no excuse for Snape that he didn't, unless you *want* to play a strict no-harm-no-foul rule on ethics, here.< Betsy: Snape is a scary teacher. I don't deny that. He's not nice to Neville. I don't deny that either. I'm afraid I'm going to sound fairly heartless here, but Snape is not responsible for Neville's emotional well-being. He is responsible for teaching Neville Potions, which he does. Frankly, the fact that Snape is Neville's worst fear suggests that Neville leads a fairly nice life. >>Betsy: >But Harry is also a celebrity, and Hogwarts is abuzz. The students are all excited, but the teachers aren't immune either. (Witness Flitwick falling off his desk in excitement in PS on pg. 133.) Snape is establishing that Harry's fame will not get him anywhere in Snape's classroom. Harry will be judged on his potion abilities and nothing more. This particular motive is not a bad one. Snape has not met Harry yet, and I imagine there was a real worry that his fame would go to his head. Snape is nipping a potential problem in the bud.< >>Alla: >Forgive me, but I am now going to quote from my post 113925, because I said it quite a few times. >"In regard to your next point - please, please, don't think that I am picking up on you, please feel free to disagree as much as you can, but I think that if I hear again "slapping Harry's ego down" as justification of Snape's abuse of him, I am going to bang my head against the wall. :o) >Harry did not have ANY ego to be slapped down, when Snape attacked him on the first lesson. >Harry did not have any ego to be slapped down, when Snape kept reminding him how bad his dead father was. >Harry did not have any ego to be slapped down, when in GOF he tried to find Dumbledore to tell him about Moody and Snape kept mocking him instead, etc.,etc. >Harry is being angry in OOP (and often undeservingly) was so not the equivalent of swollen ego, but normal adolescent reaction at being fed up of people keeping him in the dark, IMO."< Betsy: First of all, I wasn't talking about Harry's ego or lack of ego. I'm talking about what may have been motivating Snape. Snape had not yet interacted with Harry, but he would be aware of how students and staff were looking at Harry. Later on, I think Snape *is* worried that Harry will get too big for his britches. He knew his father after all, and James was an arrogant boy (not a bad boy necessarily, but an arrogant one). We, the readers, know Harry doesn't have an overblown ego, but Snape is not privy to Harry's inner thoughts. Instead Snape must base his conclusions on Harry's actions. And Harry does show a certain disregard for rules, and he does show a certain contempt for Snape, and Snape is therefore not completely out of line to think that perhaps Harry thinks he is above the other Hogwarts students. I'm not going to try and argue that Snape is being totally altruistic when it comes to Harry. He tends to expect the worst of Harry, and so he sees plots where there are none (just as Harry does of Snape actually). I do think Snape gets a certain satisfaction out of slapping Harry down (again - the James factor cannot be overlooked) so I don't think he's all, "I will selflessly make sure Harry turns out well," at least not if he's honest with himself. But I also doubt Snape is skulking around his dungeons trying to figure out the best way to make Harry cry, as some posters seem to imply. >>Alla wrote in 112968: >I am trying to pick the strongest reason for my partial (although very strong one) dislike of Snape personality and the fact that Snape enjoys causing other human beings emotional pain comes back over and over again. >I am having a lot of trouble calling such person a "good one"< Betsy: Snape has a sharp wit, and he does enjoy using it. That's why I wouldn't call him "nice." But that does not mean that he is not a "good" man. When push comes to shove, Snape is there to try and help Harry when he is in danger -- though Harry rarely acknowledges it. >>Betsy: >But there's another motive that Snape would have forefront in his mind. Especially with the recent Death Eater activity. Remember, Snape is not just a teacher, he's a spy. And the known top dog of the Death Eaters appears to be (and Snape would most likely know for sure - though we, the readers, don't) Lucius Malfoy. It makes a whole lot of sense for Snape to seem very anti-Harry Potter in front of Malfoy's son, Draco. In fact, it would be stupid for Snape to appear any other way.< >>Alla: >Keep in mind that it is NOT a given that he is a spy, it is NOT a given that Voldemort does not know that Snape betrayed him, therefore I am not sure whether this motive even comes into play.< Betsy: Okay, I think it *is* a given that Snape is a spy. There are a lot of hints dropped around, but Snape finally states it in OotP. "That is just as well, Potter," said Snape coldly, "because you are neither special nor important, and it is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters." "No -- that's your job, isn't it?" Harry shot at him. [...] "Yes, Potter," he said, his eyes glinting. "That is my job." (OotP Scholastic ed. pg. 591) It can't get much clearer than that. And I think it *is* a given that Snape does go back to Voldemort. In GoF, Voldemort lists three missing Death Eaters. We know that one is Crouch, Jr., one is Karkaroff, and one is Snape. Voldemort calls one his "most faithful servant [...] He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived here tonight..." Obviously - this is Crouch, Jr. The other missing Death Eater "has left me forever... he will be killed, of course." That must be Karkaroff. If it was Snape, he'd be keeping Sirius company at Grimmauld Place or be locked up within Hogwarts. And Lucius Malfoy would not speak highly of Snape to Umbridge (OotP pg. 745). Which means Snape is the Death Eater, "too cowardly to return... he will pay." (GoF Scholastic, paperback, pgs. 651-2) What else was Dumbledore sending Snape off to do at the end of GoF? Snape paled and even Dumbledore was apprehensive (ibid pg. 713). Again, it seems fairly obvious to me that Snape is about to return to Voldemort and take whatever payment Voldemort will dish out to him. >>Alla: >I think it would make much more sense for Snape to be NICE to Harry, if he is indeed a double agent...< Betsy: I don't think Snape is a *double* agent. He's a spy, spying on Voldemort for Dumbledore. I don't think Voldemort has any clue that Snape is in a position to spy on Dumbledore's Order. So yes, it does actually make sense that Snape treat Harry badly to keep Voldemort in the dark as to his true place by Dumbledore's side. >>Betsy: >The easiest way to keep up appearances is to be mean to Dumbledore's golden child, especially as Dumbledore's grip on the school is slipping. The fact that Harry so closely resembles someone Snape obviously loathed probably made Snape's job easier, but I honestly think that until Harry stuck his head into Snape's Pensieve, most of it was role-play. Once Harry did the equivalent of reading Snape's personal journal, I do think Snape was genuinely furious with Harry.< >>Alla: >Hmmm. Oscarwinning!Snape... I am sorry, I am not buying. First and foremost because I am not sure that Snape ever returned to Voldemort. I think that he either does something we don't suspect yet. or spies by unconventional methods, which have nothing to do with returning to Voldemort. JMO, of course.< Betsy: No, not Oscarwinning. Harry does push Snape's buttons, so it's not like Snape's faking his dislike. I think he does exaggerate it a bit, though. It's interesting that when he's totally furious he *ignores* Harry, which is very unlike his usual treatment. And again, it's pretty straightforward that Snape is Dumbledore's spy, just as he was in the past. Of course, you can read things another way, but I'm taking the most obvious surface reading rather than the more twisty ones. >>Betsy: >And frankly, Snape's anger was understandable. Throughout the Occlumency lessons, Harry's behavior was pretty bad, and he was obviously not trying. I know this has been debated 'til the cows come home, but barring any ulterior motive not yet revealed, Snape was trying to teach the boy, and the boy was unwilling to learn. Snape was endangering his role by spending private time with Harry, and Harry was basically making Snape's risk meaningless.< >>Alla: >This was indeed debated many times, but I would say that Harry's anger was understandable. And NO, we don't know whether Snape was willing to teach the boy, or Dumbledore simply forced him to do so.< Betsy: I never said Snape was "willing" to teach Harry. I'm sure Dumbledore gave him no choice. But Snape was there and he gave Harry instruction, and Harry did not follow those instructions. >>Alla: >And I certainly would not call what Snape did "teaching", but more like falling into hysterics and insults, every time Harry did something he did not like.< Betsy: You'll have to quote me canon. I don't recall Snape getting hysterical, nor being uncharacteristically insulting towards Harry during any of their lessons together. >>Alla: >NO, we DON'T KNOW for sure that he is spy. Betsy: We know Snape is a spy as much as we know that Lupin is not ESE. In otherwords to say Snape isn't a spy you have to disprove a lot of what the books say. And as I stated in the begining, I'm going with a straightforward reading. >> Alla in 113962 said: >I am not saying that Snape is JUST a nasty man who hates kids and can't tell Harry from James, but I am definitely saying that he IS nasty man who hates kids and can't tell Harry from James, in addition to that character quality, he , IMO has many other qualities, some of which I like very much.< Betsy: I think Draco Malfoy and most of Slytherin House would argue against Snape hating kids. :) (Actually - I think if Snape really did hate children, he'd have never been appointed Head of House.) And I think Snape is well aware that Harry is not James, especially after the Occlumency lessons. But I do think that Snape is not the type of person to coddle children, just because they are children. Betsy From navarro198 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 16 06:30:38 2005 From: navarro198 at hotmail.com (Ravenclaw Bookworm) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:30:38 -0000 Subject: Runes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122061 Geoff: The "religious right", which I think is more noticeable in the US than the UK represents the ultra-evangelical group who have campaigned against Harry Potter because of perceived witchcraft and black magic which I would object too as well if I thought that was the intent of JKR. It should be remembered that "acceptable" writers such as Tolkien and Lewis also make use of magic in a similar way. Because JKR has indicated her Christian leaning and her membership of the Church of Scotland, I believe that her writing will overtly or covertly reveal something of what she holds to be true. Bookworm: IIRC, it has been commented on several times, but I found this in an interview with Evan Solomon from 2000: JK: I do believe in God. That seems to offend the South Carolinians more than almost anything else. I think they would find it well that is my limited experience, that they have more of a problem with me believing in God than they would have if I was an unrepentant atheist. E: You do believe in God. JK: Yeah. Yeah. E: In magic and JK: Magic in the sense in which it happens in my books, no, I don't believe. I don't believe in that. No. No. This is so frustrating. Again, there is so much I would like to say, and come back when I've written book seven. But then maybe you won't need to even say it 'cause you'll have found it out anyway. You'll have read it. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/0700-hottype- solomon.htm Ravenclaw Bookworm From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 06:41:16 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:41:16 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122062 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > What about Snape? > JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher,(snip)However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say that because there is more to him than meets the eye and you will find out part of what I am talking about if you read Book 4. [WBUR-99] (snip)> Tonks: I can't remember what she is talking about in book 4. What did we see in book 4 that fits here? -------- > JKR: Yeees. You shouldn't think he's too nice, let me just say that. > JKR: He's worth keeping and eye on, definitely [RAH-03] (snip)> > Alan Rickman: Well he's Professor of Potions and the current head of Slytherin House at Hogwarts - the school of wizardry that Harry > attends, but he harbours a secret ambition to be a Professor of the Dark Arts. He isn't that taken with Harry though, probably because he finds him a little too popular for a first year pupil I suppose. I think at heart Snape is basically quite an insecure person, he's always longing to be something else that people will really respect like a black magician not just a school master. > Tonks: Hum... well vmonte you are right, Rickman would know. So Snape would like to be famious as a powerful Dark Wizard... you are right this is not good. ----------- Alla: > I am trying to pick the strongest reason for my partial (although > very strong one) dislike of Snape personality and the fact that > Snape enjoys causing other human beings emotional pain comes back > over and over again. (snip)> Tonks: This part of his personality is the internalized *bad parent* that I mentioned in a previous post. Now I have heard that in treating persons with MPD (multiple personality disorder) that when the therapist get to that part of the client's subconscious sometimes the *evil part* comes out and kills the therapist. I don't think that Snape has MPD. He does have this very nasty hurtful side which is that part of his (father?)that he has internalized as a young child. It is a complicated thing to explain, just understand that he has very little control over this aspect of his personality. -------- > JKR: That is an excellent question and the reason is that, I have to be careful what I say here, the reason is that to answer it fully would give and awful lot away about the remaining two books but when Professor Dumbledore took Professor Snape on to the staff and Professor Snape said I'd like to teach defense against the darks arts please and Professor Dumbledore felt that that might bring out the worst in Professor Snape. (snip) > vmonte responds: > There is no way I would let a professor with sadistic tendencies > teach a DADA class. Would you hire an alcoholic as a bartender? (snip) > vmonte: > I'm not sure he hates Harry either. Maybe it's more like fear. Tonks: OK, so I like to find some good in everyone. Heck, I am one who thinks there might be hope for LV, for gods sakes!!! So I'd have to say that you make a good case for Snape having some tendences that JKR has not show us yet. He is tempted to be famious, and in the Dark Arts. That must be why DD doesn't let him teach DADA. Well I will just wait and see. Of course, if I were his therapist I guess he would end up killing me, huh?? Alright I will keep my eye on him... (with hope in my heart) Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 06:59:58 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:59:58 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122063 >>vmonte: I couldn't help reading some of the previous Snape posts without adding some of JKR's documented comments about him. Betsy: *rubs hands in gleeful anticipation* >>vmonte: >JKR: You always see a lot of Snape, because he is a gift of a character. I hesitate to say that I love him. [Audience member: I do]. You do? This is a very worrying thing. Are you thinking about Alan Rickman or about Snape? [Laughter]. >Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this. Again, it's bad boy syndrome, isn't it? It's very depressing. [Laughter]. One of my best friends watched the film and she said, "You know who's really attractive?" I said, "Who?" She said, "Lucius Malfoy!" [EBF-04] Betsy: No one avoids a question like JKR. And she provides such entertainment as she does so. Not much insight into Snape's character here. >>Betsy wrote: >I can feel you itching to bring up Neville. Why oh why does Snape pick on poor Neville? Which suggests that Neville may have actually done all right on his exam Which would suggest that despite his not so nice methods, Snape is still one heck of a teacher.< >>vmonte: >From [Y-00] >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...horrible teachers like Snape are one of them! [Y-00]< >> vmonte responds: >Snape is a horrible teacher.< Betsy: Not denying he's the "scary" teacher, but if JKR really wanted to say he was an incompentent teacher, his students would not pass their O.W.Ls. (And I agree with Dumbledore - learning to deal with the "scary" or "horrible" teacher is an important life lesson!) >>vomonte: >What about Snape? >JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all. However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say that because there is more to him than meets the eye and you will find out part of what I am talking about if you read Book 4. [WBUR-99]< Betsy: Never argued that Snape is pleasant - and he certainly abuses his power at times. And in Book 4 we find out that he is a spy for Dumbledore, adding depth and interest to his character, just as JKR promised. :) >>vmonte: >JKR: Yeees. You shouldn't think he's too nice, let me just say that. >SF: Right I shall bear that in mind. Worth watching Serverus Snape >JKR: He's worth keeping and eye on, definitely [RAH-03]< >>vmonte responds: I'm not sure that Snape is going to turn out to be good in the end.< Betsy: I hope this quote isn't all you're basing that theory on. :) And I made perfectly clear that I don't think Snape is nice. But (sing along with me!) "nice" does not equal "good." >>vmonte: >Alan Rickman: Well he's Professor of Potions and the current head of Slytherin House at Hogwarts - the school of wizardry that Harry attends, but he harbours a secret ambition to be a Professor of the Dark Arts. He isn't that taken with Harry though, probably because he finds him a little too popular for a first year pupil I suppose. I think at heart Snape is basically quite an insecure person, he's always longing to be something else that people will really respect like a black magician not just a school master. That's why he envies the more popular and successful boys like Harry. [UNREEL]< >>vmonte: Mr. Rickman was given information about Snape by JKR. If he thinks that Snape is insecure and envious of the more popular boys (James, Harry), well I'm going to believe him. After all, fame and glory are both mentioned in his opening speech. Seems like he is still looking for the attention he did not receive as a child. (penseive scene).< Betsy: There are some mighty big assumptions here. But if you take Alan Rickman's words as gospel - let me throw some back at you: "He does have his positive side though even though Harry's a thorn in his side he doesn't let it worry him too much." So does that mean Snape is not really that bothered by Harry after all? Also, Snape does not envy James -- he hates him. Would you envy a person that stripped you in front of your classmates? And Harry as popular? He's known - but he spends quite a bit of time, in just about every book, being mocked or feared or ridiculed by the Hogwarts students. Why would Snape envy that? >>Alla wrote: >Harry did not have ANY ego to be slapped down, when Snape attacked him on the first lesson. Harry did not have any ego to be slapped down, when Snape kept reminding him how bad his dead father was.< >>vmonte: >I agree. Snape is jealous of Harry's celebrity.< Betsy: Huh? Where do you get that from? Please site canon. >>vmonte: >JKR: It's fun to write about Snape because he's a deeply horrible person [FE-99].< > And.. >JL: Prof Snape has always wanted to be the defense against the dark arts teacher. In book 5 he still doesn't get the job. Why does Professor Dumbledore not allow him to be the defense against the dark arts teacher? >SF: There >JKR: That is an excellent question and the reason is that, I have to be careful what I say here, the reason is that to answer it fully would give and awful lot away about the remaining two books but when Professor Dumbledore took Professor Snape on to the staff and Professor Snape said I'd like to teach defense against the darks arts please and Professor Dumbledore felt that that might bring out the worst in Professor Snape. >JKR: So he said I think we'll let you teach potions and see how you get along there. [RAH-03].< >>vmonte responds: >There is no way I would let a professor with sadistic tendencies teach a DADA class. Would you hire an alcoholic as a bartender?< Betsy: Again, you're making a leap. JKR is very careful to give as little away as possible. I guess I'm not seeing what you're seeing. How are we to know that Snape might not suffer flashbacks to his horrible Death Eater days and have a total breakdown? It's just not clear, and so I'd prefer a canon based argument rather than an interview one. >> Betsy: >Of course, Harry is too young and too naive, especially in book one, to realize any of these motives, and so he settles on the simple, "Snape hates me." I doubt Snape feels that strongly about Harry in the beginning. I think Harry frustrates the hell out of Snape, as Snape spends most of his time trying to keep Harry safe and Harry keeps stumbling into danger, but I honestly think 'hate' is too strong a word.< >>vmonte: >I'm not sure he hates Harry either. Maybe it's more like fear.< Betsy: And again I say, huh? Where does it ever appear that Snape fears Harry? Betsy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 07:09:40 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 07:09:40 -0000 Subject: life debt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122064 DD says When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them " What stuck me here is the *creates a certain bond between them*. Now I don't have a clue how this might apply to the situation between HP and LV, but what if it does some how??? Any thoughts?? What did happen at GH??? Tonks_op From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 16 07:52:06 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 07:52:06 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122065 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: Snow: > The next controversy is how far Snape goes with his appeared hatred > for Harry or Neville. This position has always been of debate but you > really need to remember that Snape is a sufficient Legilemence and > can see who his students are and how far he can push them; namely > Harry and Neville. Snape has already told us by way of telling Sirius > in the beginning of the Occlumency Chapter of OOP, that he knows who > Harry is and how much physiological punishment he can take: Geoff: Just in passing, I think you mean psychological damage.... I hope Snape isn't planning to start /hitting/ Harry. Snow: > "But surely you have noticed that Potter is very like his > father?" "Yes, I have," said Sirius proudly. "Well then, you'll know > he's so arrogant that criticism simply bounces off him," Snape said > sleekly. > > Snape knows how far he can push Harry or even Neville because he > knows who they are through his legilemency powers. Geoff: I can't agree with you here. If Snape is an expert Legilimens, then he must know that, at their first meeting, Harry is uncertain in his new environment, probably scared of this daunting person and certainly not arrogant. If he can't pick up on that, then he just isn't as good as we're led to believe. Betsy, in another meassage, has remarked that Harry pushes Snape's buttons. But who started pushing buttons? We have had canon quote after canon quote in the last day or so showing that Snape took the path of piling sarcasm or humiliation on top of what could have been a reasonable chastisement of Harry. If he had taken a gentler approach and managed to control his hatred of James - and of someone reminding him of James - the raltionship could have been far easier. But, that would'nt have been good for the plot line would it? :-) From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 08:41:02 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:41:02 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments (was: His mother's eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122066 Carol responds: The Protego deflects the AK onto > Voldemort, who is not killed because of the protections he put on > himself (even he doesn't know which "experiments" made him immortal, > but something did. See the speech in the graveyard quoted by Juli in > post 121918). Kemper now: Sorry to snip most of your post, it was enjoyable. I can see how one may find the use of blood disturbing. It seems barbaric. When I was working this out I didn't want to consider it, but blood is such a strong/powerful symbol in religion (Judeo/Christian anyway) and literature that it seems important to the charm. Referring to family, Hagrid says, "Whatever yeh say, blood's important ." (Ok, it's a bit out of context) Even though LV does say that even he doesn't know which of his 'experiments' made him survive the rebounded curse, it is still him making the remark. He may be speaking truthfully, but it is easy to see that LV would lie about which experiment made him un-killable if not immortal. It is so that he has the knowledge and no one else. That way he would not need to worry about any young, dark, upstart wizard vying for his power and position. Why would LV want to share immortality with anyone? I think that LV suspects what saved him: his ability to leave a part of his soul behind. We first see it in CS, when sixteen-year-old Tommy leaves a part of himself in the diary. This is quite a trick. Tom's a bright boy; he can see the possibilities in this bit of magic. He can easily imagine having his soul entirely outside of his body someday. Although not a spiritual young man, he knows the soul can live forever and that it's the vessel that tires and dies. Over the years, he practices separating his soul and body, but the closer they come to complete separation, the difficult task becomes even more painful, LV becomes even weaker. He knows the soul is useless without the body. I have another hypothesis about Ancient Law: two souls can't completely occupy the same body. This allows for possession as the possessor still has facilities over his own body. LV sees the necessity of extracting the soul from another witch/wizard some day. A day when he's in the winter of his life. He starts experimenting. Witches and wizards disappear never to be seen. LV is no longer experimenting with separating his soul and body, for the time being. Without an appropriate host for his soul to embody, other than a diary, then the neat trick of separating his soul and body is a practice in painful futility. LV's experiments are the development of a fourth Unforgivable Curse: Absque Spiritus Vita. The curse will rip soul from victim's body. The experiments aren't up to snuff. That's ok, LV is still young and has ample time to perfect the curse. That is until that fateful Halloween. Some posters have suggested that LV wanted to switch places with Harry. I don't think so. Why would LV wish to switch places when he was at the peak of his power? He wouldn't. He goes to kill Harry. But it backfires due to the shield charm and my hypothesis of another Ancient Law, mentioned in my prior post. It is plausible that LV recognized the AK's backfire moments before it hit his body. In those moments, he performed the magic that released his soul from his body and became less than spirit. (He probably had never totally separated his soul from his body and that left him weaker than he had imagined and in a great deal of pain.) He tells his DEs that the curse rebounded onto him, saying, "I was ripped from my body." Again, I think he lies to his followers so that they are left in the dark and needing his dark direction. He ripped himself from his body. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 08:57:22 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 08:57:22 -0000 Subject: Is Butterbeer Allowed? In-Reply-To: <005c01c4fb31$040c9800$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > > > imamommy: > > and as they only get it in Hogsmeade they aren't really > > supposed to have it on campus. > > Chancie: > > My only question to that is why, (if they aren't supposed to > > have it at school) is it in the kitchens, and hasn't anyone > > gotten trouble for bringing it into the common room? > ~Trekkie: > > Most likely because Butterbeer is allowed for the OLDER students.. > like 6/7 years... > > That at least would explain why it's in the kitchen. And also the > teachers may like it. > > And if it's allowed for older students, it would be available in the > common room too. > > ~Trekkie bboyminn: I don't think butterbeer is found in the kitchens. Perhaps on special occassion, but not as a general rule. The only time I can think of when butterbeer was present was when Fred and George on one occassion brought it to a celebration. When Harry asked where they got it, they implied that they had used the Map or their knowledge of the Map. That implies that they went into the village to get it. There in lies the restriction on butterbeer. There would be nothing to prevent a student from legally stocking up on a couple of cases of butterbeer and stashing it under their bed. I really don't think that would be a problem with the staff. It might be a problem with the other students and dorm mates knowing you had it, and begging you for one, or stealing one. However, having butterbeer pretty much automatically implies that you've been to the village, and visits to the village are strictly controlled. If you were found to be in possession of butterbeer, you would most likely be require to prove when and where you got it, and that the possession was within the rules. Fred and George would have certainly been in trouble because it would been obvious to anyone that they sneaked into the village. So, I don't think it's the butterbeer itself that is a problem, but the implication of an unauthorized visit to the village which it implies. In post 122017, I gave a detailed explanation of butterbeer and it's alcohol content, so I won't address that again. Butterbeer can have alcohol and still legally be considered a 'soft' drink. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jan 16 10:37:59 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:37:59 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122068 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > I really hate to get into a Snape debate on his teaching methods but it is too compelling, can't help myself. First off Snape is not only > a teacher but is also a spy, this can cause conflict in what Snape > normally would have seen as a proper teaching method. Not only does Snape need to cross over between the spy and the teacher but also the > fact of his appearance and eventually, at least to Harry, a former > death-eater status. That's quite a performer who can take on such a work load and still manage to produce the most lament students to do > well on their OWLS, at least the exams appear to have gone well for > both Harry and Neville. > Snape the spy is teaching class in front of death-eaters sons, would it not be wise for Snape to appear to be of Slytherin like tendency? Does Snape really have a choice not to be more than rude in front of > his former colleagues sons? It does sell the point to them at the > very least, which is very good if Snape wants to remain as the rest > of his former colleagues have done; which is to appear to take up > residence on the side of good. Naama: I have two objections to make here. One, on a plot leve. Second one, on a "meta" level, regarding the methodology of interpretation. My first point is - if Snape is nasty to Harry et al. in order to maintain his spy cover - why is he even nastier to Harry when they are alone? You would think that those would be the moments when he can relax from the burden of playacting all the time and show just how much he admires, loves and cherishes Harry. Second point - which holds to most conspiracy theories, actually. If you hold a theory that explains a character's behavior in terms of a hidden agenda, you have to be very careful about consistency of interpretation. For instance, taken one by one, which of Snape's moments of nastiness do you interprete as necessitated by spy cover, and which are authentic, expressing his true feelings and personality? I don't think any of the spy-cover theorists are making the argument that Snape is really a sweet, good-natured, lovable sort of fellow, right? As far as I remember, they all admit that he is, to some vaguely drawn point, pretty nasty. But then, according to what evidence do you distinguish authentic from inauthentic nastiness? Clearly, JKR is *not* signalling this in the text at all. This is not merely IMO - I haven't seen a single argument of this type that points to something in the text that signalls transition to or from spy-cover mode. Snape is described in the same way (glittering black eyes, silky voice, etc.) in all the incidents (he is, in fact, more vicious when alone with Harry, more openly antagonistic, than when they are in class); nothing that is reported of Harry's thoughts or perceptions is different. (Compare this, for instance, to the scene between Snape and Lupin and the map - we are signalled that something is going on underneath the surface by the mention of Lupin's closed expression and so on.) So, as there is no evidence in the text, what are we left with? Randomly, arbitrarily assigning authentic/inauthentic interpretations to the various Snape incidents. Which, to be blunt, reflects nothing more than the theorist's preferences. Snow: > > Snape knows how far he can push Harry or even Neville because he > knows who they are through his legilemency powers. > Take Neville he appears to be afraid but, as it all turns out, we see at the end of OOP that Neville has superior bravery. Snape could see > this and knows that he can push Neville beyond his apparent limits. Naama: We are *told* that Neville did well in his OWL because *Snape wasn't there*. Neville did not do well at all in Snape's classes, he did not do well in four years of end-of-term tests in potions. He did do well in Herbology - where he wasn't "pushed beyond his apparent limits", but treated fairly and with patience. Besides, whether Snape knew his treatment of Neville wasn't going beyong his limits or not - he was continually *hurting* him. Since when has it become ok to hurt people, as long as you don't actually destroy them? Snow: > Then we get into the aspect of whether or not Snape is actually > attempting to play the good side or not. I will defiantly admit to being a fence sitter on this one, which does not denounce what I have said above. Whether Snape is good or evil he still needs to play the part, this is why there have been more posts created on Snape than on > Harry, or else one or the other will suspect him. No one can be > accurately certain that Snape is good or evil, which is what makes > him a great character! Naama: I'm actually pretty certain that Snape, when it comes to basic Light/Dark allegiance, is on the side of Light. However, this would lose a lot of poignancy if Snape's nastiness wasn't authentic. If we find that "really" his personality is different from what we have seen on the surface, it would take all the tortured out of Snape, wouldn't it? And that would be .. well, boring. I mean, that's what Snape brings to the story - he's the unhappy, brooding, tortured soul (wherein lies his infamous attraction). Explain away too much of his darkness, and you get bland!Snape - which I'm sure you wouldn't like half as much, anyway. Naama From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Jan 16 11:12:41 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:12:41 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <20050115233723.45718.qmail@web50901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122069 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hester Prinn wrote: > I can feel you itching to bring up Neville. Why oh why does Snape pick on poor Neville? On the very first day of class Neville manages to melt Seamus's cauldron, cover himself in boils and burn holes in the shoes of his fellow students. Oh and the class, she was disrupted. Neville's first impression was not a good one. And I did say that Professor Snape is not a nice man. However, Harry notes that Neville seems happy during their potions practical for the O.W.L's (ibid pg. 716). Which suggests that Neville may have actually done all right on his exam Which would suggest that despite his not so nice methods, Snape is still one heck of a teacher. > Actually Snape has done Neville a great favour by bullying him all those years, though I don't know whether or not it was intentionally. We know that Neville is a poor student, with great lack of self-confidence. He also is rather clumsy. So potions would have been hard for him any way. Exams for these kinds of students are usually something in which they perform worse, because of nerves. Letting things fall out of their hands, mixing up measures, the usual. But for Neville, that does not hold true. Potions without Snape? Huuuuuuuuge improvement. No matter it is an exam, there's no Snape to fear in sight! This is the most relaxing potions environment in Neville's whole school career. I think when he gets his OWL result he will be very pleasantly surprised. Gerry From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 14:07:50 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:07:50 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Time-turner not a quick fix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122070 A-Mac: > Harry can not go back in time and save Sirius because Sirius IS > dead. If Harry were to go back and save him, we would have seen the > affects of it. Unless Harry is somehow hiding to catch Sirius before > he falls into the veil, and hide him from his past self, it is > impossible for Harry to go back and save Sirius. Finwitch: Yes, well: Harry *Can* be invisible. He does have that cloak, remember? And er - I think the cloak would be enough to hide Sirius, too. Or maybe Sirius did it? (You know, he was saved by himself because he was saved by himself- like Harry in the Dementor-attack). Or - maybe Sirius did NOT fall trough the veil, only seemed to. And if Lupin's the one who shot the stunner, he'd certainly be surprised about it. And why would Lupin do that, you ask? Well, to make everyone *believe* Sirius is dead, (including PP& other Death Eaters, the Ministry- so Kingsley is freed from tracking Sirius etc. Unfortunately, also Harry.) of course. Being presumed dead would give Sirius freedom (although, he's not to be seen in human form until Pettigrew is safely captured). He could be of more use, and if he - under this cover, manages to capture the Rat, he can lift it and gain formal freedom within the non-DE-wizards. Finwitch From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 14:15:19 2005 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:15:19 -0000 Subject: life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122071 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > DD says When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it > creates a certain bond between them " > > > What stuck me here is the *creates a certain bond between them*. Now > I don't have a clue how this might apply to the situation between HP > and LV, but what if it does some how??? Any thoughts?? What did > happen at GH??? > Kelly: The only "life debt" I can think of that may play an important role is Petigrew's debt to Harry. Is Voldemort aware that Harry stopped Lupin and Sirius from killing Petigrew? From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 14:23:25 2005 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:23:25 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Time-turner not a quick fix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122072 > Finwitch: > Or - maybe Sirius did NOT fall trough the veil, only seemed to. And > if Lupin's the one who shot the stunner, he'd certainly be surprised > about it. And why would Lupin do that, you ask? Well, to make > everyone *believe* Sirius is dead, (including PP& other Death Eaters, > the Ministry- so Kingsley is freed from tracking Sirius etc. > Unfortunately, also Harry.) of course. > > Being presumed dead would give Sirius freedom (although, he's not to > be seen in human form until Pettigrew is safely captured). He could > be of more use, and if he - under this cover, manages to capture the > Rat, he can lift it and gain formal freedom within the non-DE- wizards. Kelly: Very interesting! I didn't think about that. I really want to believe we will see (or hear from) Sirius again. Could JKR have left a loophole through which Sirius could crawl? Kelly From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 14:35:13 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:35:13 -0000 Subject: Runes In-Reply-To: <01f301c4fb53$279610e0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122073 > charme: > > I'm confused. Runes are part of culture, and included much the same way > many of the other dynamics of the books are derived by JKR. I'm mean we have > creatures of Greek mythology, names and other assorted HP particulars which > are derived by a variety of other legends and cultures. Forgive me, but why > would runes be any different to the religious right, or to your way of > thinking, Geoff? Please understand I am not being coy or argumentative in > asking this, either. I really don't know! :) Finwitch: Runes - well, to me, they're simply ancient letters used by Vikings and/or the Druids. The sort the can be more or less easily carved. You know, while the Romans (and christianity, mainly the catholics) was occupying England/Wales and even Ireland, Scotland had been subjected mainly to the Vikings (who travelled to America centuries before Columbus was born) and their own Druidism. They're no more occult than any other non-Latin method of writing. And Runes are easy to *carve*, whereas Chinese, Japanese or Ancient Egyptian was *painted* on a papyrus/paper, or a wall... It's just that they're ANCIENT and UNKOWN that ticks people off. Dunno... Cave-pictures painted/drawn on a (reindeer-) bone-drum or leather looks rather 'mystical', too, right? No one complains, as they're part of the Sam? culture, and such a drum has been used by a true Shaman - (Nowadays it's all for tourists)... Nah- if some priest complains about the 'occult', I'd say it's just some nasty propaganda to get rid of *competition*. Including all the stuff they say about Harry Potter, anything about things they know nothing about etc. Finwitch From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 14:49:29 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 14:49:29 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122074 >vmonte: I couldn't help reading some of the previous Snape posts without adding some of JKR's documented comments about him. >Betsy: *rubs hands in gleeful anticipation* >vmonte: >JKR: You always see a lot of Snape, because he is a gift of a character. I hesitate to say that I love him. [Audience member: I do]. You do? This is a very worrying thing. Are you thinking about Alan Rickman or about Snape? [Laughter]. >Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this. Again, it's bad boy syndrome, isn't it? It's very depressing. [Laughter]. One of my best friends watched the film and she said, "You know who's really attractive?" I said, "Who?" She said, "Lucius Malfoy!" [EBF-04] >Betsy: No one avoids a question like JKR. And she provides such entertainment as she does so. Not much insight into Snape's **vmonte again: Betsy, you cut out the most significant part. I will quote it again though. JKR: ..."But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen things that Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this." [EBF-04] **vmonte: From what I've read of Death Eaters, they do not go door to door selling girl scout cookies. Voldemort expects a lot from his employees, right? I don't think that Snape stayed back at "Bady Headquarters" playing with his chemistry set. >Betsy wrote: I can feel you itching to bring up Neville. ...snip...despite his not so nice methods, Snape is still one heck of a teacher. >vmonte: 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...horrible teachers like Snape are one of them! [Y-00]< >vmonte responds: Snape is a horrible teacher. >Betsy: Not denying he's the "scary" teacher, but if JKR really wanted to say he was an incompetent teacher, his students would not pass their O.W.Ls. (And I agree with Dumbledore - learning to deal with the "scary" or "horrible" teacher is an important life lesson!) **vmonte again: Sorry, I disagree. I do think however, that you can learn something from a horrible teacher. Did you ever read "The Art of War?" (It's a 2000-year-old military treatise.) One famous quote from it is: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." I think it would be worthwhile for the students to understand the mind of the enemy, but that's just my opinion. So, when JKR says that Snape is a sadistic and horrible teacher, the students must be learning something besides potions... >vmonte: What about Snape? JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all. However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say that because there is more to him than meets the eye and you will find out part of what I am talking about if you read Book 4. [WBUR-99]< >Betsy: Never argued that Snape is pleasant - and he certainly abuses his power at times. And in Book 4 we find out that he is a spy for Dumbledore, adding depth and interest to his character, just as JKR promised. :) **vmonte again: We also find out that Snape was once a Death Eater. So, that also is a bad sign in my opinion, especially since he doesn't seem to have had a moral epiphany. He is still a deeply horrible person, no? >vmonte: >JKR: Yeees. You shouldn't think he's too nice, let me just say that. >SF: Right I shall bear that in mind. Worth watching Serverus Snape >JKR: He's worth keeping and eye on, definitely [RAH-03]< >vmonte responds: I'm not sure that Snape is going to turn out to be good in the end.< Betsy: I hope this quote isn't all you're basing that theory on. :) And I made perfectly clear that I don't think Snape is nice. But (sing along with me!) "nice" does not equal "good." **vmonte again: You really think I'm reaching here? Or are you? Again I requote JKR: ..."But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater." ..."there are all sorts of lessons in life...horrible teachers like Snape are one of them! "Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say." "Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this." ..."children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power." And Alan Rickman: "I think at heart Snape is basically quite an insecure person, he's always longing to be something else that people will really respect like a black magician not just a school master. That's why he envies the more popular and successful boys like Harry." **vmonte again: I had a college professor who was just like Snape (although a female). The first day of class she looked me up and down and told me that she knew exactly the kind of student I was and that I was not going to be able to get away with coasting through her class. She then proceeded to ask the class about their backgrounds, interests, and what their "nationalities" were. When class was over she came up to me and told me that Spanish people like myself are notoriously bad students, and she thought I was going to have trouble in her class (all this without ever seeing any of my work yet). She once asked a student who was having trouble understanding a concept if he was drunk since the Irish were notorious alcoholics. She made my life miserable in that class. I didn't learn anything from her either, except what kind of teacher not to be. And everything I learned was of my own doing. I worked my backside off at home reading the material, and teaching myself. I would have learned faster if I had taken a correspondence course at home. The were also many times I stepped in to defend students that she would just start picking on in class, for no reason. I went home and cried almost every night myself. I still don't know why I (or anyone else) never reported her to the school. I suppose it had to do with my age, fear, and or my insecurity. What is funny is that by the end of term I started to almost believe what she said about me. >Betsy: There are some mighty big assumptions here. But if you take Alan Rickman's words as gospel - let me throw some back at you: "He does have his positive side though even though Harry's a thorn in his side he doesn't let it worry him too much." So does that mean Snape is not really that bothered by Harry after all? **vmonte again: Are you saying that I should take your words as gospel and not Mr. Rickman's and JKR's? >Betsy: Also, Snape does not envy James -- he hates him. Would you envy a person that stripped you in front of your classmates? And Harry as popular? He's known - but he spends quite a bit of time, in just about every book, being mocked or feared or ridiculed by the Hogwarts students. Why would Snape envy that? **vmonte again: I agree that James and gang were wrong to attack Snape. As far as being mocked, feared, or ridiculed by present day Hogwarts students--this is all his fault in my opinion. >Alla wrote: >Harry did not have ANY ego to be slapped down, when Snape attacked him on the first lesson. Harry did not have any ego to be slapped down, when Snape kept reminding him how bad his dead father was.< >>vmonte: >I agree. Snape is jealous of Harry's celebrity.< Betsy: Huh? Where do you get that from? Please site canon. **vmonte again: Ok. Alan Rickman: "I think at heart Snape is basically quite an insecure person, he's always longing to be something else that people will really respect like a black magician not just a school master. That's why he envies the more popular and successful boys like Harry." >vmonte: >JKR: It's fun to write about Snape because he's a deeply horrible person [FE-99].< > And.. >JL: Prof Snape has always wanted to be the defense against the dark arts teacher. In book 5 he still doesn't get the job. Why does Professor Dumbledore not allow him to be the defense against the dark arts teacher? >SF: There >JKR: That is an excellent question and the reason is that, I have to be careful what I say here, the reason is that to answer it fully would give and awful lot away about the remaining two books but when Professor Dumbledore took Professor Snape on to the staff and Professor Snape said I'd like to teach defense against the darks arts please and Professor Dumbledore felt that that might bring out the worst in Professor Snape. >JKR: So he said I think we'll let you teach potions and see how you get along there. [RAH-03].< >vmonte responds: >There is no way I would let a professor with sadistic tendencies teach a DADA class. Would you hire an alcoholic as a bartender?< >Betsy: Again, you're making a leap. JKR is very careful to give as little away as possible. I guess I'm not seeing what you're seeing. How are we to know that Snape might not suffer flashbacks to his horrible Death Eater days and have a total breakdown? It's just not clear, and so I'd prefer a canon based argument rather than an interview one. **vmonte again: I'm making a leap? JKR: "Professor Dumbledore felt that that might bring out the worst in Professor Snape." Bringing out the worst in someone is not the same as saying Professor Dumbledore thought that Snape might suffer bad dreams, etc. It implies more than that in my opinion. > Betsy: Of course, Harry is too young and too naive, especially in book one, to realize any of these motives, and so he settles on the simple, "Snape hates me." I doubt Snape feels that strongly about Harry in the beginning. I think Harry frustrates the hell out of Snape, as Snape spends most of his time trying to keep Harry safe and Harry keeps stumbling into danger, but I honestly think 'hate' is too strong a word.< >vmonte: I'm not sure he hates Harry either. Maybe it's more like fear.< >Betsy: And again I say, huh? Where does it ever appear that Snape fears Harry? **vmonte again: We do have cannon that suggests that Snape is a racist. After all he did join the DEs, and he did call Lily a nasty name. I often find that racists are very frightened people. They fear what they don't understand. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 15:38:17 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:38:17 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments (was: His mother's eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122075 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" wrote: dnip) > I have another hypothesis about Ancient Law: two souls can't > completely occupy the same body. This allows for possession as the possessor still has facilities over his own body. > (snip) He goes to kill Harry. > But it backfires due to the shield charm and my hypothesis of another Ancient Law, mentioned in my prior post. It is plausible that LV recognized the AK's backfire moments before it hit his body. In those moments, he performed the magic that released his soul from his body and became less than spirit. (He probably had never totally separated his soul from his body and that left him weaker than he had imagined and in a great deal of pain.) > > He tells his DEs that the curse rebounded onto him, saying, "I was > ripped from my body." Again, I think he lies to his followers so > that they are left in the dark and needing his dark direction. He > ripped himself from his body. Tonks here: Ok. We know that there is a bond between Harry and LV. So LV put part of himself into Harry. So what LV did was to come up with a method that if anyone tries to AK him he is able to put his soul into that person. Would explain why DD wouldn't try to AK him. Not a total answer, but I don't know what else to add. Any helpers? Tonks_op From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sun Jan 16 12:54:06 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:54:06 -0000 Subject: Rune symbol on forehead (was His Mother's eyes) In-Reply-To: <20050115191913.44106.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122076 > But if it is truly a rune why hasn't anybody noticed > it? Even Hermione knows runes, she's taken that > course, and she can't recognize a simple rune? I don't > think so. What if it is just a scar shaped like a > lighting bolt? > That's the most logical explanation. Also runes don't play a part in the story, which I expect would be so if they would have any meaning for the plot. We also don't know how runes are used in the WW. Definitely not for divination, nor in any other modern WW spellcasting or charmwork. Then again, it is ancient magic, and the runes are an ancient kind of alphabet. I still think it is far-fetched though, and the main reasons the scar is shaped as it is, is that the shape indicates there is something about it, instead of it being an ordinary scar, and that it is a figurative description which is easy for the reader to depict. But if we want to speculate about the scar as a rune (which is fun), I think it important we use the right rune. Gerry From elanor.isolda at btinternet.com Sun Jan 16 13:40:48 2005 From: elanor.isolda at btinternet.com (Elanor Isolda) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:40:48 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c4fbd0$fdf41e20$c79a7ad5@PC821926347325> No: HPFGUIDX 122077 De-lurking to offer my crazy and probably hole-filled theory on life debts: Tonks wrote: > DD says .When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it > creates a certain bond between them." What if he meant that it creates a *literal* bond, i.e. that the life of the person whose life has been saved becomes inextricably linked to that of their saviour? This could even apply to the extent that, should the wizard who did the saving dies, so would the wizard who was saved. To take James and Snape as an example, after James supposedly saved Snape's life, if James then died then so would Snape. So when Snape joined the DEs and heard of the prophecy (whether he was the one who overheard it or merely heard it from someone else), he realised that Voldy was going to go after the Potters, therefore he would die as well, and so he left the DEs and went to Dumbledore. As it happened, of course, James did die, but Snape didn't. So, he realised that it couldn't have been James who saved his life. Going back to PoA, is it not a little strange to give a 13 year-old girl a Time Turner (which we're told are dangerous things) just so that she can take more classes than she can cope with? I know this has already been discussed and it is believed likely that DD knew that the kids would need to know how to use a Time Turner at some point in the future. I'm sure you see where this is going now... So, DD and Snape both know that, at some point, Harry TT'd back to the seventies and saved Snape's life. Snape doesn't want him to do this (perhaps something bad happens as a result, or perhaps he just doesn't want Harry to save him), which is why he does his best to make Harry hate him. However, he keeps saving Harry's life because, of course, if Harry dies then so will he. OK, this might sound like a far-fetched fanfic-type theory, but it does have the advantages of providing genuine reasons for Snape's leaving the DEs and being a git towards Harry yet repeatedly saving his life, whilst still retaining his Slytherin self-preservation instincts. Any thoughts? Elanor From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 16:19:06 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:19:06 -0000 Subject: The Second Repository for LV's Soul (was: Re: LV's experiments) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122078 > Kemper now: > Sorry to snip most of your post, it was enjoyable. > > I can see how one may find the use of blood disturbing. It seems > barbaric. When I was working this out I didn't want to consider it, > but blood is such a strong/powerful symbol in religion > (Judeo/Christian anyway) and literature that it seems important to > the charm. Referring to family, Hagrid says, "Whatever yeh say, > blood's important ." (Ok, it's a bit out of context) Antosha: Blood rituals--literal and symbolic--have been parts of most religions, from the paleolithic caves on up, including those of the Aztecs and Incas, Hinduism, the Greek Mystery cults and, as you point out, Judeo-Christianity. Blood=Life. So it makes perfect sense that there be a literal blood-link to LV's nasty little 'experiments.' > > Even though LV does say that even he doesn't know which of > his 'experiments' made him survive the rebounded curse, it is still > him making the remark. He may be speaking truthfully, but it is easy > to see that LV would lie about which experiment made him un-killable > if not immortal. It is so that he has the knowledge and no one > else. That way he would not need to worry about any young, dark, > upstart wizard vying for his power and position. Why would LV want > to share immortality with anyone? > > I think that LV suspects what saved him: his ability to leave a part > of his soul behind. We first see it in CS, when sixteen-year-old > Tommy leaves a part of himself in the diary. > This is quite a trick. Tom's a bright boy; he can see the > possibilities in this bit of magic. He can easily imagine having his > soul entirely outside of his body someday. Although not a spiritual > young man, he knows the soul can live forever and that it's the > vessel that tires and dies. Over the years, he practices separating > his soul and body, but the closer they come to complete separation, > the difficult task becomes even more painful, LV becomes even > weaker. He knows the soul is useless without the body. > > I have another hypothesis about Ancient Law: two souls can't > completely occupy the same body. This allows for possession as the > possessor still has facilities over his own body. > > LV sees the necessity of extracting the soul from another > witch/wizard some day. Antosha I will reserve the right to speak to the rest of your post until I've had some coffee, because your thoughts are very interesting. (There was a very interesting discussion about LV's soul having been left 'on deposit' in Harry back around the end of the summer--Yahoo! Mort is proving uncooperative, so I can't seem to find it. I take it you read/remember those?) I did have one flash here, though, which is that, aside from Harry, there is a second repository for Tom Riddle's poor excuse for a soul: Ginny. At the end of CoS, TR tells Harry that he 'poured himself' from the diary into Miss Ginevra. That was part of the way in which he was able to beginning his physical remanifestation. And there's no indication that he withdrew what he put there.... He's sure to know about the diary episode--Lucius knew all about it. Do we think that, having failed to knock off Harry so many times, he will shift his sights to the youngest Weasley? Antosha, who is sure GInny would definitely NOT play the damsel in distress the second time around... From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 16:20:13 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:20:13 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (VERY long.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122079 "horridporrid03" wrote: > "Nice" is a behavior word. It's being polite, > making sure others are comfortable, writing > thank you letters, showing sympathy to > another's suffering. Whereas "Good" > refers to a core set of beliefs. If true then as far as I'm concerned being nice is far more important that being good. Believe anything you want, that's your business not mine, just don't make me miserable. Snape has the ability to make all those around him miserable. > When Crouch!Moody takes Neville aside after > the Unforgivables class to make sure he's > okay, and to buck him up a bit, Crouch!Moody > was being "nice". I would maintain that act to Neville was not only nice it was good, it was certainly good for Neville even if the reason the fake Moody did it was not so nice. > Okay, I think it *is* a given that > Snape is a spy. It's a given that Snape WAS a spy, but since those days Dumbledore testified in open court in front of hundreds of people that Snape spied on Voldemort for the good guys; after that it's a little hard to understand how he could still be a spy. > What else was Dumbledore sending Snape > off to do at the end of GoF? I don't know, I thought that would be answered in book 5 but it was not. I do have a theory however: Voldemort can almost always tell if somebody is lying to him, only a person skilled in Occlumency could deceive him. Even the most loyal Death Eater would very much want to develop this skill because being able keep things hidden from a boss that powerful and that bad tempered could save your life. I don't think you can learn Occlumency from a book, you need a teacher and Snape is one of the best at it in the world, at least he is when he really wants his student to learn the subject. He wants the Death Eaters to learn it, he didn't want Harry to. I think Snape's mission at the end of Goblet Of Fire was to secretly teach Occlumency to as many Death Eaters as he could without Voldemort's knowledge. It would be useful if there were plots among the Death Eaters Voldemort could not detect and Snape could get valuable intelligence information from flashes of memory from their minds during the lessons. Eggplant From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 16:27:48 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (charme) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:27:48 -0500 Subject: GoF - Chapter Nine Message-ID: <046001c4fbe8$51be7fc0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122080 I have been focusing on Chapter Nine of GoF as in JKR's interviews and chats she says that it was so difficult to write, she thought about skipping the chapter completely. We pick up the action as Harry, Hermoine, and Ron have fled to the woods after the supposed "DE's" began having some Muggle sport. Please note that up to this point, the trio had been hearing bangs and shouts from the campsite, then Draco Malfoy appears: GoF, Chapter Nine (US) Ron told Malfoy to do something that Harry knew he would never have dared say in front of Mrs. Weasley. "Language, Weasley," said Malfoy, his pale eyes glittering. "Hadn't you better be hurrying along, now? You wouldn't like her spotted, would you?" He nodded at Hermione, and at the same moment, a blast like a bomb sounded from the campsite, and a flash of green light momentarily lit the trees around them. A blast like a bomb? A flash of green light? Does this in any way sound like something we've possibly read about before? What other than the Muggle sport, Winky, and the Dark Mark happened that night? charme From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 17:37:14 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:37:14 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments (Changeling!Harry varient theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122082 Tonks here: Ok. We know that there is a bond between Harry and LV. So LV put part of himself into Harry. So what LV did was to come up with a method that if anyone tries to AK him he is able to put his soul into that person. Would explain why DD wouldn't try to AK him. Not a total answer, but I don't know what else to add. Any helpers? vmonte writes: I've often wondered why Harry seemed to have deja vu while looking at Tom Riddle's name (diary scene) in CoS. Harry felt as though Tom's name was familiar to him, like a childhood friend he had forgotten. He also looked at the diary thinking that he would like to finish the story that was started there. Pretty strange stuff, right? Does Harry have more than just transferred talents from Voldemort? How about if Tom Riddle is trapped inside Harry? Perhaps Lily's spell did more than rebound Voldemort's curse. Maybe it split his soul in half. There is another theory called the "Changeling!Harry" variant theory that's been around for a while. It's a combination of the original Changeling theory, but with a twist. I was able to find this theory online: http://www.redhen-publications.com/Changeling.html I'm going to quote a couple of paragraphs but you really need to read the entire theory. from redhen: "In exploring the basic terms of the Changeling hypothesis, our first question is: Why on earth did we believe for so long that the Avada Kedavra curse did not materially affect Harry, apart from giving him his scar? Because it did. In fact that curse quite obviously affected Harry. It is widely and unblushingly admitted to have affected Harry. By the middle of CoS he had even been shown to have a trace memory of the name "Tom Riddle". Which sounded familiar to him even though he knew he had not ever heard it before. He is a Parselmouth ? like Riddle - despite there being no stated history of this gift in the Potter family tree and his mother, being Muggle-born, is unlikely to have passed it down to him. In OotP we were finally told straight out that, now that Voldemort is back on the physical plane, the link between them which we saw glimpses of as far back as PS/SS and later in GoF now goes in both directions. What else did that botched AK do to him? Is he even the same Harry Potter? Are you sure? Are they?" vmonte now: This theory also explains why the Voldemort we know seems to be a two- dimensional caricature and not the leader he once must have been... redhen: "The Changeling Hypothesis also has the very real advantage of offering us a welcome explanation to resolve the discontinuity between the glimpse of Lord Voldemort which we were given at the end of Goblet of Fire and all of those accounts of the compelling and charismatic leader that he must have been before his first defeat in order to have initially attracted so many devoted followers and to win so much popular support. What we saw simply does not square with those accounts. The creature we were shown in the graveyard of Little Hangleton is something that no one in their right mind would follow, on any consideration apart than that of fear or force. Unless; as now seems all too possible, the Voldemort who returned is not, in fact, quite the same entity as the one who was defeated at Godric's Hollow, despite the fact that he has the same appearance and all of the former Dark Lord's memories." vmonte again: This could also explain why no one but Harry can defeat Voldemort. Perhaps Harry is the only person who can rid himself, or perhaps completely merge this entity with his own. A sort of Ying and Yang merging. I also want to add that Dumbledore did not know exactly what happened at GH (he tells MM this after GH). I'm going to propose that Snape was at GH that night and that he later told DD what he suspects happened. (I base this partly on the fact that Snape whispered to Draco the spell that produced the snake in the dueling scene of CoS. Did Snape find an opportunity to test his theory?) If this is true, then Snape changing sides, and becoming part of the Order, so that he can be near HP at Hogwarts, sounds less like a conversion/moral epiphany, and much more suspicious and calculating, in my opinion. Finally, has Snape been protecting Harry all these years--or protecting his true master who is still trapped inside? From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 18:50:25 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:50:25 -0000 Subject: GoF - Chapter Nine - a blast & flash of green light--sonic boom? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122084 charme wrote: I have been focusing on Chapter Nine of GoF as in JKR's interviews and chats she says that it was so difficult to write, she thought about skipping the chapter completely. We pick up the action as Harry, Hermoine, and Ron have fled to the woods after the supposed "DE's" began having some Muggle sport. Please note that up to this point, the trio had been hearing bangs and shouts from the campsite, then Draco Malfoy appears: GoF, Chapter Nine (US) Ron told Malfoy to do something that Harry knew he would never have dared say in front of Mrs. Weasley. "Language, Weasley," said Malfoy, his pale eyes glittering. "Hadn't you better be hurrying along, now? You wouldn't like her spotted, would you?" He nodded at Hermione, and at the same moment, a blast like a bomb sounded from the campsite, and a flash of green light momentarily lit the trees around them. A blast like a bomb? A flash of green light? Does this in any way sound like something we've possibly read about before? What other than the Muggle sport, Winky, and the Dark Mark happened that night? vmonte responds: Funny, the first thing I thought of was of a sonic boom. And we already know that this was also heard/seen at Godric's Hollow. I don't mean to ruffle any feathers but could this be the sign potioncat was looking for that might signal an event where time travel took place? And I don't mean time-traveling a few hours back or forth. I mean the kind of travel where you travel a few (or a lot of) years in a short period of time. Just putting it out there... From yolandacarroll at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 19:14:51 2005 From: yolandacarroll at yahoo.com (yolandacarroll) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:14:51 -0000 Subject: Chat - I had to use Yahoo Messenger to get in... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122085 Hi, I had to use Yahoo Messenger to get in to HP Chat today. I couldn't get in through the chat link on the HPfGU page or through chat.yahoo.com. Yolanda From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 19:27:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:27:30 -0000 Subject: Was Snape spying in OOP? Re: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122086 Alla: Keep in mind that it is NOT a given that he is a spy, it is NOT a given that Voldemort does not know that Snape betrayed him, therefore I am not sure whether this motive even comes into play. Betsy: And I think it *is* a given that Snape does go back to Voldemort. In GoF, Voldemort lists three missing Death Eaters. We know that one is Crouch, Jr., one is Karkaroff, and one is Snape. Voldemort calls one his "most faithful servant [...] He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived here tonight..." Obviously - this is Crouch, Jr. The other missing Death Eater "has left me forever... he will be killed, of course." That must be Karkaroff. If it was Snape, he'd be keeping Sirius company at Grimmauld Place or be locked up within Hogwarts. And Lucius Malfoy would not speak highly of Snape to Umbridge (OotP pg. 745). Which means Snape is the Death Eater, "too cowardly to return... he will pay." (GoF Scholastic, paperback, pgs. 651-2) What else was Dumbledore sending Snape off to do at the end of GoF? Snape paled and even Dumbledore was apprehensive (ibid pg. 713). Again, it seems fairly obvious to me that Snape is about to return to Voldemort and take whatever payment Voldemort will dish out to him. Alla: First and foremost I am NOT conspiracy theorist. :o) But even when I read something at face value it is quite obvious to me that JKR does plant clues in the books. I respectfully refer you to post 118133 by Carolynwhite, which mentions many previous threads about who Voldie thing meant by three missing deatheaters and it is not a given at all that Snape is the one who is too cowardly too return. It is a possibility, but it is also a possibility that Snape is the one who left forever and will be killed. Consider for a second PS/SS events. Voldie was THERE even though in Quirrel's body. Wouldn't he notice that Snape is not exactly faithful to him? Granted, it is not a sure thing, but it is a possibility, IMO. Consider Dumbledore's testimony and "he is now no more DE than I am". Could it be that from many people present at the hearing some sympathized DE and tipped them of and don't forget that dear Rita Skeeter was present there. I am pretty sure that she published Dumbledore's testimony. What Snape could have been sent to do at the end of GoF? Many interesting things. Pippin will probably tell you that he was sent as envoy to vampires. :o) Neri had very interesting theory about Snape sharing mindlink with Voldie and opening it up again. Oh, the possibilities. :o) Let's look at OOP. Personally, I think that Snape IS spying, but not going back directly to Voldie. For example he maybe getting info from Lucius by using his Legilimency skills. I think that when Sirius calls him "Malfoy's lapdog" his comment refers not only to the past, but probably to the present. I think Sirius is aware of Snape's activities. I also think that when Order gathers to hear the report from the spy, that was not Snape. I don't know, just a feeling. Remember they never call Snape's name. They just say that he already came. Oh, and of course there is quite a speculation that Snape may be an animagus and spying in his animagus form. I think Voldemort knows that Snape deflected. I think that is why Dumbledore tolerates Snape being in Hogwarts, because otherwise Snape will be killed. I speculate that Dumbledore protects Snape by giving a shelter and a job in Hogwarts, too bad students have too suffer because of that. :) Alla previously: NO, we DON'T KNOW for sure that he is spy. Betsy: We know Snape is a spy as much as we know that Lupin is not ESE. In otherwords to say Snape isn't a spy you have to disprove a lot of what the books say. And as I stated in the begining, I'm going with a straightforward reading. Alla: I disagree. I think that books have many hints that Snape did not return to Voldie. I don't think that this subversive reading at all. I think the probability of it is the same as Snape returning to Voldie. Just my opinion, Alla From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 16 19:59:34 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:59:34 -0000 Subject: blood magic spells Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122087 Luckdragon: With all the talk of Harry's scar actually being a rune symbol I came across an interesting site (Ancient History presents blood magic) which explains many types of blood magic that provides answers to both Harry's scar and what rituals Voldemort may have used to change his being. There is a blood oath which requires the voluntary sacrafice of life and the marking of another with a runic symbol which could pertain to Harry and lily. There are also explanations as to how sacrificing small amounts f life force can enhance magical ability. Many of the spells listed would explain what has changed Tom Riddle to Voldemort including changes in physical appearance ie) glowing eyes, purlescent skin, serpentine eyes etc. Attempts to become an astral being which would enhance powers or resurrection and death cheat spells. It is definitely worth reading. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 20:03:28 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:03:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] life debt In-Reply-To: <000201c4fbd0$fdf41e20$c79a7ad5@PC821926347325> Message-ID: <20050116200328.43488.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122088 --- Elanor Isolda wrote: > So, DD and Snape both know that, at some point, Harry TT'd back to > the seventies and saved Snape's life. Snape doesn't want him to do > this (perhaps something bad happens as a result, or perhaps he just > doesn't want Harry to save him), which is why he does his best to > make Harry hate him. However, he keeps saving Harry's life > because, of course, if Harry dies then so will he. > Actually, I like the first half of your theory: I too wonder if Harry isn't going to go back through time and save Snape from werewolf/Lupin in the Shrieking Shack. It would explain why everyone's so on about the colour of Harry's eyes, if Snape told Dumbledore at the time that James' eyes were a different colour. Snape and Dumbledore would have pondered this anamoly until Harry showed up at Hogwarts and the penny dropped for both of them. And of course Snape would know that when the time comes he's going to be expected to be grateful to Harry for saving him and that would be like swallowing acid for Snape. I don't agree with the second part of your theory - Snape wanted to die rather than go through DE-hood - but only because I think it's an unnecessary complication. Snape not wanting to owe a Potter - ANY Potter - for anything would be reason enough. It would also stand as a test to see how far Harry's compassion will go - will he stick his neck out only to save his friends or people he likes or will it extend as far as saving Snape, who he loathes? Certainly there's some kind of major confrontation on the horizon between these two and since I don't believe that the MWPP/Snape backstory is important to JKR except for what it means to Harry's present, it would be a way of creating a cataclysmic and transforming event. 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 Sun Jan 16 20:03:55 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:03:55 -0000 Subject: life debt In-Reply-To: <000201c4fbd0$fdf41e20$c79a7ad5@PC821926347325> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elanor Isolda" wrote: > > De-lurking to offer my crazy and probably hole-filled theory on life debts: > > Tonks wrote: > > > DD says .When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it > > creates a certain bond between them." > > Elanor wrote: What if he meant that it creates a *literal* bond, i.e. that the life of the person whose life has been saved becomes inextricably linked to that of their saviour? This could even apply to the extent that, should the wizard who did the saving dies, so would the wizard who was saved. SNIP Tonks now: Doesn't this sound like Harry and LV?? Can anyone one else pick up on this and maybe together we can figure out the HP/LV thing. Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 16 20:03:49 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:03:49 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122090 Naama: > I have two objections to make here. One, on a plot leve. Second one, on a "meta" level, regarding the methodology of interpretation. > > My first point is - if Snape is nasty to Harry et al. in order to maintain his spy cover - why is he even nastier to Harry when they are alone? < Pippin: Snape doesn't trust everyone that Harry trusts. Do you think Snape wanted Harry telling Quirrell that Snape treats him okay when they're alone? Naama: > Second point - which holds to most conspiracy theories, actually. If you hold a theory that explains a character's behavior in terms of a hidden agenda, you have to be very careful about consistency of interpretation. For instance, taken one by one, which of Snape's moments of nastiness do you interprete as necessitated by spy cover, and which are authentic, expressing his true feelings and personality?< Pippin: Snape's hidden agenda is revealed when we would expect nasty behavior and don't get it; in OOP when he gives Umbridge fake veritaserum (the Order's secrets are in little danger since they are under fidelius), in GoF when he stands with the others to honor Harry at the leaving feast, in PoA when he conjures stretchers for Harry and the others, in CoS when he has a "shrewd and calculating look" instead of the discomfiture you would expect if his sole purpose in having Draco conjure the snake was to humiliate Harry, and of course in PS/SS when we find he has been shadowing Harry not to get him into trouble but to protect him from Quirrell. His words are nasty, but that goes back to the nice vs good conundrum. "Nice" is dependent on social convention, whereas most of us like to think goodness is not. Whether it's nice to belch at the table depends on who you're dining with; the Queen of England or a South Seas islander. There are cultures where casual insults are just the way you establish yourself in the pecking order...I remember reading a translator's note to the stories of Sholem Aleichem which explained that all the insults had been toned down, because no English-speaker would believe that people who actually liked each other could talk like that. Slytherin is definitely one of those. When Draco tells "Goyle" that if he were any slower he'd be going backward, he's asserting his social dominance, not trying to pick a fight. Phineas Nigellus is as insolent to Dumbledore as he dares to be, because that's his way of saying, "I was a Headmaster too." He makes a big show of not co-operating, but it's clear that he does. Sirius falls back into this way of relating at Grimmauld Place and tears into Kreacher, though he preaches, as a good Gryffindor, that you are judged by how you treat your inferiors. Snape has, by the conventions of Slytherin House, and of authoritarian societies generally, the privilege of insulting his inferiors. If he didn't exercise it, he'd be no true Slytherin and he would lose the respect of his House. How much genuine spleen there is behind the insults is anyone's guess, but we know that Harry tends to equate casual put-downs and hatred, so he's not our best witness. He's convinced that Lily hated James and that Sirius hated Kreacher, and he's told this was not so. Pippin From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 20:05:58 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 12:05:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Analysis of Snape Part 6 - End In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050116200558.44069.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122091 --- AyanEva wrote: > AyanEva (who forgot to sign the other posts in the series, sorry! I > was overly excited about posting!) AyanEva, you've done a tremendous amount of work on this and I hope you got a good mark. It certainly sounds interesting and most plausible, and it will be interesting to look back at the end of Book 7 and see how accurate it was. Keep posting. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 16 20:14:18 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:14:18 -0000 Subject: Half blood prince etymology Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122092 Luckdragon: At one time there was a discussion of the possibility of Severus and Sirius being half brothers. If Sirius's father had illigitimately fathered Severus and left him to be raised by an uncaring and abusive man it would give credence to Snapes inner rage and expressions of anger. This would also give cause for the tension between Sirius and Severus. Half blood could refer to the blood tie between Sirius and Severus and as an unrecognized (and last direct line of males )descendant of the most noble and ancient house of Black he could be considered a prince. With Sirius gone in book 5 it could be that Snape will now assume the Black household and the storyline could largely play around the whole marauder, Lily, Snape background. Has the idea of Snape being the HBP been discussed? If so what are the thoughts on this? From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 20:40:22 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:40:22 -0000 Subject: Snape the Animagus? (was: Was Snape spying in OOP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122093 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > there is quite a speculation that Snape may > be an animagus and spying in his animagus form. If Snape is an animagus I predict he will not turn into a large rather scary beast like Sirius can, nor will it be a beautiful majestic animal like James could, instead Snape will turn into a very cute very small puppy; and that's why Snape hates to do it. Snape hates it, he just hates it when little girls point to him and say "ahhh look at the adorable itty bitty doggie, I think I'll put a big bright pink bow on him and call him Mr. Snuggles, I just want to hug him and hug him for ever and ever!" And that another reason he hates Sirius, he's jealous of somebody who can turn into an animal that can scare people. Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 21:04:01 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:04:01 -0000 Subject: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122094 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" wrote: > > Luckdragon: > At one time there was a discussion of the possibility of Severus and > Sirius being half brothers. If Sirius's father had illigitimately > fathered Severus and left him to be raised by an uncaring and > abusive man it would give credence to Snapes inner rage and > expressions of anger. This would also give cause for the tension > between Sirius and Severus. > Half blood could refer to the blood tie between Sirius and Severus > and as an unrecognized (and last direct line of males )descendant of > the most noble and ancient house of Black he could be considered a > prince. With Sirius gone in book 5 it could be that Snape will now > assume the Black household and the storyline could largely play > around the whole marauder, Lily, Snape background. > > Has the idea of Snape being the HBP been discussed? If so what are > the thoughts on this? Tonks here: I like this idea. I have thought for some time that Snape could be Sirius's half brother. In fact I may have posted that before here. Remember Sirius says he is tomenting Snape *because he exist, if you know what I mean*. That could be our clue. Would be a kicker wouldn't it, if Snape was the one to inherit the Black estate. Ohhh.. Harry is not going to be happy about that!! From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 21:05:30 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:05:30 -0000 Subject: Chat - I had to use Yahoo Messenger to get in... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122095 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "yolandacarroll" wrote: > > Hi, > > I had to use Yahoo Messenger to get in to HP Chat today. > > I couldn't get in through the chat link on the HPfGU page or through > chat.yahoo.com. > > Yolanda I have never been able to get in, must be some secret??? Tonks From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sun Jan 16 21:10:05 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:10:05 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chat - I had to use Yahoo Messenger to get in... Message-ID: <1de.32ba961f.2f1c322d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122096 In a message dated 1/16/2005 1:07:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, tonks_op at yahoo.com writes: I have never been able to get in, must be some secret??? Tonks ************************************* Chancie You have to go in to any Yahoo chat room. type /join hp:1 where you type the text and click send or enter on your keybord then it will take you to the chat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 21:18:18 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:18:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Half blood prince etymology References: Message-ID: <04e901c4fc10$e6837e30$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122097 > Tonks here: > > I like this idea. I have thought for some time that Snape could be > Sirius's half brother. In fact I may have posted that before here. > Remember Sirius says he is tomenting Snape *because he exist, if you > know what I mean*. That could be our clue. Would be a kicker > wouldn't it, if Snape was the one to inherit the Black estate. > Ohhh.. Harry is not going to be happy about that!! > Charme: I think it's James who says that to Lily in the Penseive memory, not Sirius: 'Well,' said James, appearing to deliberate the point, 'it's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean." Still, the animosity between Snape and Sirius is overwhelming - the one line I keep referring back to is one Sirius makes to Snape when Harry has to meet with Snape unexpectedly after Christmas about Occulmency: 'You know,' said Sirius loudly, leaning back on his rear chair legs and speaking to the ceiling, 'I think I'd prefer it if you didn't give orders here, Snape. It's my house, you see.' His house, hm? Things that make you think.... Charme From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 16 21:46:31 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:46:31 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122098 > >Betsy: > No one avoids a question like JKR. And she provides such > entertainment as she does so. Not much insight into Snape's > > **vmonte again: Betsy, you cut out the most significant part. I will quote it again though. JKR: ..."But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen things that Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this." [EBF-04]< Pippin: But Dumbledore said that Snape is now no more a Death Eater than Dumbledore himself, and JKR criticized Sirius on her web site for treating Snape as if he couldn't have reformed. > **vmonte again: We also find out that Snape was once a Death Eater. So, that also is a bad sign in my opinion, especially since he doesn't seem to have had a moral epiphany. He is still a deeply horrible person, no?< Pippin: The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters. JKR has said that she doesn't believe children become evil unless they're damaged. This suggests she sees evil as a two step process. People become damaged, and then evil can take root in them, like germs can grow in a wound. That suggests that you can clean the germs out and get rid of the infection, but you aren't necessarily all better then; you still have the wound to take care of. Snape's ability to empathize with other people has apparently been damaged and like Harry tearing into Dudley at the beginning of OOP, it seems he's no longer as responsive to other people's distress as he should be, especially when he's the cause. The signals are drowned out by the pleasure he feels that for once, he's being the kicker instead of the kickee. There probably isn't much Snape can do about that. No matter how much he reforms, he isn't going to develop the ability to be sympathetic. It's gone. But he is no longer seeking out innocent people to victimize. It's true he can't resist remarking on Harry's celebrity, and his likeness to James, but then neither can most of the adults. The difference is that Snape has some very negative associations with these things. I'm sorry for the awful experience you had with that teacher, and I can see why you'd want to see Snape as a stand-in for her, but to tell you the truth she sounds much worse than Snape -- more like Umbridge. One of the things we find out with Umbridge is that Snape could treat Harry much, much worse than he does and Harry would not complain about it. So I think, although he insults Harry freely because that is the way that Slytherins treat anyone they consider beneath them, and he criticizes Harry to excess, that he is not abusing Harry because he wants to break him, any more than Harry wanted to break Dudley. He just wanted a target for all the rage and frustration he was feeling, and Dudley, he thought, deserved to be it. Pippin From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 16 21:47:15 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:47:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Harry (10) Message-ID: <20050116214715.55561.qmail@web25105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122099 One of the most overwhelming pieces of evidence that Harry Potter is NOT occult, is the defeat of the basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets. We all have this chamber, for it is the plexus sacralis (=sacred) at the bottom of the spine. This chamber certainly has a powerful and magic serpent, namely the kundalini, the root-force of our existence as fallen, mortal human beings. This serpent is extremely ancient, and was put in the "castle", i.e. our microcosm, from the beginning of its sojourn in this universe of time and space. The root-force it represents contains our entire karma, and links us to world-karma. It also contains our sexual force. It is possible through occult exercises, which require extreme concentration, unyielding will-power and fearless dedication, to drive this force up along the spinal column. On its way up it will influence the chakras. It can rise up right into the crown chakra, linked to the pineal gland. If this succeeds, the person is linked directly to the root-force of the cosmos, i.e. the central astral fire of our earth. This fire is called Lucifer. It is obvious that Salazar Slytherin personifies this force. The result of such a unification with Lucifer is that the successful occultist achieves immense occult powers. He has the sort of powers that are ascribed to Voldemort, for example legilimens and occlumency. There are also clairvoyance, clairaudience, and a willpower that bears no resistance (except Harry's!). But the greatest achievement of all is that the occultist is for the time being detached from the wheel of reincarnation. This is another reason why Voldemort keeps talking about immortality. Such a course of development leads into the exact opposite direction to the one leading to Christ. In addition it is extremely dangerous and perhaps one occultist in ten thousand succeeds. Failure can have extremely unpleasant circumstances lasting for several incarnations, for example uncontrollable erotic desires. However the essential thing is that it crystallises the personality as far as its susceptibility to the divine call emanating from God is concerned. It "kills" Lily and James and therefore any chance of Harry being born. And as it rises up the spinal column it spreads crystallisation and death as far as the liberating possibilities are concerned. In fact the uppermost chakra, the "crown chakra" is closed off to any possibility of liberation. The Gate of Saturn is closed. What does our hero Harry do? He comes down the spinal column (Jo calls it "pipes") for a totally selfless purpose*. Tom Riddle, personifying the Luciferic force in the plexus sacralis, sets the giant serpent on to Harry, who demonstrates his loyalty to Dumbledore. This invokes the phoenix who pecks out the basilisk's eyes and gives Harry the sword of Godric. Harry kills the basilisk and then destroys Tom Riddle. The phoenix takes Harry back up the pipes. This is a very accurate description of the triumph of the new soul over the old serpent of karma and the power of Lucifer. Once the new soul has reached a certain stage of maturity, it comes comes down the spinal column, by means of the sympathetic nerve, affecting the chakras as it goes down. This process takes many years. But if the apprentice alchemist persists in his devotion to the new soul, it will reach the sacral plexus and there will face the heir of Lucifer and the ancient serpent of the kundalini. There is no will power needed in this, as in occultism. What is needed here is total devotion to the new soul-force which was born out of the little Tao in the heart. Total loyalty must be shown to the power of liberation. Then the force of the resurrection (the phoenix) will destroy the lethal power of the kundalini and give the soul the sword of Christ (Godric - "Rich in Godliness"). The soul will then engage in a life and death struggle with the serpent of the kundalini. But the result is a foregone conclusion. The new soul is certain to win, as it is a force from another universe, the universe where God's will rules. And so there comes a moment in the life of the apprentice alchemist when he becomes a fully qualified alchemist. The ancient serpent is dead. The alchemist has broken all fetters with the past. His karma no longer rules his life. His links to world-karma are cut off and the representative of Lucifer is gone. The severing of the fetters of karma means the total forgiveness of sins. All the mistakes of the past are forgiven. This is what the New Testament means by forgiveness. The new soul-force then flows upwards along the sympathetic nervous cord and reaches the pineal centre (Dumbledore's office), where the enlightenment takes place. In the New Testament that's called the descent of the Holy Spirit. Jacob Boehme called it the light-birth of God. The New Testament also describes this in the Transfiguration of Christ. What a ruddy super genius Jo is to be able to incorporate these esoteric facts into an exciting story that a child of 5 can understand. I see Isabel Allende has said that Jo deserves the Nobel Prize for Literature. Hear, hear! But more than that she deserves the Peace Prize. For she is bringing to humanity the ancient alchemical way to reach everlasting peace, the peace that surpasses all understanding. *Tao Te Ching Chapter 2: "Through selfless action, he attains fulfilment." 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 naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jan 16 22:01:11 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:01:11 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122100 Pippin: > I'm sorry for the awful experience you had with that teacher, and I > can see why you'd want to see Snape as a stand-in for her, but to > tell you the truth she sounds much worse than Snape -- more > like Umbridge. One of the things we find out with Umbridge is > that Snape could treat Harry much, much worse than he does > and Harry would not complain about it. Talking of horrible teacher-pet incidents - aren't you forgetting Snape's attempt on Trevor's life? At the very least, he had Neville believe that Trevor will die. And I can totally see Snape say "that's no excuse" when a student explains she was late because her pet was run over. Naama From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 22:04:41 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:04:41 -0000 Subject: The Second Repository for LV's Soul (was: Re: LV's experiments) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122101 > Antosha: > I will reserve the right to speak to the rest of your post until I've had some coffee, because your thoughts are very interesting. (There was a very interesting discussion about LV's soul having been left 'on deposit' in Harry back around the end of the summer--Yahoo! Mort is proving uncooperative, so I can't seem to find it. I take it you read/remember those?) Kemper now: I have not read the discussion 'on deposit'. I was not following many of the posts in the summer and fall. I did do a brief check of topics going back a week before I posted, so that I could pipe up in similar discussions if they were out there. Back to Antosha: I did have one flash here, though, which is that, aside from Harry, there is a second repository for Tom Riddle's poor excuse for a soul: Ginny. At the end of CoS, TR tells Harry that he 'poured himself' from the diary into Miss Ginevra. That was part of the way in which he was able to beginning his physical remanifestation. And there's no indication that he withdrew what he put there.... Kemper again: The soul swapping went both ways. Ginny was pouring her soul into the diary before he was able to pour a little bit of his secrets, his soul back into her. She was also looked to be ailing. I forget who asked if she was feeling well. On a tangent... has anyone else noticed that she 'unknowingly', 'willingly', and finally was 'forcibly' giving up her soul? Unknowingly: when she first discovered and started journalling. Willingly: when she retrieved the diary from Harry's dorm room. Forcibly: when she is so weak in the Chamber, Tom is in control. . . . "Bone, Flesh and Blood" anyone? Back to Antosha again: He's sure to know about the diary episode-- Lucius knew all about it. Do we think that, having failed to knock off Harry so many times, he will shift his sights to the youngest Weasley? Antosha, who is sure GInny would definitely NOT play the damsel in distress the second time around... Kemper finally: Yeah... Ginny's bad ass. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 22:15:10 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:15:10 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122102 Vmonte again: Betsy, you cut out the most significant part. I will quote it again though. JKR: ..."But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen things that Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this." [EBF-04]< Pippin: But Dumbledore said that Snape is now no more a Death Eater than Dumbledore himself, and JKR criticized Sirius on her web site for treating Snape as if he couldn't have reformed. Alla: Hmmm, not exactly, Pippin, if we are thinking about the same quote. She said that Sirius treats Snape as if there were no "LATENT good qualities" there. Which pretty much agreeable to what I think about this character - he is not redeemed yet, but probably will be at the end. He may not even be redeemed at the end, because those LATENT qualities may never develop. Just my opinion, Alla. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 22:17:01 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:17:01 -0000 Subject: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: <04e901c4fc10$e6837e30$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122103 one thing about the idea of Snape being the half brother. I think Sirius's father would have had to have been married to the mother at some point. These are children's books after all. I don't think she is going to have an out-of-wedlock child in it. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 22:25:55 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:25:55 -0000 Subject: Snape the Animagus? (was: Was Snape spying in OOP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122105 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > there is quite a speculation that Snape may > > be an animagus and spying in his animagus form. > > If Snape is an animagus I predict he will not turn into a large > rather scary beast like Sirius can, nor will it be a beautiful > majestic animal like James could, instead Snape will turn into a > very cute very small puppy; and that's why Snape hates to do it. Eggplant Tonks here: Maybe he is Malfoy's *lap dog*! I don't know really. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 22:27:28 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:27:28 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122106 Naama: I have two objections to make here. One, on a plot leve. Second one, on a "meta" level, regarding the methodology of interpretation. My first point is - if Snape is nasty to Harry et al. in order to maintain his spy cover - why is he even nastier to Harry when they are alone? Pippin: Snape doesn't trust everyone that Harry trusts. Do you think Snape wanted Harry telling Quirrell that Snape treats him okay when they're alone? Alla: Pippin, why would Harry tell Quirrell how Snape treats him? Moreover, why would Snape THINK that Harry talks to Quirrell? I agree with Naama. Snape hurt Harry plenty of times when they were alone - insulting James in Harry's face in PoA, making fun of Harry's terror when he wanted to tell Dumbledore about Barty Sr., etc. Snape had NO witnesses to those interactions. Naama: Second point - which holds to most conspiracy theories, actually. If you hold a theory that explains a character's behavior in terms of a hidden agenda, you have to be very careful about consistency of interpretation. For instance, taken one by one, which of Snape's moments of nastiness do you interprete as necessitated by spy cover, and which are authentic, expressing his true feelings and personality?< > Pippin: > Snape's hidden agenda is revealed when we would expect > nasty behavior and don't get it; in OOP when he gives Umbridge > fake veritaserum (the Order's secrets are in little danger since > they are under fidelius), in GoF when he stands with the others > to honor Harry at the leaving feast, in PoA when he conjures > stretchers for Harry and the others, in CoS when he has a > "shrewd and calculating look" instead of the discomfiture you > would expect if his sole purpose in having Draco conjure the > snake was to humiliate Harry, and of course in PS/SS when we > find he has been shadowing Harry not to get him into trouble but > to protect him from Quirrell. Alla: In all of those instances he either had no choice or he had no possibility to exercise his sadism. If he indeed faithful to Dumbledore, he can do nothing else, but to do that to Umbridge. If he wants to maintain Dumbledore's trust, he has NO CHOICE, but stand up and honor Harry. If he knows that he will get nice bonus of handing Sirius and remus to Dementors and getting Order of Merlin, sure he wants Dumbledore to think that he tried to save the kids ( which I quite agree with Potioncat now was very last thought on his mind, IMO). He did save Harry in PS/SS, yeah. He did what any teacher has to do when he sees his student in danger. Pippin: Snape has, by the conventions of Slytherin House, and of authoritarian societies generally, the privilege of insulting his inferiors. Alla: Does any other Hogwarts teacher has such privilege in your opinion (please let's not talk about Umbridge, because she is not a teacher, she was sent by Ministry for very specific purposes) or it is given specifically to Snape, because he is so special? :o) Needless to say I disagree. Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 22:35:15 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:35:15 -0000 Subject: Snape the Animagus? (was: Was Snape spying in OOP?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122107 Alla wrote: > > there is quite a speculation that Snape may be an animagus and spying in his animagus form. If Snape is an animagus I predict he will not turn into a large rather scary beast like Sirius can, nor will it be a beautiful majestic animal like James could, instead Snape will turn into a very cute very small puppy; and that's why Snape hates to do it. Tonks here: Maybe he is Malfoy's *lap dog*! I don't know really. Alla: Snort. You guys are hysterical. :o) Eggplant, I wonder do you think his growth as animagus was stunned at certain age, because grown up is supposed to be grown-up animal, no? I know maybe since his emotional level seems to be stuck at the age 15, maybe that is why he is still a puppy? :o) And Tonks, who knows indeed, maybe you found a perfect clue. :) Alla From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jan 16 22:36:20 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:36:20 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122108 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Naama: > > I have two objections to make here. One, on a plot leve. > Second one, on a "meta" level, regarding the methodology of > interpretation. > > > > My first point is - if Snape is nasty to Harry et al. in order to > maintain his spy cover - why is he even nastier to Harry when > they are alone? < > > Pippin: > Snape doesn't trust everyone that Harry trusts. Do you think > Snape wanted Harry telling Quirrell that Snape treats him okay > when they're alone? > > Naama: > > Second point - which holds to most conspiracy theories, > actually. If you hold a theory that explains a character's behavior > in terms of a hidden agenda, you have to be very careful about > consistency of interpretation. For instance, taken one by one, > which of Snape's moments of nastiness do you interprete as > necessitated by spy cover, and which are authentic, expressing > his true feelings and personality?< > > Pippin: > Snape's hidden agenda is revealed when we would expect > nasty behavior and don't get it; in OOP when he gives Umbridge > fake veritaserum (the Order's secrets are in little danger since > they are under fidelius), in GoF when he stands with the others > to honor Harry at the leaving feast, in PoA when he conjures > stretchers for Harry and the others, in CoS when he has a > "shrewd and calculating look" instead of the discomfiture you > would expect if his sole purpose in having Draco conjure the > snake was to humiliate Harry, and of course in PS/SS when we > find he has been shadowing Harry not to get him into trouble but > to protect him from Quirrell. > I'm not arguing that Snape isn't on the side of the Good, or that he isn't (now) doing the double spy thing. The question is, is it legitimate to theorize that various aspects of Snape's behavior which are not directly connected to the Good Fight (such as his behavior in class and generally to Harry) - are part of an elaborate masquerade? This has nothing to do with the incidents you refer to above, all of which have to do with fighting for the Cause - and like I said, I don't doubt his basic allegiance. > His words are nasty, but that goes back to the nice vs good > conundrum. "Nice" is dependent on social convention, whereas > most of us like to think goodness is not. Whether it's nice to > belch at the table depends on who you're dining with; the Queen > of England or a South Seas islander. > > There are cultures where casual insults are just the way you > establish yourself in the pecking order...I remember reading a > translator's note to the stories of Sholem Aleichem which > explained that all the insults had been toned down, because no > English-speaker would believe that people who actually liked > each other could talk like that. You are totally disregarding here the tone of voice, the viciousness, the sneer, the cold eyes, etc. There is absolutely nothing "casual" about the way he insults - certainly not when it comes to Harry or Neville. > > Slytherin is definitely one of those. When Draco tells "Goyle" that > if he were any slower he'd be going backward, he's asserting his > social dominance, not trying to pick a fight. Draco is nasty too, and depicted as such, (not to mention described as such in interviews). So he's a bad example of the "casual insulter". Besides which, although not nice to "Goyle", there is a huge difference in tone when you compare that with the way he speaks to Harry, and with the way Snape speaks to Harry. > Phineas Nigellus is > as insolent to Dumbledore as he dares to be, because that's his > way of saying, "I was a Headmaster too." He makes a big show > of not co-operating, but it's clear that he does. > Sirius falls back into this way of relating at Grimmauld Place and > tears into Kreacher, though he preaches, as a good > Gryffindor, that you are judged by how you treat your inferiors. I don't agree that Sirius "tears into Kreacher". If anything, it's the other way around. (If that disgusting little creature had talked to me the way he did to Sirius, there would have been another head on the wall.) And, in any case, just because Sirius is not being nice to Kreature, doesn't make him "fall back into" any kind of way of relating. "A way of relating" implies habit, consistency. Phineas Nigellus is obviously in the habit of behaving in the annoying way he has - Sirius isn't. > > Snape has, by the conventions of Slytherin House, and of > authoritarian societies generally, the privilege of insulting his > inferiors. If he didn't exercise it, he'd be no true Slytherin and he > would lose the respect of his House. How much genuine spleen > there is behind the insults is anyone's guess, but we know that > Harry tends to equate casual put-downs and hatred, so he's not > our best witness. He's convinced that Lily hated James and that > Sirius hated Kreacher, and he's told this was not so. > Lily, at that point, did dislike James. Sirius and Lupin say as much. Sirius certainly disliked Kreacher. "This is all Harry's point of view" is a two edged argument. For instance, when you quote above the "shrewed and calculated look" - one could argue back, very simply, that since this is all from Harry's perspective, we can't know what Snape's expression was really like at that moment. Maybe he was, in fact, simply contemplating what's for dinner? It leads to the same sort of arbitrariness in interpretation as playacting!Snape. You apply it in order to undermine the straight meaning of the text in one place, while leaveing other places undisturbed. What's the criteria? Naama From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 22:37:37 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:37:37 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122109 >Betsy: No one avoids a question like JKR. And she provides such entertainment as she does so. Not much insight into Snape's >vmonte: Betsy, you cut out the most significant part. I will quote it again though. JKR: ..."But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen things that Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this." [EBF-04]< >Pippin wrote: But Dumbledore said that Snape is now no more a Death Eater than Dumbledore himself, and JKR criticized Sirius on her web site for treating Snape as if he couldn't have reformed. vmonte responds: Good point. >vmonte: We also find out that Snape was once a Death Eater. So, that also is a bad sign in my opinion, especially since he doesn't seem to have had a moral epiphany. He is still a deeply horrible person, no?< >Pippin wrote: The world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters. JKR has said that she doesn't believe children become evil unless they're damaged. This suggests she sees evil as a two step process. People become damaged, and then evil can take root in them, like germs can grow in a wound. vmonte responds: You don't think that Snape is damaged? I have a lot sympathy for abused children. However, I lose all my sympathy for those who grow up to do what was done to them. Not all abused children grow up to be abusers, by the way. >Pippin wrote: That suggests that you can clean the germs out and get rid of the infection, but you aren't necessarily all better then; you still have the wound to take care of. Snape's ability to empathize with other people has apparently been damaged and like Harry tearing into Dudley at the beginning of OOP, it seems he's no longer as responsive to other people's distress as he should be, especially when he's the cause. vmonte responds: Yes, you are right about Snape. I on the other hand, see the Dudley and Harry dynamic at the begining of OOTP in a different way. If you didn't know Harry, and were watching this scene through a penseive, you would think that Harry was a bully, right? My bet is that James and gang were picking on Snape in much the same way--they were repaying him for all the crap they've had to endure from him. I'm not saying that what they did was right, because doing what you know is wrong makes you just as bad, IMO. >Pippin wrote: snip ...But he is no longer seeking out innocent people to victimize. vmonte responds: Sure he is. He's got a whole classroom full. >Pippin wrote: I'm sorry for the awful experience you had with that teacher, and I can see why you'd want to see Snape as a stand-in for her, but to tell you the truth she sounds much worse than Snape -- more like Umbridge. vmonte responds: Believe me I'm not scarred for life because of this teacher. I was afterall in my twenties, and not an eleven-year-old like Harry and crew. And this person was like Snape, not Umbridge. I was never physically hurt by this teacher. >Pippin wrote: So I think, although he insults Harry freely because that is the way that Slytherins treat anyone they consider beneath them... vmonte: Is that a another way of saying they are a bunch of racists? >Pippin wrote: ...and he criticizes Harry to excess, that he is not abusing Harry because he wants to break him, any more than Harry wanted to break Dudley. He just wanted a target for all the rage and frustration he was feeling, and Dudley, he thought, deserved to be it. vmonte responds: I do believe that Harry was targeting all of his rage and frustration on Dudley during OOTP, yet he was capable of snapping himself out of it to save Dudley's life, and then later to feel compassion for Petunia who's treated him like crap all his life. I hope you are right about Snape and that he eventually gets his "aha" moment when he realizes that he can let go of his past and move on. He better hurry up though, he only has two more books left. vmonte :) From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Jan 16 22:38:31 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:38:31 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41EB8797.29058.7923034@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122110 On 16 Jan 2005 at 22:01, naamagatus wrote: > Talking of horrible teacher-pet incidents - aren't you forgetting Snape's attempt on > Trevor's life? At the very least, he had Neville believe that Trevor will die. And I can > totally see Snape say "that's no excuse" when a student explains she was late because her > pet was run over. I really think the 'Trevor incident' gets overstated. Snape is able to identify precisely what is wrong with Neville's potion from its colour. He explicitly tells Neville what he has done wrong. "A few cauldrons away, Neville was in trouble. Neville regularly went to pieces in Potions lessons; it was his worst subject, and his great fear of Professor Snape made things ten times worse. His potion, which was supposed to be a bright, acid green, had turned - 'Orange, Longbottom,' said Snape, ladling some up and allowing to splash back into the cauldron, so that everyone could see. 'Orange. Tell me, boy, does anything penetrate that thick skull of yours? Didn't you hear me say, quite clearly, that only one rat spleen was needed? Didn't I state plainly that a dash of leech juice would suffice? What do I have to do to make you understand, Longbottom?'" And then leaves Neville to fix it. He doesn't feed the potion to Trevor, until it's the right colour: "Snape picked up Trevor the toad in his left hand and dipped a small spoon into Neville's potion, which was now green." If Snape can tell exactly what is wrong with a potion from its colour, it is certainly reasonable to assume he can also tell from its colour when it has been made properly. I doubt Trevor was in any real danger. Yes, Snape let Neville think he was, and some people certainly would regard that as inappropriate, and I can understand why. But Neville has to learn - and in that class they are making shrinking potions - something they have apparently been working towards for a while (they had an essay on Shrinking Potions to do over their summer holidays). He has made very basic errors. I can *seriously* understand a teacher being very irritated in that situation. As I've said numerous times before, I had some very Snapish teachers as a kid. And I learned incredibly effectively from them. Did I enjoy their classes? No. Did I fear them? Yes (though not as much as Neville). Were they nice men? At least one, most definitely was not (with the other main one, I've never been quite sure how much of his manner was a show). Were they highly effective teachers? Yes. Not for everyone. But certainly for a lot of us, and definitely for me. There's no single wonderful perfect way of teaching. Different methods work for different students, and different teachers can make different methods work for them. Snape's methods may not be comfortable, or fashionable. But that doesn't necessarily make them bad methods. Like I say, I had teachers very like him who were good teachers. And, a lot of teachers I had who were nice and kind, and pleasant to be around, were either useless teachers in general - or at least useless when it came to teaching me specifically. There needs to be a range of teaching methods in use. I really do think Snape, as we see him, falls into that valid range. 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 naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jan 16 22:45:35 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:45:35 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: <41EB8797.29058.7923034@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122111 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > On 16 Jan 2005 at 22:01, naamagatus wrote: > > > Talking of horrible teacher-pet incidents - aren't you forgetting Snape's attempt on > > Trevor's life? At the very least, he had Neville believe that Trevor will die. And I can > > totally see Snape say "that's no excuse" when a student explains she was late because her > > pet was run over. > > I really think the 'Trevor incident' gets overstated. > Pippin, as far as I understand, was referring to an incident told by a listee, where a teacher treated the loss of a pet with indifference and total insensitivity. Pippin said that this teacher seemed worse than Snape. I brought up the Trevor incident to show that Snape has been actively cruel regarding a child's pet (in making Neville believe Trevor can die) - which makes *him* worse than the RL teacher. That's all. Naama From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 22:47:05 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:47:05 -0000 Subject: life debt In-Reply-To: <000201c4fbd0$fdf41e20$c79a7ad5@PC821926347325> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122112 Tonks wrote: DD says .When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them." Elanor responded: What if he meant that it creates a *literal* bond, i.e. that the life of the person whose life has been saved becomes inextricably linked to that of their saviour? This could even apply to the extent that, should the wizard who did the saving dies, so would the wizard who was saved. Kemper now: I have no cannon for this, but I don't think if the Savior wizard dies then so does the Saved. I say this because I think that DD is going to die. If your guess is right, that Savior dies so Saved dies , it would mean that Harry would die should DD die. A 'certain bond between' developed during "The Only One He Ever Feared" when DD saved Harry's life. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sun Jan 16 22:57:32 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:57:32 -0000 Subject: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: <04e901c4fc10$e6837e30$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122113 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" wrote: > > > Tonks here: > > > > I like this idea. I have thought for some time that Snape could be > > Sirius's half brother. In fact I may have posted that before here. > > Remember Sirius says he is tomenting Snape *because he exist, if you > > know what I mean*. That could be our clue. Would be a kicker > > wouldn't it, if Snape was the one to inherit the Black estate. > > Ohhh.. Harry is not going to be happy about that!! > >> > Charme: > > I think it's James who says that to Lily in the Penseive memory, not Sirius: > > 'Well,' said James, appearing to deliberate the point, 'it's more the fact > that he exists, if you know what I mean." > > Still, the animosity between Snape and Sirius is overwhelming - the one line > I keep referring back to is one Sirius makes to Snape when Harry has to meet > with Snape unexpectedly after Christmas about Occulmency: > > 'You know,' said Sirius loudly, leaning back on his rear chair legs and > speaking to the ceiling, 'I think I'd prefer it if you didn't give orders > here, Snape. It's my house, you see.' > > His house, hm? Things that make you think.... > Renee: If Snape is Sirius's half brother and Sirius knew, I doubt he'd have kept it from James. But I think it took more than just the knowledge who Snape really is for Sirius to hate Snape as much as he does. For instance, being aware that Snape wants to have everything he has but doesn't care about: wealth, status, a large house, an ancient pureblood name associated with Dark Magic, a complete family and whatnot. And Snape in his turn would hate Sirius because he has everything Snape covets, but rejects it and turns his back to it. And later, Sirius goes to Azkaban for being a Death Eater though he isn't, while Snape is spared Azkaban though he *was* a Death Eater. It would be a nicely ironic contrast: Sirius and Snape as each other's (distorted) mirror images. They almost literally become such mirror images in the scene in OotP where they draw wands on each other in the kitchen of 12GP. It look certainly possible to me. Why do we never get to see a portrait of mr. Black in OotP? Because Mrs. Black removed it after his death, knowing he'd been unfaithful to her? If Sirius's father is also Snape's father, the absence of his portrait would be most convenient if JKR wanted to surprise her readers in the next book: this way, Harry can't realise that Mr. Black is the man he saw in Snape's memory during the Occlumency lessons. I'm not sure, though, if Snape could inherit the Black estate if he were illegitimate, as much as I'd like to see him contest Sirius's will. Renee From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 23:04:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:04:30 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius related? Was: Re: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122114 Renee: It look certainly possible to me. Why do we never get to see a portrait of mr. Black in OotP? Because Mrs. Black removed it after his death, knowing he'd been unfaithful to her? If Sirius's father is also Snape's father, the absence of his portrait would be most convenient if JKR wanted to surprise her readers in the next book: this way, Harry can't realise that Mr. Black is the man he saw in Snape's memory during the Occlumency lessons. I'm not sure, though, if Snape could inherit the Black estate if he were illegitimate, as much as I'd like to see him contest Sirius's will. Alla: Magda developed this theory in the post 110109. I thought for a long time that Snape and Sirius or Snape and James can be related. Thi sure sounds like a good one. And remember when Sirius shows Harry the tapestry? Harry could have missed few names on there surely. I do think that all of this blood relatedness of many pureblood families will lead us to new interesting discoveries. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 16 23:17:29 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:17:29 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122115 Naama: > Pippin, as far as I understand, was referring to an incident told by a listee, where a teacher treated the loss of a pet with indifference and total insensitivity. Pippin said that this teacher seemed worse than Snape. I brought up the Trevor incident to show that Snape has been actively cruel regarding a child's pet (in making Neville believe Trevor can die) - which makes *him* worse than the RL teacher. That's all< > Pippin: Um, no, actually I meant the one who implied that Irish people were drunks and so on. That wasn't the same one, was it? But I think if you've had bad experiences with a RL teacher who reminds you of Snape, they get projected on to the character, and if you've had good experiences with a Snape style teacher they get projected too. IMO, we'd all like to validate our experiences by having Snape get the fate we wish our real life teachers could have had. Anyway, IIRC, in canon it's Hermione who treats the loss of a pet with total insensitivity and more than once. Does that make her a DE? Pippin From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 16 23:19:21 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 18:19:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050116231921.30238.qmail@web52001.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122116 Tonks wrote: one thing about the idea of Snape being the half brother. I think Sirius's father would have had to have been married to the mother at some point. These are children's books after all. I don't think she is going to have an out-of-wedlock child in it. Tonks_op Luckdragon: That's a very good point. The relationship between the 2 would be a great plot twist though, and if anyone could do it without offending too many people I think it would be Jo. There are a few after marriage break ups mentioned. ie) Hagrids parents, Tom Riddles, Dean Thomas's. I think many readers both young and old alike could relate to the half brothers idea if done correctly. 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 vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 23:25:11 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:25:11 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122117 Pippin wrote: ...But I think if you've had bad experiences with a RL teacher who reminds you of Snape, they get projected on to the character, and if you've had good experiences with a Snape style teacher they get projected too. IMO, we'd all like to validate our experiences by having Snape get the fate we wish our real life teachers could have had. vmonte responds: What about Snape? JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all..."[WBUR-99] I guess JKR is projecting her bad experiences with a sadistic power abusing teacher onto her character of Snape. Vivian :) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 16 23:28:39 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:28:39 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122118 Pippin: Um, no, actually I meant the one who implied that Irish people were drunks and so on. That wasn't the same one, was it? But I think if you've had bad experiences with a RL teacher who reminds you of Snape, they get projected on to the character, and if you've had good experiences with a Snape style teacher they get projected too. IMO, we'd all like to validate our experiences by having Snape get the fate we wish our real life teachers could have had. Alla: Not necessarily, Pippin, not necessarily at all. I mean absolutely our RL experiences reflect on our readings of the books, but you know what I think of Snape, right? :) With all honesty I am telling you I NEVER had a teacher as bad as Snape, not even close, not even in law school (I think I mentioned it earlier). I had quite a few incompetent teachers, but I never had sadistic teachers. Nevertheless, I do consider what Snape does to Harry and Neville to be evil, everyday evil, if you mind. It certainly has something to do with my RL experiences, but I still cannot figure out what. Maybe I just in general consider cruelty to children and enjoynment of their sufferings to be disgusting character trait in any person. I am not sure. Maybe it is just the fact that I had so many GOOD, FAIR teachers and Snape's behaviour is just so... different from them. :) Maybe it is because I was taught in college that Snapelike behaviour has no business in classroom. As I said, I am not sure, but I don't think that your assumption of direct projection is always true. Just my opinion, Alla From dejjfan368 at aol.com Sun Jan 16 21:24:16 2005 From: dejjfan368 at aol.com (ebennet68) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:24:16 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Time-turner not a quick fix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122119 > > Finwitch: > > Yes, well: Harry *Can* be invisible. He does have that cloak, > remember? And er - I think the cloak would be enough to hide Sirius, > too. ebennet here: Delurking a bit. Wouldn't Moody or Dumbledore have been able to see through the invisibility cloak? Would they say something if they had? ebennet From deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 16 21:25:55 2005 From: deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk (deatheaterjames) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:25:55 -0000 Subject: life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122120 Don't forget James Potter saved Snape's life and now if there is a "life debt" Snape owes it to Harry. Whats also interesting to think about is that Snape only left the DEs shortly before the Potters were killed and so Snape's old master murdered someone he has a "life debt" to. This could mean that Snape's debt is greater than most, but its certain that there should be a lot of guilt on Snape's part. --James From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Mon Jan 17 00:22:42 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:22:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ahha!! I've got it... Time-turner not a quick fix Message-ID: <148.3c2f6c54.2f1c5f52@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122121 In a message dated 1/16/2005 3:42:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, dejjfan368 at aol.com writes: ebennet here: Delurking a bit. Wouldn't Moody or Dumbledore have been able to see through the invisibility cloak? Would they say something if they had? ebennet ********************************************************** Chancie: What makes you say Dumbledore could see through an invisibility cloak? We all know Moody can, but I doubt he would say anything about Harry being under an invisibility cloak, too many DE's around. I am certian that if this was the case however, Moody would tell Dumbledore as soon as he felt it was safe to do so. Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 01:06:42 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:06:42 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122122 >>Betsy: >No one avoids a question like JKR. And she provides such entertainment as she does so. Not much insight into Snape's< >>vmonte again: Betsy, you cut out the most significant part. I will quote it again though. JKR: ..."But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen things that Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this." [EBF-04] >>vmonte: From what I've read of Death Eaters, they do not go door to door selling girl scout cookies. Voldemort expects a lot from his employees, right? I don't think that Snape stayed back at "Bady Headquarters" playing with his chemistry set. Betsy: Sorry! I snipped that because we all know that Snape used to be a Death Eater. So I'm still not seeing any new insight into Snape's character, so I still characterize this as JKR smoothly side stepping a question. >>vmonte: >jkrowling_bn: Dumbledore believes there are all sorts of lessons in life...horrible teachers like Snape are one of them! [Y-00]< >>vmonte responds: >Snape is a horrible teacher.< >>Betsy: >Not denying he's the "scary" teacher, but if JKR really wanted to say he was an incompetent teacher, his students would not pass their O.W.Ls. (And I agree with Dumbledore - learning to deal with the "scary" or "horrible" teacher is an important life lesson!)< >>vmonte again: Sorry, I disagree. I do think however, that you can learn something from a horrible teacher. Did you ever read "The Art of War?" (It's a 2000-year-old military treatise.) One famous quote from it is: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." I think it would be worthwhile for the students to understand the mind of the enemy, but that's just my opinion. So, when JKR says that Snape is a sadistic and horrible teacher, the students must be learning something besides potions...< Betsy: I'd say the students are learning that the world isn't made up of smiling happy people. And, much more importantly, they are learning Potions. (I'm not sure what you think they're learning - but it sounds very grim! ) >>Betsy: >Never argued that Snape is pleasant - and he certainly abuses his power at times. And in Book 4 we find out that he is a spy for Dumbledore, adding depth and interest to his character, just as JKR promised. :) >>vmonte again: We also find out that Snape was once a Death Eater. So, that also is a bad sign in my opinion, especially since he doesn't seem to have had a moral epiphany. He is still a deeply horrible person, no? Betsy: Erm. Can I choose no? :) The entire point of my post is that Snape is *not* a deeply horrible person. And Snape switched sides, going against his friends and possibly his family to support a side that seemed (according to Lupin anyway) to be loosing. How on earth is that not a moral epiphany? Must the man put daisies in his hair and kitten posters on his door before you accept that he's on the good guys' side? >>vmonte: >JKR: Yeees. You shouldn't think he's too nice, let me just say that. >SF: Right I shall bear that in mind. Worth watching Serverus Snape >JKR: He's worth keeping and eye on, definitely [RAH-03]< >>vmonte responds: I'm not sure that Snape is going to turn out to be good in the end.< >>Betsy: >I hope this quote isn't all you're basing that theory on. :) And I made perfectly clear that I don't think Snape is nice. But (sing along with me!) "nice" does not equal "good."< >>vmonte again: You really think I'm reaching here? Or are you? Again I requote JKR:< >..."But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater." >..."there are all sorts of lessons in life...horrible teachers like Snape are one of them! >"Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say." >"Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this." >..."children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse his power." >And Alan Rickman: "I think at heart Snape is basically quite an insecure person, he's always longing to be something else that people will really respect like a black magician not just a school master. That's why he envies the more popular and successful boys like Harry."< Betsy: The fact that I quote canon, and you quote interviews (which really don't give us too much new insight into the character of Snape) leads me to believe that I am not reaching, and that you are. I have said, time and again, that Snape is a scary teacher, that he's not a pleasant person to be around. Which is exactly what the above quotes say. If you really think that Snape is out and out evil, you must show me examples *in the books* where Snape behaves in an out and out evil way. I promise I will consider canon examples. >>vmonte again: I had a college professor who was just like Snape (although a female). >And everything I learned was of my own doing. I worked my backside off at home reading the material, and teaching myself. I would have learned faster if I had taken a correspondence course at home.< Betsy: She was a bad teacher, and a bad person. She was not like Snape at all, however. Snape has *never* judged his students by their blood status (the WW equivalent of racism). If that was Snape's criteria, Nevilla (a pure-blood) would be sitting pretty, and Hermione or Dean Thomas (both muggle born) would be getting all of Snape's wrath. And none of Snape's students had to teach themselves Potions. >>Betsy: >But if you take Alan Rickman's words as gospel...< >>vmonte again: Are you saying that I should take your words as gospel and not Mr. Rickman's and JKR's?< Betsy: Lord, no! I'm saying that you should only take the books as gospel. Maybe think of JKR's interviews as an apocrypha, and interviews of actors as interesting commentary. :) >>Betsy: Also, Snape does not envy James -- he hates him. Would you envy a person that stripped you in front of your classmates? And Harry as popular? He's known - but he spends quite a bit of time, in just about every book, being mocked or feared or ridiculed by the Hogwarts students. Why would Snape envy that?< >>vmonte again: I agree that James and gang were wrong to attack Snape. As far as being mocked, feared, or ridiculed by present day Hogwarts students--this is all his fault in my opinion.< Betsy: Sorry, I was talking about *Harry* being known by his classmates and also being mocked, feared, or ridiculed by them. I hope you don't think Harry brought it on himself. :) >>vmonte: >I agree. Snape is jealous of Harry's celebrity.< >>Betsy: >Huh? Where do you get that from? Please site canon. >>vmonte again: Ok. Alan Rickman: "I think at heart Snape is basically quite an insecure person, he's always longing to be something else that people will really respect like a black magician not just a school master. That's why he envies the more popular and successful boys like Harry."< Betsy: Hopefully I've made clear by now that I do not consider interviews with actors to be canon (though they are interesting). Please show me something in the books that illustrates Snape's jealousy of Harry. >>vmonte again: We do have cannon that suggests that Snape is a racist. After all he did join the DEs, and he did call Lily a nasty name. I often find that racists are very frightened people. They fear what they don't understand.< Betsy: The canon suggest that Snape *was* a racist. There is nothing in his current actions to suggest that he is a racist now. Betsy From tinainfay at msn.com Mon Jan 17 01:08:45 2005 From: tinainfay at msn.com (mrs_sonofgib) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:08:45 -0000 Subject: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122123 > > Renee: (lots of snippage) > It look certainly possible to me. Why do we never get to see a > portrait of mr. Black in OotP? Because Mrs. Black removed it after > his death, knowing he'd been unfaithful to her? If Sirius's father > is also Snape's father, the absence of his portrait would be most > convenient if JKR wanted to surprise her readers in the next book: > this way, Harry can't realise that Mr. Black is the man he saw in > Snape's memory during the Occlumency lessons. I'm not sure, though, > if Snape could inherit the Black estate if he were illegitimate, as > much as I'd like to see him contest Sirius's will. > > Renee Tina now: Just to muddy the waters, I've often wondered about this little remark: (Chapter 22 - The Unexpected Task GOF p 392 Am PB) "...and Snape, of course, would no sooner let them play games in class than adopt Harry." What an odd thing to say. What an odd comparison. Could this theory lead to a tie-in? Hmmm... ~tina From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 01:20:36 2005 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:20:36 -0000 Subject: life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" wrote: > > Tonks wrote: > > DD says .When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a > certain bond between them." > > Elanor responded: > What if he meant that it creates a *literal* bond, i.e. that the life > of the person whose life has been saved becomes inextricably linked > to that of their saviour? This could even apply to the extent that, > should the wizard who did the saving dies, so would the wizard who > was saved. > > Kemper now: > I have no cannon for this, but I don't think if the Savior wizard > dies then so does the Saved. I say this because I think that DD is > going to die. If your guess is right, that Savior dies so Saved > dies , it would mean that Harry would die should DD die. A 'certain > bond between' developed during "The Only One He Ever Feared" when DD > saved Harry's life. Kelly: That is an interesting theory, but I don't think it can be true. As James reminded me today, Snape had a life debt to James. If your theory were correct, Snape would have died in Potterworld 1981. Kelly, thinking how much happier Harry would be without Snape as a teacher ;) From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 01:30:57 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:30:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Half blood prince etymology References: Message-ID: <05ab01c4fc34$32071380$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122125 From: "mrs_sonofgib" >> Tina now: > Just to muddy the waters, I've often wondered about this little > remark: > (Chapter 22 - The Unexpected Task GOF p 392 Am PB) > "...and Snape, of course, would no sooner let them play games in > class than adopt Harry." What an odd thing to say. What an odd > comparison. Could this theory lead to a tie-in? Hmmm... > ~tina > Charme: Oh, I *missed* that one!!!! I'm a huge James-Snape etymology link, like 2nd cousins removed or such - I think that scenario would eliminate the perception that Harry has "family" living so to speak, if that makes sense? Charme From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 01:41:03 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:41:03 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122126 >>Naama: >I have two objections to make here. One, on a plot leve. Second one, on a "meta" level, regarding the methodology of interpretation. >My first point is - if Snape is nasty to Harry et al. in order to maintain his spy cover - why is he even nastier to Harry when they are alone?< >>Pippin: >Snape doesn't trust everyone that Harry trusts. Do you think Snape wanted Harry telling Quirrell that Snape treats him okay when they're alone?< Betsy: I agree with Pippin that Snape doesn't trust Harry's judgment. And often when Snape and Harry are alone together, Snape has just caught Harry breaking a school rule, and usually placing himself in some danger. (Which wouldn't help Snape in the whole, trusting Harry's judgement thing. ) I think Snape honestly thinks Harry is careless and foolhardy, so he tries to curtail that behavior, in his inimitable snarky way. >>Naama: >Second point - which holds to most conspiracy theories, actually. If you hold a theory that explains a character's behavior in terms of a hidden agenda, you have to be very careful about consistency of interpretation. For instance, taken one by one, which of Snape's moments of nastiness do you interprete as necessitated by spy cover, and which are authentic, expressing his true feelings and personality?< >>Pippin: >Snape's hidden agenda is revealed when we would expect nasty behavior and don't get it; in OOP when he gives Umbridge fake veritaserum (the Order's secrets are in little danger since they are under fidelius), in GoF when he stands with the others to honor Harry at the leaving feast, in PoA when he conjures stretchers for Harry and the others, in CoS when he has a "shrewd and calculating look" instead of the discomfiture you would expect if his sole purpose in having Draco conjure the snake was to humiliate Harry, and of course in PS/SS when we find he has been shadowing Harry not to get him into trouble but to protect him from Quirrell.< >>Naama: >I'm not arguing that Snape isn't on the side of the Good, or that he isn't (now) doing the double spy thing. The question is, is it legitimate to theorize that various aspects of Snape's behavior which are not directly connected to the Good Fight (such as his behavior in class and generally to Harry) - are part of an elaborate masquerade? This has nothing to do with the incidents you refer to above, all of which have to do with fighting for the Cause - and like I said, I don't doubt his basic allegiance.< Betsy: I think it *is* legitimate to theorize that Snape's behavior is affected by his need to maintain his cover as a true Death Eater. But I agree that if it was an "elaborate masquerade" that Snape was trying to perform, there would be a need to show canon where Snape dropped character and became an entirely different personality. However, I do not think Snape is creating an entirely different persona. For one, he's trying to fool people who've known him since he was a boy -- a new persona would be jarring. What Snape is doing (in my opinion) is tweaking his behavior in fairly mild ways. His dismissal of Harry's plea about Snuffles in Umbridge's office in OotP was in character - Snape being Snape, especially when it came to Harry. But we know that Snape was lying. He knew exactly what Harry was talking about and he took immediate action to do as Harry had asked. It was a masquerade, but not all that elaborate. Betsy From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 17 01:55:14 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:55:14 -0000 Subject: Aha!!! Now *I've* got It! WAS The Second Repository for LV's Soul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" wrote: > Kemper again: > The soul swapping went both ways. Ginny was pouring her soul into > the diary before he was able to pour a little bit of his secrets, his soul back into her. She was also looked to be ailing. I forget who asked if she was feeling well. On a tangent... has anyone else noticed that she 'unknowingly', 'willingly', and finally was 'forcibly' giving up her soul? Unknowingly: when she first discovered and started journalling. Willingly: when she retrieved the diary from Harry's dorm room. Forcibly: when she is so weak in the Chamber, Tom is in control. . . . "Bone, Flesh and Blood" anyone? > > Valky: Oh GOOD Tangent, Kemper! Theres definitely something in that.... take a look at Voldemort ?Fulfilling the Prophecy? Unknowingly: "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal...": When Voldie tries to AK Harry he is is fulfilling this part of the prophecy according to DD in OOtP. Willingly: Blood of the Enemy + Dumbledores famous gleam - Could DD be gleaming because Voldie just took that last willing step into fulfilling this part of the prophecy? "....and one must die at the hand of the other.." Forcibly: I guess the Prophecy is in control now and has been since the Graveyard scene. It will (or already has) forced Voldie to fulfill "....neither can live while the other survives..." Could it have been when he possessed Harry's body and discovered Harry's Love of his God-Father? Voldemort obviously couldn't bear the Love in Harry, perhaps now he knows he can't live while Harry and that immense power survives. Well I guess it needs polishing, but it immediately struck to mind. Any further thoughts from anyone? Valky | | | | | | | Reveal your HBP prediction at Row 97 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Prophecy_Orb/ * * * | | | | _Signum Orbis_ From trekkie at stofanet.dk Sun Jan 16 22:07:31 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:07:31 +0100 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) References: Message-ID: <010c01c4fc17$c6983e10$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122128 A few thoughts about evil teachers and Snape. I had a "Snape" at school. She was definately hated by most pupils and she had many traits similar to Snape's. She was sarcastic beyond belief and she didnt for a second stop being that just because someone might get hurt. She was also very unfair. Now *I* was that particular teacher's pet. Call me Draco. As I myself is a very sarcastic person, I understood her form of humour, and the two of us got along just fine. And she was one hell of a teacher, we LEARNED something in her classes (German...and physics/chemistry) But as I said, she was often ver unfair. A friend in school was her "Harry". We were usually sharing tables, and as girls do, we chattered and such. And EVERY SINGLE TIME it was my friend and not me who was punished. EVEN when I initiated it. And I'm sorry to say that it suited me ... I couldn't see anything wrong in that teacher and she's still among my fondest memories, although I'm not blind to WHY the rest of the class hated her so. So this is mostly to prove that "Snapes" do exist and that it doesn't need to mean that they're bad teachers as such - or evil. They may do evil and bad things. But also the opposite. I got a beautiful Escher-poster of that teacher once (and you just don't GIVE your students presents, so she threw it at me one day with a remark that "she didn't wanted to look at it anymore" ...) So when I think of Snape, I think of Hansen. Probably why I can't really see Snape as ESE too. ~TrekkieGrrrl From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 01:23:24 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:23:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050117012324.60037.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122129 > Renee: > Why do we never get to see a portrait of Mr. Black in > OotP? Because Mrs. Black removed it after his death, > knowing he'd been unfaithful to her? If Sirius's > father is also Snape's father, the absence of his > portrait would be most convenient if JKR wanted to > surprise her readers in the next book: this way, Harry > can't realise that Mr. Black is the man he saw in > Snape's memory during the Occlumency lessons. I'm not > sure, though, if Snape could inherit the Black estate > if he were illegitimate, as much as I'd like to see him > contest Sirius's will. Juli now: I really like this whole idea of Severus being Sirius' half-brother, this could explain a bit why they seem to hate each other so much: Snape could think he's the reason why he never got a father, and Sirius could blame him for the possible dissolution of his parents' marriage. About Snape contesting Sirius' will, I don't think he's got enough rights: According to Sirius his father died first so all he owns goes to his sons and his wife, then one son dies (Regulus) and also the mother so Sirius gets it all. IF Severus is also Mr Black's son, the only time he could challenge or contest the Black family estate is after he died, now it's too late. If anyone other but Harry could go after Grimmauld Place are Mrs Black's family, not even the Black sisters. I'm not too sure about all this but I think this is how it goes. Juli From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 17 02:12:07 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:12:07 -0000 Subject: GoF - Chapter Nine In-Reply-To: <046001c4fbe8$51be7fc0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122130 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "charme" wrote: > I have been focusing on Chapter Nine of GoF as in JKR's interviews and chats she says that it was so difficult to write, she thought about skipping the chapter completely. We pick up the action as Harry, Hermoine, and Ron have fled to the woods after the supposed "DE's" began having some Muggle sport. Please note that up to this point, the trio had been hearing bangs and shouts from the campsite, then Draco Malfoy appears: > > > > GoF, Chapter Nine (US) > > Ron told Malfoy to do something that Harry knew he would never have dared say in front of Mrs. Weasley. > > "Language, Weasley," said Malfoy, his pale eyes glittering. "Hadn't you better be hurrying along, now? You wouldn't like her spotted, would you?" He nodded at Hermione, and at the same moment, a blast like a bomb sounded from the campsite, and a flash of green light momentarily lit the trees around them. > > A blast like a bomb? A flash of green light? Does this in any way sound like something we've possibly read about before? What other than the Muggle sport, Winky, and the Dark Mark happened that night? > > charme Valky: Oh Go ON Charme! You didn't find something so interesting in GOF while my copy is STILL ON LOAN!!! I presume the "flash of green light" doesn't directly preceed the appearance of the Dark Mark and we can assume that it is something else altogether. This sounds a little like one of the first PS/SS chapters JKR discarded the one where Hermione's family see the same thing across the ocean.. I wonder if Vmonte is right about the time travelling thing? Can you quote a little more, the next few lines perhaps. I'm not sure I have got the whole picture. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 02:34:58 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:34:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GoF - Chapter Nine References: Message-ID: <05c801c4fc3d$23997280$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122131 > Valky: > Oh Go ON Charme! You didn't find something so interesting in GOF > while my copy is STILL ON LOAN!!! > > I presume the "flash of green light" doesn't directly preceed the > appearance of the Dark Mark and we can assume that it is something > else altogether. > > This sounds a little like one of the first PS/SS chapters JKR > discarded the one where Hermione's family see the same thing across > the ocean.. I wonder if Vmonte is right about the time travelling > thing? > > Can you quote a little more, the next few lines perhaps. I'm not > sure I have got the whole picture. Charme: By your command, my dear friend. :) >From when Harry leaves the tent w/ Ron and first sees the chaos with the hooded wizards and the Muggle family: "By the light of the few fires that were still burning, he could see people running away into the woods, fleeing something that was moving across the field toward them, something that was emitting odd flashes of light and noises like gunfire. Loud jeering, roars of laughter, and drunken yells were drifting toward them; then came a burst of strong green light, which illuminated the scene." (<--- My note, no "blasts" or "bomb sounds", just bangs and noises like gunfire) >From my post earlier with more detail: He nodded at Hermione, and at the same moment, a blast like a bomb sounded from the campsite, and a flash of green light momentarily lit the trees around them. "What's that supposed to mean?" said Hermione defiantly. "Granger, they're after Muggles, "said Malfoy. "D'you want to be showing off your knickers in midair? Because if you do, hang around. . . they're moving this way, and it would give us all a laugh." "Hermione's a witch," Harry snarled. "Have it your own way, Potter," said Malfoy, grinning maliciously. "If you think they can't spot a Mudblood, stay where you are." "You watch your mouth!" shouted Ron. Everybody present knew that "Mudblood" was a very offensive term for a witch or wizard of Muggle parentage. "Never mind, Ron," said Hermione quickly, seizing Ron's arm to restrain him as he took a step toward Malfoy. There came a bang from the other side of the trees that was louder than anything they had heard. Several people nearby screamed. Malfoy chuckled softly. The last bang I assume to be Winky trying to hold Barty Crouch Jr as he confesses she tried to bind him with her brand of magic. Charme From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 17 02:43:23 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:43:23 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments (Changeling!Harry varient theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122132 > Tonks here: > > Ok. We know that there is a bond between Harry and LV. So LV put > part of himself into Harry. So what LV did was to come up with a > method that if anyone tries to AK him he is able to put his soul > into that person. Would explain why DD wouldn't try to AK him. Not > a total answer, but I don't know what else to add. Any helpers? > > vmonte writes: > > I've often wondered why Harry seemed to have deja vu while looking at Tom Riddle's name (diary scene) in CoS. Harry felt as though > Tom's name was familiar to him, like a childhood friend he had > forgotten. He also looked at the diary thinking that he would like > to finish the story that was started there. Pretty strange stuff, > right? Does Harry have more than just transferred talents from > Voldemort? How about if Tom Riddle is trapped inside Harry? > > Perhaps Lily's spell did more than rebound Voldemort's curse. Maybe > it split his soul in half. > > There is another theory called the "Changeling!Harry" variant theory that's been around for a while. It's a combination of the original Changeling theory, but with a twist. > Valky now: Ok Thanks Vmonte, I think it's finally time for me to read the Changeling Hypothesis, I never gave it much credit till now, *shame*. The thing is I totally agree, as of late, that Tom is trapped inside Harry. My hypothesis is that Lily's charm not only protected Harry but Tom also. I think that this is the important thing we learn about Lily in OOtP. Evil "other half" of Voldemorts soul abandoned him when the AK rebounded and tried to sacrifice him to save itself. What LV doesn't know is that Lily and Harry's defense never killed Tom Riddle. Lily is just too compassionate and beautiful to be a killer. So this is why Dumbledore wouldn't kill Voldemort in The MOM, with half of him stuck inside Harry what good would it do? The mind boggles, in my head I am going on and on with this faster than I can type. What if the reason LV fled Harry's body was not because he felt Harrys love but because little Toms innocent soul inside Harry felt the Harry's love right along with him. Did LV see himself inside Harry? vmonte: > I'm going to propose that Snape was at GH that night and that he > later told DD what he suspects happened. (I base this partly on the > fact that Snape whispered to Draco the spell that produced the snake in the dueling scene of CoS. Did Snape find an opportunity to test his theory?) Valky: Woah! I like this vmonte, the first time I have ever seen such a logical explanation for the serpensortia curse. Vmonte: If this is true, then Snape changing sides, and becoming > part of the Order, so that he can be near HP at Hogwarts, sounds less like a conversion/moral epiphany, and much more suspicious and > calculating, in my opinion. > > Finally, has Snape been protecting Harry all these years--or > protecting his true master who is still trapped inside? Valky: Yes, it tips again doesn't it, but not quite enough for me there, Snape *may* have been helping DD to decipher what was going on also. OTOH I think you make excellent sense when you say that Snape feels his true master is in Harry, the Alan Rickman quotes about respect and admiration that were recently put up here for us by someone very helpful (thankyou), seem to suggest that Snape would have some loyalty to the charming and clever Tom Riddle, if he indeed ever knew him as that. Perhaps in Snapes mind there is a feeling that he can *save* his old friend Tom from becoming Voldemort, a "second chance" like the one DD has given him. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 17 03:04:59 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:04:59 -0000 Subject: GoF - Chapter Nine In-Reply-To: <05c801c4fc3d$23997280$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122133 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charme" wrote: > > > Valky: > > Oh Go ON Charme! You didn't find something so interesting in GOF > > while my copy is STILL ON LOAN!!! > > Can you quote a little more, the next few lines perhaps. I'm not > > sure I have got the whole picture. > > Charme: > > "Never mind, Ron," said Hermione quickly, seizing Ron's arm to restrain him as he took a step toward Malfoy. > > There came a bang from the other side of the trees that was louder than anything they had heard. Several people nearby screamed. Malfoy chuckled softly. > The last bang I assume to be Winky trying to hold Barty Crouch Jr as he confesses she tried to bind him with her brand of magic. > > Charme Valky: Thankyou, Charme and Thankyou again for the link. I do think you're onto something there too. Malfoy does a good job of trivialising it for us, with his "they scare easily.." comment. But when you think about it he scares pretty easily himself, possibly he was a bit shocked by the noise and was doing his usual job of trying to swagger it off, and look tough. Malfoys reaction if you take it this way kind of points the bang out as something he wasn't expecting. proble is they are so far away from the action we don't know anymore. Now going back to Chapter 9 GOf to have a look at Mr Weasleys and Mr Diggory's accounts of what happened in the muggle teasing parade for clues. From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 03:20:58 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:20:58 -0000 Subject: GoF - Chapter Nine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122134 Valky wrote: I presume the "flash of green light" doesn't directly preceed the appearance of the Dark Mark and we can assume that it is something else altogether. This sounds a little like one of the first PS/SS chapters JKR discarded the one where Hermione's family see the same thing across the ocean.. I wonder if Vmonte is right about the time travelling thing? Can you quote a little more, the next few lines perhaps. I'm not sure I have got the whole picture. vmonte responds: Page 121-122, GoF, U.S. edition The trio bump into Draco - "Language, Weasley," said Malfoy, his pale eyes glittering. "Hadn't you better be hurying along, now? You wouldn't like her spotted, would you?" He nodded at Hermione, and at the same moment, a blast like a bomb sounded from the campsite, and a flash of green light momentarily lit the trees around them. "What's that suppose to mean?" said Hermione defiantly. "Granger they're after Muggles," said Malfoy. "D'you want to be showing off your knickers in midair? Because if you do, hang around...they're moving this way, and it would give us all a laugh." Interesting that they continue their conversation without ever acknowledging the blast or green light. In all the commotion it's just another sound in the background. Still, it's interesting that it's just like what happened at GH. Is this JKR's way of letting us know that someone time-traveled? If so, who could it have been? Could it have been the moment Fred and George TT to find out which team would win the world cup? Who knows... vmonte From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 03:38:02 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:38:02 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122135 >>Vmonte again: Betsy, you cut out the most significant part. I will quote it again though. JKR: ..."But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. He will have seen things that Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this." [EBF-04]< >>Pippin: >But Dumbledore said that Snape is now no more a Death Eater than Dumbledore himself, and JKR criticized Sirius on her web site for treating Snape as if he couldn't have reformed.< >>Alla: >Hmmm, not exactly, Pippin, if we are thinking about the same quote. >She said that Sirius treats Snape as if there were no "LATENT good qualities" there.< Betsy: In the interest of being exact, here's the relevent quote from JKR's site. It's in answer to the question, "Do you like Sirius Black?" JKR: "[Y]es, I do like him, although I do not think he is wholly wonderful... "Sirius is very good at spouting bits of excellent personal philosophy, but he does not always live up to them. [...] "Similarly, Sirius claims that nobody is wholly good or wholly evil, and yet the way he acts towards Snape suggests that he cannot conceive of any latent good qualities there." Betsy: So she *is* critizing Sirius for considering Snape "wholly evil," or unreformed. Sirius cannot even conceive that Snape had the ability to reform. And that follows with the text. Sirius, like the other children , doesn't trust that Snape has genuinely changed sides, because Sirius cannot allow himself to see anything good in Snape. >>Alla: >Which pretty much agreeable to what I think about this character - he is not redeemed yet, but probably will be at the end. >He may not even be redeemed at the end, because those LATENT qualities may never develop.< Betsy: But if Snape is not redeemed, then he is still a Death Eater. He is ESE!Snape, and his constant saving of Harry's life is part of some evil complex plot of... evil complexity? No, Snape is definitely redeemed. He's just not sweet and fuzzy. I don't think he'll ever be sweet and fuzzy (thank goodness). I do hope there is development of his and Harry's relationship. There is so much similarity between those two that it'd be a shame if they didn't finally see each others good sides. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 03:42:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:42:58 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122136 > Betsy: But if Snape is not redeemed, then he is still a Death Eater. He is ESE!Snape, and his constant saving of Harry's life is part of some evil complex plot of... evil complexity? No, Snape is definitely redeemed. He's just not sweet and fuzzy. I don't think he'll ever be sweet and fuzzy (thank goodness). I do hope there is development of his and Harry's relationship. There is so much similarity between those two that it'd be a shame if they didn't finally see each others good sides. Alla: NO, Betsy. That is the fundamental difference between how you and me see the character of Snape. To me not a DE anymore does not equal "being redeemed". I also maintain that there are enough hints in the text to go with doubnle, triple agent Snape, but I am notr eally sure. Snape as sadist, who enjoys the sufferings of Harry and Neville needs redemption, IMO. I do agree though that Snape and Harry's relationship will be developed. I just wonder which way it will go. Just my opinion, Alla From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 17 03:58:10 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:58:10 -0000 Subject: another week of posts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122137 Valky wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121570 : << One of my favourite things about the Hans' postulation that Remus is the Grey King is that The Grey King has a young vibrant wife, symbolic of the joy that goes with the Grey King state in Alchemy. Personally I can't imagine anything more appropriate for Remus than to have someone young and joyful and full of life by his side, he deserves it. >> Oh. I suppose that is why Tonks was introduced. But *I* would prefer him to have a joyful *boyfriend*. Not having studied Alchemy, I have no idea what "the Grey King state" is. Gina Miller wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121576 : << I think the biggest questions are why Tom Riddle's name sounds so familiar to Harry and why DD asked Harry and TR the same question, "is there something you wish to tell me" >> Maybe that is the question that Dumbledore always asks students who seem to be troubled (or to be trouble) to make them bring things up in their minds that he can then see with Legilimency. Mandy ex-Slytherin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121580 : << Do any of you think there is chance that Voldemort may have had some kind of legitimate position within the WW before and during the first war? I think it's one way he could have gathered the support and power he did, and was able to systematically begin to wipe out the Ministry sanctioned Order of the Phoenix. A huge feat he almost accomplished. >> I personally think that Voldemort had turned himself into a red-eyed hairless snake-man before he started recruiting Death Eaters, and I imagine the wizarding folk being very suspicious of giving a legitimate position to a red-eyed hairless snake-man. I also suspect that the Ministry DID NOT okay the Order of the Phoenix. Government law enforcement always objects to vigilantes. Eggplant wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121649 : << At the exact instant you specify Marietta could have stood up and said, "I don't care to sign", and then walked out the door. I am quite certain nobody would have stopped her. >> I feel equally certain that poor Cho (foolish rather than evil) would have tried to stop her. Hans quoted in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121678 : << so she never stirred from her skull, unless it happened that Cupid twitched a little at her, for then she slipped in so suddenly that we all could not choose but marvel at it. >> What did he mean by Cupid twitching a little at the snake? Did he mean her consort inside the skull called her to come in for some, um, cuddling? Or was Cupid standing beside the altar, and made a threatening movement at her, so she ran to hide inside the skull? Geoff wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121695 : << I wonder how many people here, prior to your expositions, knew of the Rosicrucians? (I did - I have a friend who is one.) >> The Alchemical Wedding (the book) and references to Rosicrucians are in Umberto Eco's book FOUCAULT'S PENDULUM, which may have been widely read as his previous book, THE NAME OF THE ROSE, was a best seller. A lot of people (such as me before I read FOUCAULT'S PENDULUM) would have known of the AMORC order of Rosicrucians without having heard of Christian Rosenkreutz, because AMORC have recruiting ads in the classified ads of some magazines AND own a museum in San Jose with REAL ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ARTIFACTS. Nicky Joe wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121713 : << LV certainly won't have a bit of interest in building business and making money (any ideas what he WILL want to do after he's "running the world"?) so he will most likely leave the mundane tasks like that to his underlings. >> Despite JKR's statements, I always see LV as more eager to destroy things than to be immortal. I expect him to use his rule over the world to have fun, by killing people and destroying things. While he might want to research and experiment into inventing tortures worse than the Cruciatis Curse, I think his favorite research would be figuring out how to cause volcanic eruptions and major earthquakes and tsunamis, and aim them at highly populated areas without warning, and then try to figure out how to make the Sun go nova. I don't think it has occured to him to plan what his once again disembodied immortal spirit will do after that. Geoff commented to Tristan in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121747 : << <> JKR isn't the only one who does this. In LOTR Shelob, the giant spider is derived from "she" + "Lob" whici is an Old English word for spider. >> I thought the Old English word for spider was "cob", like "cobweb". ARA is short for Arachne as well as for Araneae. She was the princess who was turned into a spider by Athena, so spiders are called arachnids. "Gog and Magog" were a famous pair of giants, with some old statues in London nicknamed after them. << << Beauxbaton: "Beaux-Baton"="Beautiful Stick" in French! >> This could be also accurately translated as "beautiful wands" - a little more apt perhaps. >> GoF specified that the Beauxbatons shield of arms on the door of their Cinderella carriage was crossed wands with some stars, but I poked around some in my friend's French dictionaries and found that actually "baguette" is a better French translation of "wand" and French "baton" is a big thing, like a wizard's *staff*, rather than a the baton a majorette twirls. Betsy asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121766 : << Why is Draco an only child? It doesn't make sense for the Malfoy family to have only one heir, especially in those dangerous times. And if Narcissa is about Lucius' age (which puts them in the same age group as Arthur and Molly Weasley, I think) why did they wait so long to have a child? >> If Lucius Malfoy is planning on living his natural span (perhaps 150 years), he doesn't need to hurry to provide himself with an heir; there's plenty of time for that in the future. And it's not as if either Malfoy parent shows any sign of having wanted a child to love and teach! My theory is the reason they have one child instead of none is that Trelawney's First Prophecy wasn't the only prophecy referring to Harry and/or Neville, but the other was more explicit about a boy born in the summer of 1980 who would have powers to win the then-current wizarding world, and this other prophecy became known either to LV or to Lucius. Whichever one learned it then ordered his followers to go make babies, in hope that the powerful wizard would be a filial son of a loyal follower, and therefore make his power available to his master. At first I thought it was LV who learned that prophecy and gave that order, look at the Death Eater children in Harry's year of whom we know: Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott, and possibly Macnair (the list of students includes an extra Mac with the rest of the name off the edge of the picture), but no evidence that Bulstrode or Parkinson or Zabini had DE parents. No student named Lestrange or Rookwood or Dolohov. It seems a closer correlation with Lucius's particular clique than with the graveyard circle as a whole. Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121808 : << a descendant of "nature's nobility," the Black family. >> My own personal opinion was that that book was a genealogy of all the pureblood wizards in Britain, not just the Black family. << (Still don't understand how you can be "part" Veela if the father has to be human. Wouldn't all Veelas marry wizards and have only full-blooded Veela children? Unless there are male Veelas, which doesn't fit the mythological background.) >> Perhaps, while a daughter of human father and Veela mother is a full Veela, their son is half-Veela, so his daughter is quarter-Veela. We saw Fleur's mother but not father wishing her good luck for the Third Task, and I didn't notice anything Veela-like about Fleur's mother. Carol wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121834 : << BTW, she married Rodolphus, but his brother Rabastan seems to be their inseparable follower. (I'm curious about him, but I seem to be the only one who is.) >> My main curiosity about him is why his name is one transposition away from a star name (Rastaban, like Thuban, is a star in constellation Draco whose name means Dragon). I confess to only the mildest cheap-gossip interest as to whether she's sleeping with both of them. It is clearly the Dark Lord who has her heart, regardless who has any of her other body parts. Inkling wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121844 : << Marietta doesn't seem in a postion to inform anyone, and Harry didn't do so, so unless McGonagall ran around spreading the word (which seems out of character) someone other than the people we know were in the room heard everything and lost no time telling the whole castle. Who might that have been? >> Might it have been House Elves? They have to always keep enough of an eye on everything in the Castle so they know when some Professor calls for food or whatever. And they might have friendly conversations with students who go to the kitchen to 'steal' food without trying to talk them into revolution. Hans asked in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/121873 : << As you can see above, Hermione says, "Friendship and bravery and --" And what? Ever since the first time I read this I've thought that she was going to say, "love", but was too embarrassed to say it. I thought it was obvious, in fact, that everyone else would think the same. After some years now I've found that no one else has this thought at all. My question to you is, what do you think is the missing word? >> I've never thought very hard about what the missing word might be. I've thought it might be "goodness" and I've thought it might be "loyalty", but there is no reason she'd be embarrassed to say "loyalty". I've thought it might be 'wanting to help others' and she realised that was too long a phrase. Fiona wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121935 : << The entry got me to thinking back over the role of the diminutive charms professor and to wondering if JKR is trying to wrong-foot us into thinking the prince has to be a major character. Perhaps Flitwick is half-human half-goblin? >> A number of posters have speculated that Flitwick is half-goblin or half-House Elf (and, thus, another misfit whom Dumbledore has sheltered). It could be true without him being the Half-Blood Prince. Geoff replied in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121936 : << regulus=petty king - whatever that means(!) >> A petty king (or rajah) is a king (or rajah) who is subordinate to a higher king (or viceroy) and possibly to an Emperor above that. Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/121978 : << You don't see Slytherin offering the rematch because the Seeker of the other team was hurt, for example. >> You don't see Gryffindor or Ravenclaw offering any such thing, either. That may have something to do with why the Twins thought Cedric was "thick" and why Hufflepuff (according to Harry's thoughts in GoF) gets very little glory. I have previously suggested that the ideal Hufflepuff is a Gryffindor minus the craving for personal glory. Tonks wrote http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGro wnups/message/121980 : << I was trying to figure out a reason LV would need to kill Harry and James, but not Lily. >> We used to speculate that there was a prophecy that "the last of the Potters" or "James Potter's son" would be Voldemort's doom. Then he wouldn't need to kill Lily unless she was pregnant, because she is not really a Potter, only by marriage. Another speculation is that LV didn't *need* to kill James any more than he *needed* to kill Lily, but was not in the habit of leaving people who fought against him alive. That he made a token effort to get Lily to surrender instead of being killed either because he had promised Lily to one of his Death Eaters as a reward, or (IIRC this next was called SO EWWW-ER iTS IN THE SEWER) he wants Lily to bear him a child because of a prophecy that the war will be won by Lily's child's father. AyanEva wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122021 : << When entering a new environment, it is imperative that an individual come from a previously stable and supportive environment and have the ability to trust others in order to form a stable social environment. >> When HARRY entered Hogwarts, he did not come from a supportive environment, altho' one could argue it was stably and preductably unsupportive. << As a result of his social shortcomings, Severus failed to gain a sense of Industry >> We have been given grounds to assume that he worked hard at Potions and we SAW him work hard at his DADA OWL. and in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122022 : << Severus' loyalties seem to lie with whichever individual is most appreciative of his efforts and can be pleased. Albus showed him more affection, acceptance, and understanding than Voldemort and therefore, Severus switched sides. >> There are plenty of other theories as to why Severus switched sides (including the theories that he NEVER switched sides, but either is still loyal to Voldemort and serving as a spy on Dumbledore, or that he only joined the Death Eaters in the first place to spy on them for Dumbledore). Alla http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122048 : << Since when in order to be a good human being, you don't have to be "nice" human being? >> I can't remember which writer wrote that you can't judge that a person is morally mediocre just because he/she is always rude and insulting and complains a lot, even whines, and displays a very grudging attitude whenever he/she helps someone, because for all you know, the person's natural personality might be SO nasty that he/she is using an incredible amount of willpower just to hold it down to average nasty, and maybe using that much willpower to force oneself to do the right thing is a much bigger moral achievement than the average good person makes. No, I personally don't think that applies to Snape, but I admit that I haven't seen into his heart. Tonks wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122062 : <> I can't remember what she is talking about in book 4. What did we see in book 4 that fits here? >> That Snape used to be a Death Eater. IIRC Elkins wrote that she and her sister had a contest for the most unlikely Potterverse prediction. In that contest, after book 1 she predicted that Scabbers was an evil wizard in disguise, and after book 3, her sister predicted that Snape wasn't just a teacher with a bad attitude, but had been a servant of Lord Voldemort. Remember back to those long ago years when we were as sure as Sirius that Dumbledore wouldn't hire a former Death Eater to be in charge over children? Eggplant wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122079 : << I think Snape's mission at the end of Goblet Of Fire was to secretly teach Occlumency to as many Death Eaters as he could without Voldemort's knowledge. >> Interesting! (You-uns know about one-line posts being forbidden. This is an Even More Forbidden one-WORD post.) Magda wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122088 : << It would also stand as a test to see how far Harry's compassion will go - will he stick his neck out only to save his friends or people he likes or will it extend as far as saving Snape, who he loathes? >> Early in OoP, Harry stuck his neck out to save Dudley from the Dementors, if I recall correctly only minutes after Harry had been bullying Dudley. Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122090 : << (the Order's secrets are in little danger since they are under fidelius >> I thought only the location of Headquarters was under Fidelius? Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforG rownups/message/122114 : << And remember when Sirius shows Harry the tapestry? Harry could have missed a few names on there surely. I do think that all of this blood relatedness of many pureblood families will lead us to new interesting discoveries. >> It's entirely possible that children fathered out-of-marriage by the Black menfolks don't show on the tapestry in the first place. Especially if the reason he didn't marry the child's mother is that she wasn't pure-blood. From snow15145 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 04:11:20 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 04:11:20 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122138 Snow: > The next controversy is how far Snape goes with his appeared hatred > for Harry or Neville. This position has always been of debate but you > really need to remember that Snape is a sufficient Legilemence and > can see who his students are and how far he can push them; namely > Harry and Neville. Snape has already told us by way of telling Sirius > in the beginning of the Occlumency Chapter of OOP, that he knows who > Harry is and how much physiological punishment he can take: Geoff: Just in passing, I think you mean psychological damage.... I hope Snape isn't planning to start /hitting/ Harry. Snow: Thanks for spotting and making the correction to this error Geoff, of course I did mean psychological not physiological. Snow: > "But surely you have noticed that Potter is very like his > father?" "Yes, I have," said Sirius proudly. "Well then, you'll know > he's so arrogant that criticism simply bounces off him," Snape said > sleekly. > > Snape knows how far he can push Harry or even Neville because he > knows who they are through his legilemency powers. Geoff: I can't agree with you here. If Snape is an expert Legilimens, then he must know that, at their first meeting, Harry is uncertain in his new environment, probably scared of this daunting person and certainly not arrogant. If he can't pick up on that, then he just isn't as good as we're led to believe. Snow: But wouldn't Snape have realized, even for one so young, that Harry was resilient enough not to allow Snape's snide remarks cause him any permanent damage. Harry is his father's son and even if he didn't outwardly exhibit his strength of character at age eleven, Snape would have been able to see that snide remarks were not going to make Harry crumble into a shuttering house elf. Snape can make himself look good in the eyes of his little class of Slytherin friends that report back to their death-eater daddies by seemingly using and abusing Harry. Harry is able to endure abusiveness, he had to live with that type of behavior most of his life while living with the Dursley's. Geoff: Betsy, in another meassage, has remarked that Harry pushes Snape's buttons. But who started pushing buttons? We have had canon quote after canon quote in the last day or so showing that Snape took the path of piling sarcasm or humiliation on top of what could have been a reasonable chastisement of Harry. Snow: There has been an explanation as to why Snape would mistreat Harry but there doesn't appear to be any good reasons why he does the same to Neville or even Hermione. I could actually see Snape's behavior to Harry as purely abusive if Snape were to have singled Harry out just because he hated his father, but he doesn't, he treats Neville with equal dislike and there just aren't any grounds for it, Snape didn't hate Neville's parents. There has to be another logical explanation as to why Snape singles out particular people and treat them in the manner that he does. It may just be my subversive reading of the text but if you look close enough you can see possible motives behind what Snape is saying to Harry, Neville and Hermione when he makes a spectacle of them in class. Hermione, the insufferable little know-it-all, needs to learn to step back and realize that she doesn't know everything. Snape has reminded her of this on several occasions, once in class and once in the Shrieking Shack. Harry and Neville repeatedly need to be reminded that each step counts if you want the end product to be a success. I don't believe that this is just an application to potions alone but life in general, especially with a war on the horizon. Snape has to disguise his teaching methods because of Draco and the like. Snape defiantly laid the groundwork for the button pushing exercise in his first potions class, which sold Draco on the fact that he hated Harry but as a result he also sold Harry on the idea and Harry, sold the reader. Geoff: If he had taken a gentler approach and managed to control his hatred of James - and of someone reminding him of James - the raltionship could have been far easier. But, that would'nt have been good for the plot line would it? :-) Snow: It may have made it easier for Harry but maybe not as productive as a whole for the situation. If Snape appears less than nasty in front of the death-eater kids wouldn't he blow his cover and usefulness as a spy. Even in private Snape doesn't dare take a chance that he could be overheard and found out. I'm sure that this is a factor because of what Snape tells Harry at Grimmald Place: "You will receive private lessons once a week, but you will not tell anybody what you are doing, least of all Dolores Umbridge, You Understand?" Now Snape has specifically told Harry that he was not to tell Anybody but did Harry listen, no, he immediately told his best buds. Harry therefore cannot be trusted even in private of Snape's true intentions if he were to appear the least bit nice to Harry. We have been told time and time again that in the first war with Voldy you didn't know whom you could trust, even your best buds. I very much doubt that Snape forgot that. I don't mean to imply that Snape has any great fondness to Harry and would secretly like to tuck him in at night but has to maintain a front of loathing Harry, no no I think Snape, at times, quite enjoys the position he is in; Snape the spy for Dumbledore has to teach the little brats while maintaining his death-eater front to his former colleagues. When you mix the two you have one nasty looking teacher. I think Snape sums it up best when he is talking to Sirius and Sirius asks why Snape has to be the one to teach Harry instead of Dumbledore, Snape's reply was: "I suppose because it is a headmaster's privilege to delegate less enjoyable tasks," [ ] "I assure you I did not beg for the job." Sounds to me like Snape is just doing the assignment he had been asked to do under necessary cover and although we have not been told that Harry or Neville have been assigned to him for specific teaching throughout, I believe that he has. Snow?who apologizes to Naama for not answering her post on this subject because I don't think I could have said what I would have better than Pippin has already done. From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 04:13:05 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 04:13:05 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122139 >Betsy wrote: Hopefully I've made clear by now that I do not consider interviews with actors to be canon (though they are interesting). Please show me something in the books that illustrates Snape's jealousy of Harry. vmonte responds: You're kidding, right? >Betsy: And Harry as popular? He's known - but he spends quite a bit of time, in just about every book, being mocked or feared or ridiculed by the Hogwarts students. Why would Snape envy that?< vmonte responds: Your reasoning is the way "we," the readers, see Harry. Unfortunately, Snape does not see the "real" Harry, he sees James. He is blinded by his prejudice and hatred of James. He cannot let go of the past--and it will eventually kill him. This is not the sign of someone who has had a moral epiphany, IMO. >vmonte again: We do have cannon that suggests that Snape is a racist. After all he did join the DEs, and he did call Lily a nasty name. I often find that racists are very frightened people. They fear what they don't understand.< >Betsy: The canon suggest that Snape *was* a racist. There is nothing in his current actions to suggest that he is a racist now. vmonte responds: Really, I think his actions towards Hermione are suspect. Why treat a student who obviously is a good student and who works hard, like garbage? Oh let me guess, insufferable know-it-alls deserve to be put in their place too, right? Please, it obviously doesn't matter to you that I'm quoting directly from JKR. Her comments don't just say that Snape is a moody grouch; she specifically calls him a "deeply horrible person." As far as Rickman goes, JKR has told him important information regarding his character and his future role in the story. Besides, the Lexicon considers JKR's interviews to be canon, and why not, she did after all write these books. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/site_sources.html Vivian From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 04:36:50 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:36:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) References: Message-ID: <061901c4fc4e$29d3ede0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122140 > Alla: > > NO, Betsy. That is the fundamental difference between how you and me > see the character of Snape. To me not a DE anymore does not > equal "being redeemed". > > I also maintain that there are enough hints in the text to go with > doubnle, triple agent Snape, but I am notr eally sure. > > Snape as sadist, who enjoys the sufferings of Harry and Neville > needs redemption, IMO. > > I do agree though that Snape and Harry's relationship will be > developed. I just wonder which way it will go. > > > Just my opinion, > > Alla > Charme: I have a slightly different take here: maybe appropriate, maybe not. My view about Snape's DE/not DE position goes back to another post I made recently: just because one isn't a KKK member, one can still be racist. Look at the Blacks: they supported the concept of pureblood racism but stood short of wanting to fully back LV according to Sirius. For example, with what Sirius' mother shouts from her painting, it appears to me that just because Momma Black wasn't a DE, she sure didn't let that stop her from being a racist. The same may apply to Snape and people like him. Snape hasn't been redeemed in canon yet: all DD says is that he vouches that Snape isn't a DE anymore, was and now is working for the Order, and that DD trusts him, and then there's for me a sticky conversation Snape has with Harry at the beginning of their Occulmency lessons. JKR's plot and character construction of Snape leaves me right at the point to believe has not yet redeemed himself: I simply don't have enough information to push myself to the forgiveness/understanding I saw mentioned with regard to Snape earlier in this thread. What also interests me is when Harry questions Snape about it being Snape's job to get information about the DE's and LV in OoP: "That is just as well, Potter,' said Snape coldly, 'because you are neither special nor important, and it is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters.' 'No - that's your job, isn't it?' Harry shot at him. He had not meant to say it; it had burst out of him in temper. For a long moment they stared at each other, Harry convinced he had gone too far. But there was a curious, almost satisfied expression on Snape's face when he answered. 'Yes, Potter,' he said, his eyes glinting. That is my job. Now, if you are ready, we will start again." 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? Since I haven't personally interpreted any canon yet other than Snape saving Harry in PS/SS from Quirrell/LV as a positive action indicative of his "redemption" (and I think he did that either because of his annoying debt to James and or more likely because he is a teacher and as such expected to protect students in danger no matter who they are), I am not sure what to make of that. His position and obvious efforts to "perform" his job accordingly does *not* to me mean that he has lost his ability to be a racist, nor to be a danger later on. God, I love Snape's character. Figuring him out truly does tax my obvious brilliance and intellectual capacity ;) Now, if I could only apply that effort to getting the housework done and focus on world peace.... (heh) Charme Charme From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 04:38:51 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 04:38:51 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122141 Betsy wrote: Hopefully I've made clear by now that I do not consider interviews with actors to be canon (though they are interesting). Please show me something in the books that illustrates Snape's jealousy of Harry. Vmonte responds: You're kidding, right? Alla: Would you like some help, Vmonte? :o) "Harry Potter. Our new - celebrity". "Tut, tut - fame clearly is not everything" PS/SS, p.137. If this is not Snape jealousy speaking, I don't know what is. Here is another one for you, Betsy. "How come I saw through the snake's eyes if it's Voldemort's thoughts I am sharing?" "Do not say the Dark Lord's name!" spat Snape. There was a nasty silence. They glared at each other across the Pensieve. "Professor Dumbledore says his name," said Harry quietly. "Dumbledore is extremely pwoerful wisard," Snape muttered. "While he may feel secure enough to use the name... the rest of us..." - 00P, p.532, paperback. Doesn't it look to you that Snape is gealous that Harry is not like "the rest of us" and is not afraid to say Voldemort's name? We also have Snape's "you are neither special, nor important" The boy who may be WW only chance to defeat Voldemort is neither special nor important to Snape. Hmmm, or is he just jealous? There is also from PoA "you should thank me on the bended knee", which again smells as jealosy to me. By the way,Betsy, I usually do not consider actors interviews as canon, but this quote from Alan Rickman carries much more weight to me, because JKR indeed told him something about Snape's character, which we are not privy to yet. And yes, I consider JKR's interviews to be canon. Just my opinion, Alla From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 17 04:56:23 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 04:56:23 -0000 Subject: Lupin .... Re: another week of posts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122142 > Valky wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121570 : > > << One of my favourite things about the Hans' postulation that Remus is the Grey King is that The Grey King has a young vibrant wife, symbolic of the joy that goes with the Grey King state in Alchemy. Personally I can't imagine anything more appropriate for Remus than to have someone young and joyful and full of life by his side, he deserves it. >> > Catlady: > Oh. I suppose that is why Tonks was introduced. But *I* would prefer him to have a joyful *boyfriend*. > > Not having studied Alchemy, I have no idea what "the Grey King state" is. > Valky replies: Alchemy and the Chymical Wedding are not my first discipline, by any means, so naturally there are much more accurate descriptions of Lupin as a symbolic alchemical figure in the books by others. As I understand it the grey state is a pinnacle vibration of your basic human form. Meaning he's a very very good human, but because he is only human he is flawed in spite of his benevolence, as humans are. That's what his werewolf affliction represents. Better explanations are around if you're interested in a link email me offlist. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 05:45:28 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:45:28 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122143 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "xcpublishing" wrote: > > >Vivian writes: > > >I agree with you. I've been saying this for quite a while now. > >By the way people really hate time turner theories on this site. > > I hate the idea of the time turner in general. Why not use it to go > back and save Sirius? Why was it okay to use it to save him from the > Dementors but not okay to use it to save him from falling through the > veil? If I were Harry, I'd be demanding the thing. I'd probably > even steal it to try and save Sirius. *Terrible things happen to > wizards that meddle with time*. Well, nothing happened to them when > they meddled with it last time. Does Dumbledore have the power to > know when using the time turner is a good idea and when it's a bad > idea? If so, he's bloody more powerful than we ever suspected. Doddie here: We shall never know what Hermione may/maynot have done with the time turner...after all...she did be believe Harry that he didn't put his name in the TW-cup...she was insistant that Harry do "NOTHING" during H/H time turning experience....Yet Harry defied her and saved them all... It > worked great to further the plot and wrap things up nicely in PoA, > but I wish they would have smashed it to smithereens after that in > order that it never be used again. After OOP we get the picture that there are more than one means of time travel...and I doubt that they would give the only time turner in existence to a student at Hogwarts...hence there are several time turners..at the very least there are more than ONE! If prophecies are true and accurate, then, it would not matter how many time turning experiments occurred...those to whom the prophecies refered to...would come to pass no matter how much time- turning occurred.. For example: DD told Hermione to use her time-turner to save Sirius in POA; however, Sirius died in OOP...but if Sirius had not died, then would Harry have been able to rid Voldemort's possession of him in the MOM??? I know Ron and Hermione tell Harry he "has a people saving thing"...but Harry, NEEDS to have a saving people thing...and if not for Harry, a great deal many people more would be dead in the books already..(I never saw anyone complaining when Harry saved Ginny in CS or when he saved Sirius, Hermione, Himself etc. in POA!) So perhaps DD "turns time" (either self imposed or directed) to teach Harry certain lessons...(you decide which lessons)... I always hated the time functions showing up because I thought that even if it did not matter, then whom ever was left at the end could get a turner and play the whole thing over again...Perhaps DD's "light put-outter" does more than shut off street lights?!?!? *shrug* I trust DD learned many important lessons regarding this in his battles with Grindenwald(or whatever his name was).. DeeDee From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 05:46:46 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:46:46 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122144 >>Betsy wrote: >Hopefully I've made clear by now that I do not consider interviews with actors to be canon (though they are interesting). Please show me something in the books that illustrates Snape's jealousy of Harry.< >>vmonte responds: You're kidding, right? Betsy: Um, okay. Congratulations on channeling your inner Snape! I'm not sure why what I said is a joke. If the interviews you cited meant what you think they mean, there should be examples in the text that further back your theory. Since you were unable to find anything from the books (all five of them) I'll assume you concede that Snape is not jealous of Harry? >>Betsy: And Harry as popular? He's known - but he spends quite a bit of time, in just about every book, being mocked or feared or ridiculed by the Hogwarts students. Why would Snape envy that?< >>vmonte responds: >Your reasoning is the way "we," the readers, see Harry. Unfortunately, Snape does not see the "real" Harry, he sees James. He is blinded by his prejudice and hatred of James. He cannot let go of the past--and it will eventually kill him. This is not the sign of someone who has had a moral epiphany, IMO. Betsy: I disagree that only we, the readers, see how Harry is viewed by the WW. Harry's treatment by his fellow students are pretty public. Sometimes there's badges. :) I agree that Snape does see James in Harry and this has been a major block for Snape seeing through to Harry's true motivations. He generally expects the worst of Harry. However, I don't go so far to say Snape hates Harry as he hated James. I agree that Snape needs to make peace with his past. PoA and all of his interactions with Lubin and Black show what a raw wound it is for him. (I hope it doesn't kill him though!) 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. (At least in my opinion - and that's how I'm using the phrase.) >>vmonte again: We do have cannon that suggests that Snape is a racist. After all he did join the DEs, and he did call Lily a nasty name. I often find that racists are very frightened people. They fear what they don't understand.< >>Betsy: >The canon suggest that Snape *was* a racist. There is nothing in his current actions to suggest that he is a racist now.< >>vmonte responds: Really, I think his actions towards Hermione are suspect. Why treat a student who obviously is a good student and who works hard, like garbage? Oh let me guess, insufferable know-it-alls deserve to be put in their place too, right?< Betsy: I think you're confusing me with Snape. :) I quite like Hermione. She does annoy the hell out of Snape though. But not because she's muggle born. She's cheated, she's spoken out of turn, and she's tried to correct him while he was speaking. Not wise things to do with the scary teacher. (Though I give her big props for bravery.) >>vmonte: >Please, it obviously doesn't matter to you that I'm quoting directly from JKR. Her comments don't just say that Snape is a moody grouch; she specifically calls him a "deeply horrible person." As far as Rickman goes, JKR has told him important information regarding his character and his future role in the story. >Besides, the Lexicon considers JKR's interviews to be canon, and why not, she did after all write these books.< Betsy: I'm just saying that if your only canon is off-the-cuff interviews rather then examples from the books it's not enough for me. Plus, I feel like I've shown how the interview quotes you used can also back up my view of Snape as a nasty, scary, teacher who knows his stuff and is a boon to the side of light. I did not just out and out dismiss them - I pointed out (or tried to anyway) that they can mean many different things. JKR is very, very careful about what she reveals in her interviews so as to not spoil books not published. And especially with a character like Snape, who is still on a journey and about whom I hope we have more to learn, I think JKR will say as little as possible. (Which I think she did in her interviews.) Betsy, who really hopes none of this is being taken personally. From wulfkub at wulfkub.com Mon Jan 17 05:58:58 2005 From: wulfkub at wulfkub.com (Amanda) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 00:58:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] GoF - Chapter Nine References: <046001c4fbe8$51be7fc0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <00ac01c4fc59$a5ad3f60$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122145 Charme said - > I have been focusing on Chapter Nine of GoF as in JKR's interviews and chats > she says that it was so difficult to write, she thought about skipping the > chapter completely. We pick up the action as Harry, Hermoine, and Ron have > fled to the woods after the supposed "DE's" began having some Muggle sport. > Please note that up to this point, the trio had been hearing bangs and > shouts from the campsite, then Draco Malfoy appears: > > > A blast like a bomb? A flash of green light? Does this in any way sound like > something we've possibly read about before? What other than the Muggle > sport, Winky, and the Dark Mark happened that night? > > charme Kethryn now - And your question blends in nicely with one of my own...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. I rather doubt that Voldemort/Rat were planning on killing Cedric - how could they know he would tie with Harry for the Cup - and I seriously doubt they knew Frank was listening until Nagini told them. So that leaves Barty Couch but I couldn't swear to it that Voldemort/Rat knew they would have to kill him at this point...not when he could be controlled with magic. So, my question is, who else could it have been? Or was it really Harry the entire time and I am just reading it wrong? Of course, (to tie it back into the original email), was the flash of green light (which, by the way, has only ever been associated directly with the AK...or I am skimming once too often) the death of some as yet undiscovered body? Or even the attempted death? Don't you just love it when your email gets questions back? Kethryn From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 06:11:17 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:11:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) References: Message-ID: <06c001c4fc5b$5bf03970$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122146 Geoff: Just in passing, I think you mean psychological damage.... I hope Snape isn't planning to start /hitting/ Harry. Charme: Well I don't know about hitting, but Snape sure has an anger management problem which seems to become physical with Harry by this passage out of OoP: "Snape threw Harry from him with all his might. Harry fell hard on to the dungeon floor. 'You will not repeat what you saw to anybody!' Snape bellowed. 'No,' said Harry, getting to his feet as far from Snape as he could. 'No, of course I w-' 'Get out, get out, I don't want to see you in this office ever again!' And as Harry hurtled towards the door, a jar of dead cockroaches exploded over his head. He wrenched the door open and flew along the corridor, stopping only when he had put three floors between himself and Snape. There he leaned against the wall, panting, and rubbing his bruised arm." Testy, testy....bruised arm, falling hard on the dungeon floor. Wonder if DD knows about those actions...... Charme From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 06:20:50 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:20:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) References: Message-ID: <06ef01c4fc5c$b125c5d0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122147 > > Betsy: > If the interviews you cited > meant what you think they mean, there should be examples in the text > that further back your theory. Since you were unable to find > anything from the books (all five of them) I'll assume you concede > that Snape is not jealous of Harry? >>>vmonte: > Her comments don't just say that Snape is a moody grouch; > she specifically calls him a "deeply horrible person." > Betsy: > I'm just saying that if your only canon is off-the-cuff interviews > rather then examples from the books it's not enough for me. Plus, I > feel like I've shown how the interview quotes you used can also back > up my view of Snape as a nasty, scary, teacher who knows his stuff > and is a boon to the side of light. >>>vmonte responds: >>Your reasoning is the way "we," the readers, see Harry. > Unfortunately, Snape does not see the "real" Harry, he sees James. He > is blinded by his prejudice and hatred of James. He cannot let go of > the past--and it will eventually kill him. This is not the sign of > someone who has had a moral epiphany, IMO. > >Betsy: >>The canon suggest that Snape *was* a racist. There is nothing in his >>current actions to suggest that he is a racist now. Charme: I wouldn't concede it if I were vmonte, Betsy. I think it's a stalemate of sorts: there's no canon in all 5 books which specifically states "Snape is jealous of Harry" or "Snape is not jealous of Harry." That's all to the reader's interpretation, IMO. Thus, to each his own. The same applies with whether Snape is or isn't still a racist - we don't know because alas, we don't have canon which specifically states "Snape The Racist Without The DE" or "Snape, The Master of Light & Love." (Just typing that made me laugh ;)) DD trusts Snape (and yes that's canon) however wouldn't you know, DD has already been mistaken about Snape being able to overcome his feelings about James: `I trust Severus Snape,' said Dumbledore simply 'But I forgot - another old man's mistake - that some wounds run too deep for the healing. I thought Professor Snape could overcome his feelings about your father - I was wrong.' DD could be wrong about other Snape idioms too. Not intentionally, of course, but it could happen again. As far as the canon/interview thing, I think that JKR's interviews, quotes, chats, and even her website cite additional information which you wouldn't find in canon, either but they fit with the plots she's developed to this point. Therefore, I think I have faith in them and have added them to my HP bag of tricks :) Charme, who is taking a page from Carol's book to add here that the "Snape, The Master of Light & Love" moniker above gave her an insane case of the giggles when she typed it :) From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jan 17 06:39:06 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:39:06 EST Subject: Are JKR's interviews canon? Message-ID: <1e0.33764ad4.2f1cb78a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122148 Alla said: > And yes, I consider JKR's interviews to be canon. > > > Just my opinion, > > Alla Julie says: When JKR gives us a very specific fact, such as "Voldemort is not the half-blood prince" then I do consider that fact canon. When she speaks more generally about motivations, relationships, character traits, etc, then I don't consider those kinds of statements canon in the same exact sense. For instance, JKR says "Snape is a deeply horrible person" (which is why he's fun to write). If you try to take this literally, then Snape is horrible to the core, i.e., evil, so why even bother trying to figure out the complexity of Snape's character when JKR's already told us that there isn't any complexity. He's "deeply horrible." Period. (Rather, I think she's emphasizing a part of him--the behavior part as a teacher--than saying he's horrible through and through). Or when JKR responds to the question "Is Snape going to fall in love?" with "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them? That's a very bad idea." If you try and interpret this very literally, it would seem to indicate Snape hasn't or can't fall in love with someone. Yet the question is "Is Snape GOING to fall in love?" not "Has Snape EVER fallen in love?" And bad idea or not, JKR didn't really answer the question, did she? In fact, she followed it up with "..whoever asked that question, I'm slightly stunned that you said that, and you'll find out why I'm so stunned if you read book 7." Which seems to actually indicate that Snape HAS fallen in love... I'm in danger of going off on a tangent, but hopefully you see what I mean. If JKR makes a factual "The sky over Hogwarts is blue" statement, I consider that canon. But statements that can be open to a variety of interpretations (no doubt purposely so on her part!), are something different. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 07:42:29 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:42:29 -0000 Subject: timing of DEs' arrival at DoM - KKK & Batman In-Reply-To: <000a01c4fa0a$b4e68640$0201a8c0@ROLLTIDE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122149 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jenny H" wrote: > > > Carol notes: > One tiny thing about that scene bothers me. The narrator says early > on that Harry could see their eyes through slits in their hoods, > which doesn't make much sense. Hoods go over the head and around the > face, not over it. > > Carol > Jenny here: > There could have been eye slits in hoods. The Klu Klux Klan wore > white hoods (not masks) with slits. ... there was an extra flap > attached to the top front of the hood that drapped down to cover the > face. bboyminn: Sorry for the short post, but you might also consider Batman's mask which is a combination of hood and mask. That's a little closer to what I picture; without the bat ears of course. It's possible that the KKK hood/masks might be close because the KKK hoods were really much like a pointed wizards that had extra cloth that covered the neck, and as Jenny pointed out, a cloth attached the fell down over the face with slits for the eyes. I sort of pictured something between Batman and Phantom of the Opera, and of course, black in color. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 07:55:11 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:55:11 -0000 Subject: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122150 Luckdragon: > Half blood could refer to the blood tie between Sirius and Severus > and as an unrecognized (and last direct line of males )descendant of > the most noble and ancient house of Black he could be considered a > prince. Laurasia: I'm not disagreeing that Snape and Black may be brothers (yet), my problem is that the Half-Blood Prince storyline was once part of CoS: before we had met Black; before we saw how deeply Black and Snape hated each other; before we knew Black was a pureblood. If, in CoS where this storyline was originally existed in its entirety, we found out that Snape was half brothers with a man named Sirius Black it would mean nothing at all. Certainly, the idea of the pureblood house of Black would slot very nicely into CoS with all the muggle-born hunting that is going on, however, I cannot see why JKR would ever even consider putting in into the story *before* we meet Sirius. The fun with this theory is that Snape and Black hate each other, yet they are related. Without the relationship behind the theory, it is, well, boring. It's not revealing or compelling until we meet Black. >From JKR's quote about the Half-Blood Prince, it sounds as though she took it out of CoS because it was *too* revealing. Not because it was boring and made no sense. And now I *am* disagreeing with the idea that Snape and Black are brothers: why tell us this *after* Black has slipped beyond the veil? To me, it spoils all the fun and weakens any probable conflict since Black is dead. It would've fitted perfectly into OotP- Snape and Black come to direct confrontation in the Black family home of all places. This revelation, IMO, does not have its 'perfect place' in Book 6. IMO, it's a wasted opportunity to put in Book 6. If you can convince me that there is a strong narrative reason for JKR to, firstly, put it into Book 2, and then put in into Book 6, I won't disagree with you any more. However, the way I see it, it's pointless and boring in CoS and too late to cause proper conflict in HBP. Of course, Snape may still well be the Half-Blood Prince... ~<(Laurasia)>~ From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 07:58:44 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 07:58:44 -0000 Subject: Are JKR's interviews canon? In-Reply-To: <1e0.33764ad4.2f1cb78a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122151 I think it would be unfair to JKR to insist that everything she says off the top of her head in an interview is cannon; she should have the privilege of changing her mind if she wants. And we know she can be wrong, she said Order of the Phoenix would be shorter the Goblet of Fire, but it didn't turn out that way. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 08:20:06 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 08:20:06 -0000 Subject: Advanced Magic - Focus is the Key. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122152 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > I noticed that in the 5th novel, in the death chamber, that most > > of the dueling takes place with very little mention to > > incantations. ...snip... Also, several times Dumbledore conjures > > items almost at will with his wand without having to actually > > speak. Does this mean that in advanced magic, perhaps only certain > > wizards/witches reach a maturity level where the spoken word is > > not required? ... > > > > "mrsfigg1968" > Tonks here: > > Yes, I think this is exactly what advanced magick means. Magick can > be done without a wand, with the power of the mind. A very > experienced wizard does not need a wand at all. All the wand does is > to channel the power of the universe and the power of the wizard. It > is possible to channel that without a wand. And without words. > ...edited... > > Tonks_op bboyminn: I don't think it is so much /Advanced Magick/ as it is /Advanced Magicians/. I think old, wise, powerful, and most importantly experienced wizards can perform spells without the incantation, and of course, as Tonks touches on, the key is focus. Think back to the scene in the first book where the students are learning 'Wingardium Leviosa'- the levitation spell. Only Hermione can do it on that first try, but why? All the students are magical, they all know the incantation, they all know the wand movements, but none of them can do it. Yet, I suspect a few weeks later, most of them could now do it. So what changed; same magic power in the student, same incantation, same wand movement? A wizard or witch performing magic is I suspect based on two things. First, being able to access the magical power. Being able to find and tap into that part of yourself. Second, it's about focus. Being able to find that part of yourself, and tap into it in a specific focused and purposeful way. The wand movements and incantation for a beginner are part of the means by which they focus their power. I further speculate that early magical education focuses on simple spells for the purpose of getting students to tap into their potential. Later magical education is more about focus. It's more about making that internal power do significant /work/ in the external world. Then after many many years of that channel into yourself, into your magical power, being opened, it becomes less about finding it, and less about needing /aids/ to focus it, and more about accomplishing a familiar task. For example, Tom, who runs the Leaky Cauldron Inn, has probably lit countless fires in his lifetime. Now after many decades, it's second nature to him. He enters a private room, SNAPS his fingers, and the fire is ignited. The channel to the power is so completely open, and the focus has become such second nature that the primary focusing tools like wand, incantation, and clear focused intent, are no longer required. With casual intent, he snaps, and the fire ignites. A student must enunciate the incantation clearly, a qualified wizard can speak the incantation casually, an experienced wizard need only think the incantation to make it work. In a sense, in the last example, he still speaks the incantation, he just speaks it mentally rather than verbally. An older, well practiced, very experienced wizard very likely need only think of the effect or result that he wants, and that intent creates sufficient focus to accomplish the task. Of course, for powerful and complex spells, it would truly take a powerful gifted wizard to perform them without the various focusing aids like wand and incantation. Dumbledore certainly fits this bill. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 04:49:49 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:49:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: houses/Lily's death/Snape/Harry saving people/Fidelius/Family tree (was re: another week of posts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050117044949.26812.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122153 I've answered some of Catlady's replies and snipped the ones I've already replied. BTW, Nice replies! > Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121978 : > > << You don't see Slytherin offering the rematch because the Seeker of > the other team was hurt, for example. >> Catlady replied: > You don't see Gryffindor or Ravenclaw offering any such thing, either. > That may have something to do with why the Twins thought Cedric was > "thick" and why Hufflepuff (according to Harry's thoughts in GoF) gets > very little glory. I have previously suggested that the ideal > Hufflepuff is a Gryffindor minus the craving for personal glory. Juli: I think the twins are so into Quidditch that anyone who ever wins a match over them is instantly their "enemy". Even when Cedric was chosen for the TWT, the Gryffindors were upset about it. They (Gryffs) like to win and whoever makes them lose isn't their friend anymore. I believe that Hufflepuffs just don't seem to care for glory, they just care for doing what's right ( I never remember seeing a Hufflepuff in detention). I don't think Gryffindors crave for personal glory, they crave for team glory, they want their house to win, they want to do what's best for the house or the WW and they'll do whatever it takes to accomplish it. > Tonks wrote http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121980 : > > << I was trying to figure out a reason LV would need > to kill Harry and James, but not Lily. >> Catlady replied: > Another speculation is that LV didn't *need* to kill James any more > than he *needed* to kill Lily, but was not in the habit of leaving > people who fought against him alive. That he made a token effort to > get Lily to surrender instead of being killed either because he had > promised Lily to one of his Death Eaters as a reward, or (IIRC this > next was called SO EWWW-ER iTS IN THE SEWER) he wants Lily to bear him > a child because of a prophecy that the war will be won by Lily's > child's father. Juli: I really like the first part of this theory, I like to think that even if LV kills for the pleasure of it, he still values a good fight and a fight needs a winner. Lily didn't want to fight with him, she just told him to kill her and spare Harry, maybe it touched some sensible nerve inside of him, or he may have remembered just for a second that a sacrifice for love gives protection, therefore that's why he was unwilling to kill her at first. > Alla http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122048 : > > << Since when in order to be a good human being, you don't have to be > "nice" human being? >> Catlady replied: > I can't remember which writer wrote that you can't judge that a person > is morally mediocre just because he/she is always rude and insulting > and complains a lot, even whines, and displays a very grudging > attitude whenever he/she helps someone, because for all you know, the > person's natural personality might be SO nasty that he/she is using an > incredible amount of willpower just to hold it down to average nasty, > and maybe using that much willpower to force oneself to do the right > thing is a much bigger moral achievement than the average good person > makes. No, I personally don't think that applies to Snape, but I admit > that I haven't seen into his heart. Juli: Finally I read an explanation I like about Severus' nastiness. He is nice sometimes, but mostly he's rude and nasty, but does it make him a bad person? No, at least not in my book. I mean, sometimes I wake up and I'm a bitch with everyone for no reason, but am I bad? Nope, just having a bad moment or day, maybe Severus is having a bad decade. > Eggplant wrote in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122079 : > > << I think Snape's mission at the end of Goblet Of Fire was to > secretly teach Occlumency to as many Death Eaters as he could without > Voldemort's knowledge. >> Catlady replied: > Interesting! (You-uns know about one-line posts being forbidden. This > is an Even More Forbidden one-WORD post.) Juli: 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. > Magda wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122088 : > > << It would also stand as a test to see how far Harry's compassion > will go - will he stick his neck out only to save his friends or > people he likes or will it extend as far as saving Snape, who he > loathes? >> Catlady wrote: > Early in OoP, Harry stuck his neck out to save Dudley from the > Dementors, if I recall correctly only minutes after Harry had been > bullying Dudley. Juli: Yes I do, Harry is so noble that he always tries to save everyone. At the end of OoP he tried to Crucio Bella, not AK her. I believe he feels that it's not right for anyone to die because of him. He could hardly believe the prophesy, he couldn't believe that he had to kill anyone. I hope in the next books we'll see the Harry/Severus relationship evolve, and then (or even before) Harry will try to save Snape, Harry even has some sort of life debt to Snape for saving his life in PS/SS. > Pippin wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122090 : > > << (the Order's secrets are in little danger since they are under > fidelius >> Catlady replied: > I thought only the location of Headquarters was under Fidelius? Juli: Yes, the location is under Fidelius, anything else can be told to whoever. The Trio and the Weasleys talk about it all the time, but do they have any really important information about the order? besides its members I think the rest is pretty obvious. > Alla wrote in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122114 : > > << And remember when Sirius shows Harry the tapestry? Harry could have > missed a few names on there surely. I do think that all of this blood > relatedness of many pureblood families will lead us to new > interesting discoveries. >> Catlady replied: > It's entirely possible that children fathered out-of-marriage by the > Black menfolks don't show on the tapestry in the first place. > Especially if the reason he didn't marry the child's mother is that > she wasn't pure-blood. Juli: So maybe Severus could show up? If you get burned from the tapestry for running away from home, being illegitimate surely won't get you a place there. Juli From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 04:58:38 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:58:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050117045838.90660.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122154 ...I snipped most of the post, mainly because I agree to it... Betsy: > The canon suggest that Snape *was* a racist. There > is nothing in his current actions to suggest that > he is a racist now. vmonte responds: > Really, I think his actions towards Hermione are > suspect. Why treat a student who obviously is a good > student and who works hard, like garbage? Oh let me > guess, insufferable know-it-alls deserve to be put > in their place too, right? Juli: But a know-it-all is sooo bothering, I was one. I'm grateful that people told me to stop correcting everyone for everything. It's annoying. Hermione is annoying, she is also a sweet girl, but even Ron (who I believe is in love with her even if he hasn't realize it) sometimes tells Hermione to cool down. I've never seen Snape treating anyone badly just because he/she is muggle born, he's beyond that. He treats people according to their actions: Neville always is making mistakes so he takes advantage of it. Harry is always getting away with breaking the rules so of course it bothers him (and a lot), but have we seen him mistreating anyone else? Not as far as I remember. From apzdcmsw at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 17 06:31:13 2005 From: apzdcmsw at yahoo.ca (Matt) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 06:31:13 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: <41EB8797.29058.7923034@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122155 Shaun Hately: > I doubt Trevor was in any real danger. > > Yes, Snape let Neville think he was, and some people certainly > would regard that as inappropriate, and I can understand why. > > But Neville has to learn - and in that class they are making > shrinking potions - something they have apparently been working > towards for a while (they had an essay on Shrinking Potions to do > over their summer holidays). He has made very basic errors. I can > *seriously* understand a teacher being very irritated in that > situation. > > As I've said numerous times before, I had some very Snapish > teachers as a kid. And I learned incredibly effectively from them. > Did I enjoy their classes? No. Did I fear them? Yes (though not as > much as Neville). Were they nice men? At least one, most definitely > was not (with the other main one, I've never been quite sure how > much of his manner was a show). > Snape's methods may not be comfortable, or fashionable. But that > doesn't necessarily make them bad methods. Like I say, I had > teachers very like him who were good teachers. And, a lot of > teachers I had who were nice and kind, and pleasant to be around, > were either useless teachers in general - or at least useless when > it came to teaching me specifically. > > There needs to be a range of teaching methods in use. I really do > think Snape, as we see him, falls into that valid range. Matt: This has been a very interesting discussion on Snape, but I must say I disagree with those who are saying Snape was a "good" teacher. I have not had a teacher as bad as Snape in my many years as a student, so I can't say how I would react to it. However, even if Harry is able to mentally stand up to Snape's public and personal attacks on his family, character, etc., does that give Snape the right to make these attacks? If Snape is in a teacher position, the answer is no. Some have said that Snape's teaching methods might not be the nicest teaching methods, but that they work for some and even most students, so it is okay. However, when a teacher engages in personal attacks on students, then there is a line that is being crossed. Even if many of the students benefit from a "hard" teacher, if a minority of students suffer under that teacher (such as Neville), then the method is wrong, and a better teaching method should be found. In the example brought up above, I agree that Snape probably knew that Trevor would not be hurt from the potion. However, his willingness to let Neville think that his toad was going to be hurt or worse is a nasty and horrid prank that one would not and should not expect from a TEACHER. Actually, Alla made a wonderful post earlier in this thread giving many examples of Snape being mean, and downright evil, towards students like Harry, Neville, Hermione, etc. I believe that these show that Snape cannot possibly be classified as a good teacher. It is certainly possible that he may be acting at certain times in some kind of a "spy" frame of mind, and I do believe that in the end he will be an important ally for Harry and DD. However, all that being said, his teaching methods are damaging and destructive in their style, and even if Harry can mentally survive some of the things Snape has done in his teaching role, it doesn't excuse Snape's unacceptable teaching. Just my thoughts on the issue! :) Matt MSW From elysia.snape at gmail.com Mon Jan 17 06:44:52 2005 From: elysia.snape at gmail.com (Elysia Snape) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:44:52 +1100 Subject: life debt In-Reply-To: <1105940821.8454.99425.m16@yahoogroups.com> References: <1105940821.8454.99425.m16@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <9a678cf705011622442367c18c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122156 James: > Don't forget James Potter saved Snape's life and now if there is > a "life debt" Snape owes it to Harry. Whats also interesting to think > about is that Snape only left the DEs shortly before the Potters were > killed and so Snape's old master murdered someone he has a "life > debt" to. This could mean that Snape's debt is greater than most, but > its certain that there should be a lot of guilt on Snape's part. De-lurking: Snape has surely paid back any life debt by now. He saved Harry from falling off his cursed broom, from the werewolf, and probably numerous other times we don't know about. Harry seeks trouble and Snape has (so far) always had his back. Ely. From deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 17 10:58:27 2005 From: deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk (deatheaterjames) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:58:27 -0000 Subject: life debt In-Reply-To: <9a678cf705011622442367c18c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122157 James: > > Don't forget James Potter saved Snape's life and now if there is > > a "life debt" Snape owes it to Harry. Whats also interesting to think > > about is that Snape only left the DEs shortly before the Potters were > > killed and so Snape's old master murdered someone he has a "life > > debt" to. This could mean that Snape's debt is greater than most, but > > its certain that there should be a lot of guilt on Snape's part. Ely: > De-lurking: Snape has surely paid back any life debt by now. He saved > Harry from falling off his cursed broom, from the werewolf, and > probably numerous other times we don't know about. Harry seeks > trouble and Snape has (so far) always had his back. Snape Helps Harry, but doesn't save his life as James does. Harry falls off his broom in PoA and gets a bit of Dementorization and he lives, I think Dumbledore saves him or something. There hasn't been a "grab my hand harry" or "NnnnnOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! TAKE ME VOLDERMORT" moment. Also perhaps this life debt theory means it doesn't matter how often you safe a life its an eternal debt. James From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 12:59:49 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:59:49 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Time-turner not a quick fix In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122158 - > ebennet here: > Delurking a bit. Wouldn't Moody or Dumbledore have been able to see > through the invisibility cloak? Would they say something if they had? Finwitch: Dumbledore didn't say anything the last time except for a little hint to invisible!Harry about *loyalty* and help that will come when asked. Harry didn't quite get it, but he did act the right way nevertheless. (COS, Hagrid's cabin -- just as Hagrid was being arrested). Seemingly talking to the 'head enemy', Minister Fudge. In OOP, Dumbledore was (seemingly?) talking to Tom about there being worse things than death. (again, that *could* be a secret, open message to the invisible!Harry - don't do it.) Or .. Perhaps the invisible!Harry is an Occlumens, and therefore Dumbledore (or Tom) can't see him. (I strongly think Dumbledore's 'seeing trough invisibility cloaks' is a from of Legilimency. Sirius being unconcious is also similarly invisible to him.) What comes to Moody, well... I guess if he saw Harry, he also saw the timeturner on his neck (so he knew HOW there were two boys where there should be one)... (and in HBP, Moody's the one who gives the item to Harry, because he's the one who KNOWS, just like Dumbledore knew about Harry/Hermione using TimeTurner in PoA.) Or Moody shoot the Stunner, not Lupin, meaning to hit Timeturned!Harry, but hitting Sirius. See? There's nothing to say they *didn't* know (and as it'd be dangerous for them to say anything, particularly with Tom Riddle and DEs there, they don't! - unless 'worse things than death' count here - and that WOULD make Dumblerore assuming guilt over Sirius' death VERY accurate, would it not?) Finwitch From deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 17 11:24:40 2005 From: deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk (deatheaterjames) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:24:40 -0000 Subject: life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122159 Kemper now: > > I have no cannon for this, but I don't think if the Savior wizard > > dies then so does the Saved. I say this because I think that DD > is > > going to die. If your guess is right, that Savior dies so Saved > > dies , it would mean that Harry would die should DD die. > A 'certain > > bond between' developed during "The Only One He Ever Feared" when > DD > > saved Harry's life. > Kelly: > > That is an interesting theory, but I don't think it can be true. As > James reminded me today, Snape had a life debt to James. If your > theory were correct, Snape would have died in Potterworld 1981. Have you heard the theory that Harry goes back in time and saves Snape? I think with the time travelling capabilities and James and Harry looking so alike we can't take any James being James for granted. James From lszydlowski at hotmail.com Mon Jan 17 13:13:09 2005 From: lszydlowski at hotmail.com (mizstorge) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:13:09 -0000 Subject: Runes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122160 Finwitch: Runes - well, to me, they're simply ancient letters used by Vikings and/or the Druids. The sort the can be more or less easily carved. You know, while the Romans (and christianity, mainly the catholics) was occupying England/Wales and even Ireland, Scotland had been subjected mainly to the Vikings (who travelled to America centuries before Columbus was born) and their own Druidism. They're no more occult than any other non-Latin method of writing. And Runes are easy to *carve*, whereas Chinese, Japanese or Ancient Egyptian was *painted* on a papyrus/paper, or a wall... It's just that they're ANCIENT and UNKOWN that ticks people off. Nah- if some priest complains about the 'occult', I'd say it's just some nasty propaganda to get rid of *competition*. Including all the stuff they say about Harry Potter, anything about things they know nothing about etc. Mz Storge here: Finwitch, nice summary. I'm a Scandianvian/Germanic Reconstructionist. We're sometimes known as Heathens or Asatruar, from the Icelandic version of the religion Asatru. To us, the Runes are a source of wisdom and understanding obtained by our god Odin/Wotan when he sacrificed himself by piercing himself through with a spear to the trunk of the World Tree for nine days. Each rune is a symbol in and of itself, but can also be used to make larger symbols or conventional words. There are to my knowledge at least three versions of the runes, sometimes called the Futhark for the first few character (like we sometimes call our alphabet the ABCs). There are historic survivals of 'bindrune' charms in Britain and the Scandinavian countries. Having established that, I thought JKR depicted the Runology class to be an academic alternative to Divination - Hermione dropped Divination, but was still taking Runology and Arithmancy. I don't have the books in front of me, but think Hermione made a reference to Runology and Arithmancy being more reliable than the things Trelawney taught, perhaps because Hermione likes dealing with concrete facts, and a rune isn't really open to interpretation any more than a number is. Perhaps because the Runes are a legacy from the pagan past, they could be more objectionable to Christians than other methods of fortune-telling. Interestingly enough, I'm reading Robin Lane Fox's 'Pagans and Christians" and he discusses the methods of fortune- telling acceptable to the first Christians in Roman territories. I personally think it would be cool if the mark on Harry's forehead did turn out to be a protective Rune placed ther by Lily, but I really think not since JKR seems to be going out of her way *not* to offend any particular religious tradition. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 13:13:57 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:13:57 -0000 Subject: life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122161 James wrote: > Snape Helps Harry, but doesn't save his life as James does. Harry > falls off his broom in PoA and gets a bit of Dementorization and he > lives, I think Dumbledore saves him or something. There hasn't been > a "grab my hand harry" or "NnnnnOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! TAKE ME > VOLDERMORT" moment. Also perhaps this life debt theory means it > doesn't matter how often you safe a life its an eternal debt. Finwitch: As I see it, LifeDebt cannot be inherited. Therefore, Severus Snape can try and save Harry's life thousands of times, but his lifedebt to James Potter will never be paid. (Because the said person is DEAD). Oh, and I agree with whoever said that *where* PP took Harry's blood from might have been accountant of his life debt - (really, I've given blood freely to save unkown lives, and it's ARM where it gets taken...). I think it's that well - if you owe a life-debt, you simply cannot directly kill the one who saved you. You can't even watch back when someone else does it - you must do *something* to help the one who saved you, however little. What that something is, however, is up to you. BUT, unless you save this life willingly - as willingly as your saviour saved you, or more - the debt is not paid off. Finwitch From severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 17 13:26:05 2005 From: severelysigune at yahoo.co.uk (severelysigune) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:26:05 -0000 Subject: Snape the Legilimens (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122162 Snow wrote: > > Snape knows how far he can push Harry or even Neville because he knows who they are through his legilemency powers. < < Geoff replied: > I can't agree with you here. If Snape is an expert Legilimens, then he must know that, at their first meeting, Harry is uncertain in his new environment, probably scared of this daunting person and certainly not arrogant. If he can't pick up on that, then he just isn't as good as we're led to believe. < Sigune: Sorry if this has been done to death, or if I'm asking stupid questions, but how 'good' are we led to believe Snape is at Legilimency? We only have it stated by several parties that he is an expert *Occlumens*, and even that statement's validity has recently been doubted on this list (not that I'm one of the doubters, mind). As far as I know, Dumbledore's revelation of the existence of the art of Legilimency in OotP has led many listees to believe that every time previously in canon that Snape gives Harry his trademark penetrating stare, he was using Legilimency; and Harry does mention that he thought Snape could read his mind. But please note that on most occasions Legilimency seems hardly necessary to figure out what Harry might be up to. Facts: - Snape has never been called a Legilimens in canon; the only people explicitly referred to as possessing this power are Dumbledore and Voldemort. - When Snape 'officially' subjects Harry to Legilimency, he uses his wand and a spell. So: Either Snape cannot perform Legilimency without wand and spell; or he *is* capable of it, but uses the more brutal wand-and-spell technique in the Occlumency class to make it easier for Harry to fight it - the 'subtler' form being hardly noticeable to the person subjected to it (cf. Harry's vague feelings that Snape might just be reading his mind as opposed to the torrent of memories the spell releases). What keeps bothering me is the question of whether one can *learn* to be a Legilimens, just like one can apparently learn to be an Occlumens. If so, is it very advanced magic? If not, just how many characters can we expect to be adept at it? And in connection with the Snape-as-Animagus thread: is Animagic 'just' a form of advanced Transfiguration, or is it a gift you are born with, like Tonks' Metamorphmagic (an assumption which seems to be partly born out by the fact that you can't choose the animal you transform into)? But if the latter is the case, isn't it an immense coincidence that Remus Lupin's three friends all happen to possess that ability? I'd much appreciate everybody's thoughts on the matter. Yours severely, Sigune From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 13:28:09 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:28:09 -0000 Subject: Are JKR's interviews canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122163 Eggplant: > I think it would be unfair to JKR to insist that everything she says > off the top of her head in an interview is cannon; she should have > the privilege of changing her mind if she wants. And we know she can > be wrong, she said Order of the Phoenix would be shorter the Goblet > of Fire, but it didn't turn out that way. Finwitch: Well, not as canon as the books, but I'd take 1) The 'Harry Potter and..' -Books as primary canon. (The ones in British English standing higher than all others simply because that's the language JKR wrote them - as well as the newest edition, in case of corrections!) 2) the 'school books' for Comic Relief (and such) as secondary canon 3) JKR's website, her answers in interviews etc. (well, a bit more for the website, as she can always update it in case she changes her mind. Of course, she could be kidding or speaking in riddles or...) Finwitch From drednort at alphalink.com.au Mon Jan 17 14:17:01 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:17:01 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: References: <41EB8797.29058.7923034@localhost> Message-ID: <41EC638D.9638.40CDFB@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122164 On 17 Jan 2005 at 6:31, Matt wrote: > Some have said that Snape's teaching methods might not be the nicest > teaching methods, but that they work for some and even most > students, so it is okay. However, when a teacher engages in > personal attacks on students, then there is a line that is being > crossed. Even if many of the students benefit from a "hard" > teacher, if a minority of students suffer under that teacher (such > as Neville), then the method is wrong, and a better teaching method > should be found. This simply isn't reasonable in my view. It is pretty much impossible to expect a teachers' - any teachers' - methods to work for every child they teach. Every single method of education in existence fails to work for some kids, and harms some kids. This is because children are individuals with individual learning styles. There are considerable overlaps among how children learn, but there are pretty much no universals. If you eliminate from education, every single method that a minority of students could suffer from, you will wind up eliminating every single method of teaching. I speak from real experience here. I had special educational needs growing up - needs that were not met by the normal methods of education used in the schools I attended. Except for one year (which I spent at a truly flawed school), the methods being used in the clasrooms I was in probably worked well for 99% of the kids in those classrooms. But they didn't work for me. That's a simple fact. They harmed me. Should the teachers have been forced to change the way they taught simply for my benefit. No, no way. Because changing the way they taught would have involved disadvantaging everyone else to my benefit. It would have involved putting my right to an appropriate education above the right of other children. Now, I happen to believe every child is entitled to the education that best meets their individual needs - but you don't achieve that by changing methods that work for the majority to methods that work for the minority. You achieve that by having available a range of different methods, all being used alongside each other. That's how you are most likely to get education that works for all kids. You don't get it by unilaterally saying that certain methods shouldn't be used because they are somehow unpleasant. I had to put up with years of being stuck in classrooms that didn't meet my needs, and were often actually quite harmful to me. I hated it, and I don't think I should have been in those classrooms - but I don't think those classrooms should have been changed just for me. They worked for most of my classmates. They worked well for most of my classmates. Changing them to suit me would have just been a matter of deciding to harm someone elses education. That's not an improvement. What I wish had existed - and what I was lucky enough to find from the age of around 13 - was for there also to be other classes where methods that worked for me were being used. So all of us had a chance for an education that met our needs at least part of the time. If you can get an ideal world, all of the time is good. But some of the time is at least better than nothing. Earlier today, Pippin said this: "But I think if you've had bad experiences with a RL teacher who reminds you of Snape, they get projected on to the character, and if you've had good experiences with a Snape style teacher they get projected too. IMO, we'd all like to validate our experiences by having Snape get the fate we wish our real life teachers could have had." I think that is a very good point in many cases, and it's certainly true of me to an extent. In my own case, I do very much project my own experiences into this debate. But it's of relevance in my opinion. Just consider what it's like to be in my shoes for a moment. I had, for the most part, a hellish education until I was 13 years old. Not because I was at bad schools (except for one year), but simply because I didn't fit into the way those schools operated. At that stage, I suddenly found myself in an educational environment different from any I had previously experienced and where the education I received suddenly fit who I was - and not who other people had decided I should be. One of the reasons the Harry Potter books appealed to me so much when I first read them was because I could so much relate to how Harry felt coming into the Wizarding World and into Hogwarts, and to finally finding a place where he belonged. I had those feelings so strongly in my own childhood at age 13. I can still taste the feeling. The school I started at then was nothing like the schools I'd been at before - and it was finally a place where I could learn. Which fitted the way I learned. Part of that experience - and only part of it - was encountering a few teachers who were very Snape like. I didn't like their classes. Yes, frankly, I was scared in some of their classes. But I learned. I learned for just about the first time in eight years of schooling. I didn't enjoy the experience - but at least it wasn't a complete and total waste of my time. I do project because of those experiences. And I don't expect others who didn't experience those things to fully understand why I feel the way I do. But just as I am always aware that just because virtually every classroom I was in until the age of 13 was a classroom where I couldn't and didn't learn, and where my experiences ranged from the neutral to the absolutely hideous, doesn't mean I would seek to deny the validity of the experiences of the kids I was in those classes with who I know learned, and who I know often enjoyed the clasess. No, I can't fully understand why they feel the way they do. But I accept that they do feel that way. And I don't go around claiming that the methods that worked for them were invalid, because they didn't work for me. A school would be a horrible place if every teacher was like Snape. But, frankly, a school be a horrible place if every teacher was like Lupin, or Dumbledore, or McGonagall, or Sprout. You need a range of methods in operation to create a good school. And nobody should expect all those methods to work well for every single child. Some kids are always going to miss out. All eliminating certain teaching methods from consideration does is ensure that the kids those methods might work for when others don't always miss out. > In the example brought up above, I agree that Snape probably knew > that Trevor would not be hurt from the potion. However, his > willingness to let Neville think that his toad was going to be hurt > or worse is a nasty and horrid prank that one would not and should > not expect from a TEACHER. Well, I had teachers who taught that way, and for me it worked. I won't tell you the horrible things that some of my teachers did to me, and threatened me with as a motivation and incentive to make me learn. It's hard to say whether they were worse of better than threatening Trevor, in all honesty. But they worked - and at least sometimes they worked when nothing else did. And I benefitted from that. I really did. You know I am training to be a teacher at the moment. And when I sit in classes and I am told how to teach kids, I often find the bile rising in my throat as the educational experts at the front of the lecture theatre advocate and promote using the same methods of teaching that didn't work for me for eight years, and which caused me significant emotional pain and suffering. These are the methods they tell us work - and logically, I know that they do work for a very large proportion of kids. My reaction to them is visceral and has nothing to do with knowledge or logic. I suspect that those who dislike Snape as a teacher have a similar visceral reaction in many (not all) cases - they just have that reaction to different things than me. Perfectly valid - I just do think that those people should realise (just as I have had to realise) that just because we might have an emotional and visceral reaction to certain ideas of how kids should be taught, that we need to look beyond that when assessing how a teacher performs. Is Snape nice? No. He's nasty. Is Snape kind? No. He's mean. But do teachers have to be nice to do their job? Do teachers have to be kind to do their job? It's a bonus, sure. But in essence to do their job, what a teacher *needs* to do is *TEACH*. That is their job. That is their function. That is their first duty. And if a majority of their students are learning a majority of the time, then they are doing a good job. If they can manage that and be nice and kind, wonderful. It's a great bonus for their students. But if they can't manage it, it doesn't matter how nice, or how kind they are. They've failed in their fundamental duty. It is complicated to an extent - because a lot of kids (most kids, probably) do learn better from teachers who are nice and who are kind. But not all kids do, to be honest. I didn't. I just ran rings around most teachers like that (there were exceptions). Umbridge is an example of an unambiguously bad teacher in my view. She is nasty. She is mean. But what makes her a bad teacher is the fact that she doesn't teach. Getting a class to read a chapter of a textbook isn't teaching - and it wouldn't be teaching even if she was lovely and wonderful. Trelawney seems much nicer than Snape - but also seems to be a very ineffectual teacher. Whose class do students learn most in? Trelawney's or Snape's? We can't know for certain - but I strongly expect it's Snape's. Yes, I project to an extent. But just think what it is like to come on here and see the educational methods that worked best for you, just dismissed by other people as bad methods. No wonder I defend Snape, sometimes... when you spent most of the first half of your schooling being denied an education appropriate to your needs, it can be rather hard to see people condemning the methods that finally gave you the chance and the right to learn. Does it matter? Not really. It's a work of fiction. But, frankly, that's true of everything discussed here. None of it really matters. We don't discuss it because it matters - at least I don't think so. 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 14:16:04 2005 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:16:04 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122165 > Dee Dee wrote: > After OOP we get the picture that there are more than one means of > time travel. This may be a stupid question, but when to we get a picture that there are other means to time travel? I don't remember any other way. Kelly From madettebeau at gmail.com Mon Jan 17 13:58:13 2005 From: madettebeau at gmail.com (madlysarcastic) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:58:13 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius related? Was: Re: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122166 > Alla: > > Magda developed this theory in the post 110109. I thought for a long > time that Snape and Sirius or Snape and James can be related. Thi > sure sounds like a good one. > > And remember when Sirius shows Harry the tapestry? Harry could have > missed few names on there surely. I do think that all of this blood > relatedness of many pureblood families will lead us to new > interesting discoveries. Maddy: What I think is likely to be the most interesting part of the tapestry is what is *not* on there. I'm very skeptical that the Blacks were actually toujours pur. In one generation there were at least two (Sirius and Andromeda), so I can't help but think there are more burn marks on it. I think there might be some canon evidence to support the idea that Snape and Sirius are related. (At least, it could be) (from Chapter 24, Occlumency, starting on page 457 from Bloomsbury/Raincoast) -- 'Sit down, Potter.' 'You know,' said Sirius loudly, leaning back on his rear chair legs and speaking to the ceiling, 'I think I'd prefer it if you didn't give orders here, Snape. It's my house, you see.' An ugly flush suffused Snape's pallid face. -- To me it doesn't seem to be enough that it's simply Sirius's house to cause Snape to blush like that. What if Snape was Sirius's half brother, and the elder one? (We now know that Snape's birthday is in January) If he was the elder, illegitimate child, Sirius mentioning that the house belongs to him could be a slap in the face to Snape if he could have been the first born son and entitled to any Black inheritence, such as the house. Call me crazy, but I think this makes some sense. Any thoughts? =) Maddy From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 13:59:40 2005 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:59:40 -0000 Subject: GoF - Chapter Nine In-Reply-To: <00ac01c4fc59$a5ad3f60$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122167 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" wrote: > Charme said - > > I have been focusing on Chapter Nine of GoF as in JKR's interviews and > chats > > she says that it was so difficult to write, she thought about skipping the > > chapter completely. We pick up the action as Harry, Hermoine, and Ron have > > fled to the woods after the supposed "DE's" began having some Muggle > sport. > > Please note that up to this point, the trio had been hearing bangs and > > shouts from the campsite, then Draco Malfoy appears: > > > > > > > A blast like a bomb? A flash of green light? Does this in any way sound > like > > something we've possibly read about before? What other than the Muggle > > sport, Winky, and the Dark Mark happened that night? > > > > charme > > Kethryn now - > > And your question blends in nicely with one of my own...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. I rather doubt > that Voldemort/Rat were planning on killing Cedric - how could they know he > would tie with Harry for the Cup - and I seriously doubt they knew Frank was > listening until Nagini told them. So that leaves Barty Couch but I couldn't > swear to it that Voldemort/Rat knew they would have to kill him at this > point...not when he could be controlled with magic. > > So, my question is, who else could it have been? Or was it really Harry the > entire time and I am just reading it wrong? Of course, (to tie it back into > the original email), was the flash of green light (which, by the way, has > only ever been associated directly with the AK...or I am skimming once too > often) the death of some as yet undiscovered body? Or even the attempted > death? > > Don't you just love it when your email gets questions back? > > Kethryn Kelly: I just reread the passage you mention at the beginning of GoF (US, PB, Pg. 10) and I think they must be speaking of Crouch Sr., which will allow Voldemorts "*faithful* servant" to return to him. As for the green flash, I had not noticed the similarity to the description of GH until Charme pointed it out. I wonder if someone wasn't AKed that night. But who? I'm not sure I understand the time turner explanation, however. That might be interesting, too. Kelly From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 14:47:09 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:47:09 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: <41EC638D.9638.40CDFB@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122168 Shaun wrote: This is because children are individuals with individual learning styles. There are considerable overlaps among how children learn, but there are pretty much no universals. If you eliminate from education, every single method that a minority of students could suffer from, you will wind up eliminating every single method of teaching. vmonte responds: Harassment, threats, vindictiveness, and cruelty are not what I would call a valid teaching style; it's more a life style/choice. And I'm not talking about forcing a teacher to cater their classroom to one child; I'm talking about treating "all" children in a classroom like human beings. Sure you can teach children with individual styles by using Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, or by trying cooperative learning strategies, by using Bloom's Taxonomy, whatever. But to say that cruelty is a valid teaching technique is absurd. Shaun wrote: Earlier today, Pippin said this: "But I think if you've had bad experiences with a RL teacher who reminds you of Snape, they get projected on to the character, and if you've had good experiences with a Snape style teacher they get projected too. IMO, we'd all like to validate our experiences by having Snape get the fate we wish our real life teachers could have had." vmonte responds: Do you think that JKR's experiences with her Snape like teacher were good experiences? No, I don't think so. The Record, Northern NJ 14 October 1999 -Professor Snape, she said, was based on a teacher she despised: -"The great thing about becoming a writer is you can get revenge on everyone." The Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ 16 October 1999 -Julia Moore asked, "Are any of the stories based on personal memories or people you know?" -Hermione is an exaggerated version of me when I was 11. But I was never that clever or annoying." -She also reported that Professor Snape is based on a chemistry teacher who hated her and made her life miserable. -The great thing about being a writer is that you have a chance to get back at those people who wronged you. America Online, October 19, 2000 -Why did you make Quirrell the bad guy instead of Snape? -Because I know all about Snape and he wasn't about to put on a turban. -Ms. Rowling, which character besides Harry is your favorite, and why? -I think that would have to be Hagrid -- but I love Ron and Hermione too, and I also love writing characters like Gilderoy Lockhart, Snape, the Dursleys... it's such fun doing horrible things to them. Vivian From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 14:53:08 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:53:08 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (VERY long.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122169 Eggplant: > I think Snape's mission at the end of Goblet Of Fire was to secretly > teach Occlumency to as many Death Eaters as he could without > Voldemort's knowledge. It would be useful if there were plots among > the Death Eaters Voldemort could not detect and Snape could get > valuable intelligence information from flashes of memory from their > minds during the lessons. Finwitch: I like that theory. And-- I think that in addition to keeping secrets from Voldemort Occlumency would help to stand Dementors. (He certainly didn't approve of the idea that Snape would be breaking into his godson's mind, now did he? Perhaps this idea reminded him of Dementors?) Finwitch From klevasseur at earthlink.net Mon Jan 17 15:15:59 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:15:59 -0000 Subject: life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122170 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elanor Isolda" > wrote: > > > > De-lurking to offer my crazy and probably hole-filled theory on > life debts: > > > > Tonks wrote: > > > > > DD says .When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it > > > creates a certain bond between them." > > > > > Elanor wrote: > What if he meant that it creates a *literal* bond, i.e. that the > life of the person whose life has been saved becomes inextricably > linked to that of their saviour? This could even apply to the > extent that, should the wizard who did the saving dies, so would the > wizard who was saved. > SNIP > > Tonks now: > > Doesn't this sound like Harry and LV?? Can anyone one else pick up > on this and maybe together we can figure out the HP/LV thing. > Ms.Luna, Are you talking about the fact that Harry's blood was used to return LV to his human body? that's the only thing I see that connects them. (but then I can be a little thick at times and may need some enlightenment) If that's what your referring to, than no, I don't think there would be a bond because Harrys' blood was forcebly taken. I understand what DD said as meaning if someone voluntarily saves another's life, then that witch or wizard owes a life debt to the one who saved them. From klevasseur at earthlink.net Mon Jan 17 15:07:59 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:07:59 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122171 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > To respond to ALL of the post about Snape: > > 1. I think it is possible for someone to be a good person (not evil) > and still an unpleasant person to be around. It is also possible to > be an evil person and have everyone like you. A very smart > psychopath can pull that off. So I think that being good or evil is > the state of ones soul, while being nice or nasty is a behavioral > thing. A fully developed mentally healthy person would be both good > and nice. There are not too many of those people around. Most of > us are flawed in one way or another. Even otherwise good and nice > people do nasty things at times. > > 2. As to Erickson's developmental stages and Snape. You are > assuming that the man we saw in the pensive was Snape's father, but > we do not know that. But let's assume that whoever the man was that > he was a father like figure during Snape's early development. Now I > want to say here that just because the man was verbally and > emotionally abusive does not automatically imply that he was also > physically abusive. So we can not say that Snape was physically > abused with any certainty. We will assume that he was indeed > emotionally abused. And it is this emotional abuse that has > prevented Snape from becoming a fully emotionally mature adult. I > think there is evidence that Snape is very intelligent. Like many > emotionally abused children he may retreat into books instead of > interacting with other people. Snape's social skills are sadly > lacking, as he apparently has not had good role models in this > area. He has learned to turn off his emotions. He also has an > internalized *bad parent* which comes out to play when he interacts > with his students. I don't think that he can help that. Perhaps > his learning occumency was a way of trying to block that part of > himself, or to protect his true self from internal abuse by the > internalized bad parent. There does not seem to be any mental > health clinics in the WW. I suspect their approach to any form of > mental illness however mild or sever is the same as the rest of the > world up to the middle of the 20th century. That is to basically > ignore it unless the person becomes a danger to society. > > So I do think that we, who are both good and kind, should cut Snape > a little slack. He has had a rough life, he has made his mistakes > (the full cost of which we do not know), and we need to have some > compassion. Yes, even with the nasty bastard himself. If DD says > that Snape is OK, I trust DD's judgment. Therefore Snape is a good > person, a forgiven person with his scars still so visible to us all. > > Tonks_op Ms. Luna here, I understand the way you have described Snape as being a good person who is unpleasant to be around, but I'm not sure I totally agree with it. I believe Snape to be a *trying to be a good person who is unpleasant to be around*. I believe that Harry brings out Snape's *true* self, which is the reason Snape is Particulary unpleasant to Harry and his friends. Snape is unable to separate Harry and his friends from James Potter and the Maruader's and the old feelings come back full force when Harry is present, the same thing happens between Snape and Sirius. Although I believe Snape to be a reformed DE and not a truely evil person, and that we should *cut Snape a little slack*, I am not completely convinced of him being a *good* person, at least not in the way I understand a *good* person to be. From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 15:20:33 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:20:33 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122172 vmonte responds: Professor Snape was forcing them to research antidotes. They took this one seriously, as he had hinted that he might be poisoning one of them before Christmas to see if their antidote worked. "Densaugeo!" screamed Malfoy. Jets of light shot from both wands, hit each other in midair, and ricocheted off at angles?Harry's hit Goyle in the face, and Malfoy's hit Hermione. Goyle bellowed and put his hands to his nose, where great ugly boils were springing up-Hermione, whimpering in panic, was clutching her mouth. "Hermione!" Ron had hurried forward to see what was wrong with her; Harry turned and saw Ron dragging Hermione's hand away from her face. It wasn't a pretty sight. Hermione's front teeth-already larger than average?were now growing at an alarming rate; she was looking more and more like a beaver as her teeth elongated, past her bottom lip, toward her chin? panic-stricken, she felt them and let out a terrified cry. "And what is all this noise about?" said a soft, deadly voice. Snape had arrived. The Slytherins clamored to give their explanations; Snape pointed a long yellow finger at Malfoy and said, "Explain." "Potter attacked me, sir?" "We attacked each other at the same time!" Harry shouted. "and he hit Goyle?look?" Snape examined Goyle, whose face now resembled something that would have been at home in a book on poisonous fungi. "Hospital wing, Goyle," Snape said calmly. "Malfoy got Hermione!" Ron said. "Look!" He forced Hermione to show Snape her teeth?she was doing her best to hide them with her hands, though this was difficult as they had now grown down past her collar. Pansy Parkinson and the other Slytherin girls were doubled up with silent giggles, pointing at Hermione from behind Snape's back. Snape looked coldly at Hermione, then said, "I see no difference." Hermione let out a whimper; her eyes filled with tears, she turned on her heel and ran, ran all the way up the corridor and out of sight. It was lucky, perhaps, that both Harry and Ron started shouting at Snape at the same time; lucky their voices echoed so much in the stone corridor, for in the confused din, it was impossible for him to hear exactly what they were calling him. He got the gist, however. "Let's see," he said, in his silkiest voice. "Fifty points from Gryffindor and a detention each for Potter and Weasley. Now get inside, or it'll be a week's worth of detentions." Harry's ears were ringing. The injustice of it made him want to curse Snape into a thousand slimy pieces. He passed Snape, walked with Ron to the back of the dungeon, and slammed his bag down onto the table. vmonte: The more Snape treats these kids like garbage the less respect they are going to have for him. I admit though that the children are learning a great lesson here, although not about potions. vmonte: Even the bad guy knows... "Potter!" Snape snarled, and he actually turned his head and stared right at the place where Harry was, as though he could suddenly see him. "That egg is Potters egg. That piece of parchment belongs to Potter. I have seen it before, I recognize it! Potter is here! Potter, in his Invisibility Cloak!" Snape stretched out his hands like a blind man and began to move up the stairs; Harry could have sworn his over-large nostrils were dilating, trying to sniff Harry out?trapped. Harry leaned backward, trying to avoid Snapes fingertips, but any moment now? "There's nothing there, Snape!" barked Moody, "but I'll be happy to tell the headmaster how quickly your mind jumped to Harry Potter!" "Meaning what?" Snape turned again to look at Moody, his hands still outstretched, inches from Harry's chest. "Meaning that Dumbledore's very interested to know who's got it in for that boy!" said Moody, limping nearer still to the foot of the stairs. "And so am I, Snape... very interested..." Snape was looking down at Moody, and Harry couldn't see the expression on his face. For a moment, nobody moved or said anything. Then Snape slowly lowered his hands. "I merely thought," said Snape, in a voice of forced calm, "that if Potter was wandering around after hours again ...it's an unfortunate habit of his ...he should be stopped. For?for his own safety." "Ah, I see," said Moody softly. "Got Potter's best interests at heart, have you?" There was a pause. Snape and Moody were still staring at each other, [...] "I think I will go back to bed," Snape said curtly. "Best idea you've had all night," said Moody. vmonte: Ron doesn't get enough credit... "So you think Snape could be up to something, then?" asked Harry, but Hermione broke in. "Look, I don't care what you say, Dumbledore trusts Snape?" "Oh give it a rest, Hermione," said Ron impatiently. "I know Dumbledores brilliant and everything, but that doesn't mean a really clever Dark wizard couldn't fool him?" vmonte: And it's always important to be an assertive teacher and let those brats know just how much you loath them... "Ah, yes," he said softly, "Harry Potter. Our new?celebrity." Snape finished calling the names and looked up at the class. His eyes were black like Hagrid's, but they had none of Hagrid's warmth. They were cold and empty and made you think of dark tunnels. "You are here to learn the subtle science and exact art of potion- making," he began. He spoke in barely more than a whisper, but they caught every word?like Professor McGonagall, Snape had the gift of keeping a class silent without effort. "As there is little foolish wand-waving here, many of you will hardly believe this is magic. I don't expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses... I can teach you how to bottle fame, brew glory, even stopper death?if you aren't as big a bunch of dunderheads as I usually have to teach." More silence followed that little speech. [...] "Potter!" said Snape suddenly. "What would I get if I added powdered root of asphodel to an infusion of wormwood?" "I don't know, sir," said Harry. Snape's lips curled into a sneer. "Tut, tut-fame clearly isn't everything." He ignored Hermione's hand. "Let's try again. Potter, where would you look if I told you to find me a bezoar?" "I don't know, sir." "Thought you wouldn't open a bok before coming, eh, Potter?" Harry forced himself to keep looking into those cold eyes. Snape was still ignoring Hermione's quivering hand. "What is the difference, Potter, between monkshood and wolfsbane?" "I don't know," said Harry quietly. "I think Hermione does, though, why don't you try her?" "Sit down," he snapped at Hermione. "For your information, Potter, asphodel and wormwood make a sleeping potion so powerful it is known as the Draught of Living Death. A bezoar is a stone taken from the stomack of a goat and it will save you from most poisons. As for monkshood and wolfsbane, they are the same plant, which also goes by the name of aconite. Well? Why aren't you all copying that down?" Over the noise, Snape said, "And a point will be taken from Gryffindor House for your cheek, Potter." He swept around in his long black cloak, watching them... [... Longbottom melts the cauldron...] "Idiot boy!" snarled Snape, clearing the spilled potion away with one wave of his wand. "I suppose you added the porcupine quills before taking the cauldron off the fire?" Then he rounded on Harry and Ron, who had been working next to Neville. "You?Potter?why didn't you tell him not to add the quills? Thought he'd make you look good if he got it wrong, did you? That's another point you've lost for Gryffindor." [... Ron kicked Harry behind their cauldron...] "Don't push it," he mutterred, "I've heard Snape can turn very nasty." vmonte: And he never shows preferential treatment... They were making a new potion today, a Shrinking Solution. Malfoy set up his cauldron right next to Harry and Ron, so that they were preparing their ingredients on the same table. "Sir," Malfoy called, "sir, I'll need help cutting up these daisy roots, because of my arm?" "Weasley, cut up Malfoy's roots for him," said Snape without looking up. "Professor," drawled Malfoy, "Weasley's mutilating my roots, sit." Snape approached their table, stared down his hooked nose at the roots, then gave Ron an unpleasant smile from beneath his long, greasy black hair. "Change roots with Malfoy, Weasley." "But, sit?!" Ron had spent the last quarter of an hour carefully shredding his own roots into exactly equal pieces. "Now," said Snape in his most dangerous voice. Ron shoved his own beautifully cut roots across the table at Malfoy, then took up the knife again. "And, sir, I'll need this shrivelfig skinned," said Malfoy, his voice full of malicious laughter. "Potter, you can skin Malfoy's shrivelfig," said Snape, giving Harry the look of loathing he always reserved just for him. vmonte: Teacher tip! Don't forget to threaten your students pets and then deduct house points when their pet doesn't die... The end of the lesson in sight, Snape strode over to Neville, who was cowering by his cauldron. "Everyone gather around," said Snape, his black eyes glittering, "and watch what happens to Longbottom's toad. If he has managed to produce a Shrinking Solution, it will shrink to a tadpole. If, as I don't doubt, he has done it wrong, his toad is likely to be poisoned." ...Snape picked up Trevor the toad in his left hand and dipped a small spoon into Neville's potion, which was now green. He trickled a few drops down Trevor's throat. There was a moment of hushed silence, in which Trevor gulped; then there was a small pop, and Trevor the tadpole was wriggling in Snape's palm. The Gryffindors burst into applause. Snape, looking sour, pulled a small bottle from the pocket of his robe, poured a few drops on top of Trevor, and he reappeared suddenly, fully grown. "Five points from Gryffindor," said Snape, which wiped the smiles from every face. "I told you not to help him, Miss Granger. Class dismissed." Harry, Ron, and Hermione climbed the steps to the entrance hall. Harry was still thinking about what Malfoy had said, while Ron was seething about Snape. "Five points from Gryffindor because the potion was all right! vmonte: Jealous much? "How extraordinarily like your father you are, Potter," Snape said suddenly, his eyes glinting. "He too was exceedingly arrogant. A small amount of talent on the Quidditch field made him think he was a cut above the rest of us too. Strutting around the place with his friends and admirers... The resemblance between you is uncanny." "My dad didn't strut," said Harry, before he could stop himself. "And neither do I." "Your father didn't set much store by rules either," Snape went on, pressing his advantage, his thin face full of malice. "Rules were for lesser mortals, not Quidditch Cup-winners. His head was so swollen?" and a racist too.. "Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works," hissed Snape. "Get out of the way, Potter." "YOU'RE PATHETIC!" Harry yelled. "JUST BECAUSE THEY MADE A FOOL OF YOU AT SCHOOL YOU WON'T EVEN LISTEN?" "SILENCE! I WILL NOT BE SPOKEN TO LIKE THAT!" Snape shrieked, looking madder than ever. "Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well served if he'd killed you! You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black?now get out of the way, or I will make you. GET OUT OF THE WAY, POTTER!" vmonte From klevasseur at earthlink.net Mon Jan 17 15:22:39 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:22:39 -0000 Subject: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122173 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" wrote: > > Luckdragon: > At one time there was a discussion of the possibility of Severus and > Sirius being half brothers. If Sirius's father had illigitimately > fathered Severus and left him to be raised by an uncaring and > abusive man it would give credence to Snapes inner rage and > expressions of anger. This would also give cause for the tension > between Sirius and Severus. > Half blood could refer to the blood tie between Sirius and Severus > and as an unrecognized (and last direct line of males )descendant of > the most noble and ancient house of Black he could be considered a > prince. With Sirius gone in book 5 it could be that Snape will now > assume the Black household and the storyline could largely play > around the whole marauder, Lily, Snape background. > > Has the idea of Snape being the HBP been discussed? If so what are > the thoughts on this? Ms. Luna here, I have thought all along that the HBP was going to be either an illegitimate child of a weathly family in the WW, or someone like TMR whose parents *broke up*/ divorced but not before producing a child from the union. But, I have never considered Sirius and Snape being half-brothers..that is an very interesting theory! From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 15:44:00 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:44:00 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122174 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > snip, snip) > We also have Snape's "you are neither special, nor important" > (Snip) > There is also from PoA "you should thank me on the bended knee", > which again smells as jealosy to me. Snip) > > Alla Tonks here: When I hear Snape say these things I do not think that he is jealous of Harry, I think that he is projecting onto Harry. This sounds like the sort of things the nasty man in the pensive would say to Snape as a child. (Of course 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, but we really do not know.) When a person has been emotionally abused, as we think Snape has been, this is how they sometimes act towards others. This is especially true if the other person reminds them in some way of themselves at the same age. They may not know that they are doing it, or they may know and are unable to stop it. What I am saying is, yes, Snape is a mean, nasty man. But once he was a scared little boy. And the scared little boy, in order to survive the abuse took part of the abuser into himself. This is what I mean (in an earlier post) when I say that Snape as a child internalized his father figure. Nasty people don't start life as nasty people. And true some are so nasty that we can not see past that and pity them. I have met nasty people too, and some I could have compassion on and some I just hated with all the rage I had within me. Snape is certainly a well written character to cause such strong reactions (for or against)from us all. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 16:12:13 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:12:13 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > Snow: > But wouldn't Snape have realized, even for one so young, that Harry was resilient enough not to allow Snape's snide remarks cause him any permanent damage. Harry is his father's son and even if he didn't outwardly exhibit his strength of character at age eleven, Snape would have been able to see that snide remarks were not going to make Harry crumble into a shuttering house elf. Snape can make himself look good in the eyes of his little class of Slytherin friends that report back to their death-eater daddies by seemingly using and abusing Harry. Harry is able to endure abusiveness, he had to live with that type of behavior most of his life while living with the Dursley's. Tonks: I am not defending Snape's behavior here, or suggesting that the Dursley's behavior was acceptable either. However, for Harry (not for every child) this has made him stronger. Now there is Neville, who is a very sensitive child like I was myself, and this nasty behavior has a negative effect on him. Neville does crumble like a shuttering house elf, but Harry doesn't. Harry is able, perhaps because of his treatment by Snape to ignore Bella's nasty remarks at a very emotionally vulnerable point in his life. Think about it. If any of us came in contact with a real DE, would we have wanted a goody-2-shoes teacher or a nasty one? I would never have made it in the Army, because boot came it not a nice place. It is, I am told, full of teachers like Snape. That is all they have, and for a reason. The members of the army are being trained to be tough and to hate and to direct that hate towards the enemy. I don't think that JKR is training the DA to hate like that. But she does allow a teacher like Snape and so does DD. I see that as saying that the forces of good can and do use whatever comes to them. Snape may not seem like the ideal vessel for the use of good, but the forces of good find a way to use him anyway. Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 17 17:05:21 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:05:21 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122176 Naama: . Phineas Nigellus is obviously in the habit of behaving in the > annoying way he has - Sirius isn't. Pippin: Except with Kreacher, who was "a living reminder of the home he hated." You remember what Sirius's mum was like, don't you? That's what Sirius grew up with, and IMO, it comes out when he has to deal with people he dislikes, like Kreacher and Snape. The culture of insult doesn't mean that Slytherins never insult each other for other reasons, but it does mean that any Slytherin could come up with insults without feeling deep-rooted hostility. Snape doesn't have to hate Hermione to come up with the tooth remark, and he and Sirius don't have to be mortal enemies to get into that silly almost-duel. Naama: > > Lily, at that point, did dislike James. Sirius and Lupin say as much. Sirius certainly disliked Kreacher. " > > It leads to the same sort of arbitrariness in interpretation as playacting!Snape. You apply it in order to undermine the straight meaning of the text in one place, while leaveing other places undisturbed. What's the criteria? < Pippin: You mean, there should be some kind of 'tell' that Snape is acting? But it's the mark of a good actor that there aren't any! Did you know that Quirrell was acting? Riddle? Fake!Moody? But maybe we can find one... Harry *does* have trouble telling the difference between dislike and hatred, it's one of those subtle distinctions he's not good at. Hagrid tells him that Snape doesn't hate him, Sirius tells him that Lily didn't hate James, and Dumbledore tells him that Sirius didn't hate Kreacher, though in each case there's obviously dislike. JKR is clearly making some kind of a point here. We do know that at least one of Snape's sneers is not prompted by hatred. The sneer in Umbridge's office, which Harry characterizes as 'usual' is only pretence. So, according to your premise, that would make Snape's usual sneers pretence, right? Hmmm, interesting idea. I'm not sure I believe it, but let's try, Kneasy-like, to see if we can make a theory out of it. Given that Snape merely dislikes Harry, should he pretend to hate him to further his masquerade? Wouldn't a loyal Death Eater pretend to like him? That would be prudent, as Lucius says. But the unreformed Snape, the one we saw in the pensieve, who wore his heart on his sleeve and allowed Voldemort access to his thoughts and feelings, would surely have hated Harry with all his heart, and he would never have been able to disguise it. And it was that rash hatred that enabled Voldemort to control Snape, or so we must interpret what Snape says. Voldemort is paranoid; he trusts people only so far as he can control them, so it would not be prudent for Spy!Snape to act as though he had learned to restrain himself from hate. So even though the loyal Death Eaters generally pretend to like Harry, Snape, in pretending to be still a Death Eater, must pretend to hate him. Now, that doesn't mean that Snape *never* hates Harry. He does, IMO, especially when Harry is being egregiously James-like. But we should have a 'tell' for that, and I think we do. Harry notes in his first potions class that Snape's eyes look like cold, empty tunnels. But when he goes to confront whatever at the end of GoF, they glitter. Suppose the empty look is occlumency at work; Snape hiding whatever thoughts and feelings would contradict the lie. The glitter is honest emotion. So let's see: Snape sneering at Harry's fame in Book One? No glitter. Potion making ability? A random check of passages reveals no glitter, just smirks and sneers, though it would be rash to say it never happens without checking them all. We get the glints and glitters when Snape accuses Harry of being like his father, and when Snape is in the Shrieking Shack, but *not* when he accuses Harry of helping Sirius escape. They appear when Snape accuses Harry of invading his office but *not* when he reads the Witch Weekly article, and interestingly, not when Snape finds Harry in the pensieve . There's anger there, definitely, but not hate, not if you believe the glitter clue. Thoughts? Pippin From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 17 17:17:48 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:17:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050117171748.84032.qmail@web52004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122177 sevenhundredandthirteen wrote: Luckdragon: > Half blood could refer to the blood tie between Sirius and Severus > and as an unrecognized (and last direct line of males )descendant of > the most noble and ancient house of Black he could be considered a > prince. Laurasia: I'm not disagreeing that Snape and Black may be brothers (yet), my problem is that the Half-Blood Prince storyline was once part of CoS: before we had met Black; before we saw how deeply Black and Snape hated each other; before we knew Black was a pureblood. If, in CoS where this storyline was originally existed in its entirety, we found out that Snape was half brothers with a man named Sirius Black it would mean nothing at all. Certainly, the idea of the pureblood house of Black would slot very nicely into CoS with all the muggle-born hunting that is going on, however, I cannot see why JKR would ever even consider putting in into the story *before* we meet Sirius. The fun with this theory is that Snape and Black hate each other, yet they are related. Without the relationship behind the theory, it is, well, boring. It's not revealing or compelling until we meet Black. >From JKR's quote about the Half-Blood Prince, it sounds as though she took it out of CoS because it was *too* revealing. Not because it was boring and made no sense. And now I *am* disagreeing with the idea that Snape and Black are brothers: why tell us this *after* Black has slipped beyond the veil? To me, it spoils all the fun and weakens any probable conflict since Black is dead. It would've fitted perfectly into OotP- Snape and Black come to direct confrontation in the Black family home of all places. This revelation, IMO, does not have its 'perfect place' in Book 6. IMO, it's a wasted opportunity to put in Book 6. If you can convince me that there is a strong narrative reason for JKR to, firstly, put it into Book 2, and then put in into Book 6, I won't disagree with you any more. However, the way I see it, it's pointless and boring in CoS and too late to cause proper conflict in HBP. Of course, Snape may still well be the Half-Blood Prince... ~<(Laurasia)>~ Luckdragon: If this idea had been used in COS it would not have been the basis for the book and Sirius would not have to be mentioned at all. The part she said she tried to fit into COS would just be about Snape, his background, how he grew up, how he is related and ignored by a famous wealthy unnamed family, just a chapter on why he is the way he is. 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 tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 17:32:32 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:32:32 -0000 Subject: life debt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122178 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ms_luna_knows" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elanor Isolda" > > wrote: > > > > > > De-lurking to offer my crazy and probably hole-filled theory on > > life debts: > > > > > > Tonks wrote: > > > > > > > DD says .When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it > > > > creates a certain bond between them." > > > > > > > > Elanor wrote: > > What if he meant that it creates a *literal* bond, i.e. that the > > life of the person whose life has been saved becomes inextricably linked to that of their saviour? This could even apply to the extent that, should the wizard who did the saving dies, so would the wizard who was saved. > > SNIP > > > > Tonks now: > > > > Doesn't this sound like Harry and LV?? Can anyone one else pick up on this and maybe together we can figure out the HP/LV thing. > > > > > Ms.Luna, > Are you talking about the fact that Harry's blood was used to return LV to his human body? that's the only thing I see that connects them. (but then I can be a little thick at times and > may need some enlightenment) If that's what your referring to, than no, I don't think there would be a bond because Harrys' blood was forcebly taken. I understand what DD said as meaning if someone voluntarily saves another's life, then that witch or wizard owes a life debt to the one who saved them. Tonks here: No. I mean at GH. We know that there is some bond between Harry and LV that happened that night. Is this because of some life debt somewhere in the past or at that moment?? Tonks_op From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 17:47:09 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:47:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050117174710.8523.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122179 --- snow15145 wrote: > It may just be my subversive reading of the text but if you look > close enough you can see possible motives behind what Snape is > saying > to Harry, Neville and Hermione when he makes a spectacle of them in > class. Hermione, the insufferable little know-it-all, needs to > learn to step back and realize that she doesn't know everything. > Snape has reminded her of this on several occasions, once in class > and once in the Shrieking Shack. Harry and Neville repeatedly need > to be reminded that each step counts if you want the end product to > be a success. I don't believe that this is just an application to > potions alone but life in general, especially with a war on the > horizon. I agree. As Shaun Hately has said: >I really think the 'Trevor incident' gets overstated. >Snape is able to identify precisely what is wrong with Neville's >potion from its colour. Trevor is not in danger of poisining; the colour's the right one and Snape knows it. Neville, on the other hand, has received the scare of his life and might presumably show more diligence in the classroom from now on. Harsh, but not an invaluable lesson to learn. As for Hermione's "helping" Neville, I think that Snape has a legimate point when he docks her. Whispering the ingredients or instructions to Neville during potions class isn't really helping Neville. He's got to learn to stand on his own feet. If she really wants to help Neville, she'd give him after-class homework help, like she does with Ron and Harry. Getting Neville over the hump of a particular assignment isn't going to benefit him in the long-term. And if the issue is what's good for Neville, then that's important. I agree too with Snow that Snape has to keep up a harsher-than-normal attitude to Harry since Draco will report back to his father if he didn't. There is something - perhaps a trap - being set here for Draco and/or Lucius. Of course since Snape doesn't like Harry anyway, it's not like he feels any guilt over his treatment of him. But there is definitely a "hidden agenda" there for Snape and the Order. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 17 18:03:00 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:03:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122180 Eggplant: > Agreed, if that turned out to be true then Snape was wrong for being a very crummy teacher of Occlumency. Either way he was wrong.< Pippin: Erm, I'm sure you realize this makes Harry wrong either way too. Either the lessons were doing some good, in which case he was wrong not to practice, or they weren't, in which case he was wrong to resent being thrown out of the office. You are right that in either case, it would be reasonable for Harry to be angry at Snape for being a crummy teacher. Except that Harry *doesn't * think Snape is a crummy teacher. He has never once thought, either in potions or in occlumency, "If Snape didn't badger me and make me feel like a failure, I could learn this stuff." It's the conclusion of some readers, but not, so far, of Harry himself. Of course, if Harry ever did reach that conclusion, he might then ask himself why he was letting Snape's words *make* him feel anything, but that's another story. Pippin From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Mon Jan 17 18:08:59 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:08:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501171309313.SM00788@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 122181 vmonte responds: [entire outstanding post snipped -- wonderful illustrations directly from canon of just how horrible Snape has been to Harry and the other Gryffindors] Vivamus: Most of the theories about Severus really do seem to leave out his behavior, don't they? The only justification I can see for his behavior towards the Gryffindors is that he is acting as a spy again, pretending to be a loyal DE, and so must be consistently nasty towards them where the Slytherins will see it. It's hard to see him doing that, with DD publicly testifying that he was a spy, but I suppose LV could think him a double, since he DIDN'T successfully warn the Potters, and he could be a double-double, but that seems weird, too. Who would trust someone like that? LV is no fool. OTOH, it really doesn't fit with his being evil, does it? If he were evil, he would try to hide it by treating Potter and the Gryffindors better, wouldn't he -- just as Crouch!Moody did, right up until the end. The real thing that sticks in my craw about Severus is that he *still* treats Harry horribly when they are alone, even when he *knows* Harry truly IS a hero, and when he knows Harry is smart enough not to go blabbing to others that SS is really a good guy. I think that adds up to SS being mean, petty, vindictive, and unforgiving, but also to his being broken from something that happened a long time ago that he cannot forget or let go. He's a small person, not a big one (and all those vampire references have to mean SOMETHING,) but his contribution will have more to do with his personal pain than his intentionally acting in a larger sense. The best theory on what caused his pain that I have heard is that SS loved Lily Evans -- probably not that she ever loved him back, but that she was the only one with enough compassion to care for him as a person. I also love the add-on that he tried to warn James not to trust Sirius, and Lily was killed as a result of James' refusal to listen to old "Snivellus". The truly bitter irony, of course, is that James might have switched SKs at the last minute *because* of Severus' warning. If that's the case, I don't think SS knows it yet -- and what a nasty shock for him it will be when he learns it. Finally, if SS dies to save Harry/stop LV/rescue the WW/etc., it will be because that is what finally makes him, in his own eyes, worthy of Lily, not because it is the best thing to do. Even if he realizes Lily died because of *his* mistake, not James', and he realizes that all his hatred of Harry has been completely undeserved, I do not expect him to forgive Harry or let go of his own grief. Truly, SS is a sad, unpleasant character. Vivamus From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Mon Jan 17 18:13:32 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:13:32 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122182 I'll be honest, I never have liked Black. I found him immature, dismissive of other's feelings and cruel. Even as Peter was their friend he made fun of him, wanted to pick on Snape because he was bored, and wanted the full moon, even though he (assuming here) knew it was difficult for Remus. Then later on he would show his disappointment because Harry wasn't foolhardy as James was. When he died I actually was pretty relieved it was him and not someone else, and still hope he never, ever comes back. Casey From technomad at intergate.com Mon Jan 17 18:21:30 2005 From: technomad at intergate.com (ravenclaw001) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:21:30 -0000 Subject: A clue nobody has brought up AFAIK... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122183 I was watching the second (medium-that-must-not-be-named) and I suddenly had a thought. When Tom Riddle shopped Hagrid, and got him expelled, he had to have gone into the Gryffindor dorms. Herself has said that Hagrid was a Gryff (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) and I'm quite sure that even someone as lacking in the common-sense department as Our Hagrid wouldn't have had an illegal-and-dangerous acromantula hidden outside of his own dorm. If it were hidden outside, in some other part of the castle, there would always be the risk that someone could come across Young Aragog and either AK it (not a bad idea, that) or report it to the authorities. We know that Young TR, at this time, was only sixteen. Therefore, he couldn't have been a Head Boy. However, he _was_ a Prefect. Does this mean that prefects are able to enter the dormitories and other "private" areas of Houses other than their own? So far, we've only ever seen one instance of anybody entering a House other than their own, and that was with the help of Polyjuice Potion. But, as has been pointed out here, there's a lot we just don't know about prefects and their powers. Can they or can't they take points from members of other Houses? Will we see Hermione and Ron pulling raids on the Slytherin Common Room in the next two books? Or---another thought---have we all been barking up the wrong tree, led astray by Herself? Was Young Tom Riddle a Gryffindor? --Eric Oppen, who still likes the idea of "the force the Dark Lord knows not" being Love...and having Harry suffused with it, and chasing Voldy around the MoM like Pepe le Pew with the cat. "Ah, my passionate little Dark Lord, at last you are in my arms! *smooch smooch smooch* Your lips say no-no-no, but your pretty red eyes say yes-yes-yes!" Meanwhile the DEs, Aurors and Order are all staring wide-eyed, laughing so hard as to render them helpless to interfere... From mhbobbin at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 18:36:02 2005 From: mhbobbin at yahoo.com (mhbobbin) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:36:02 -0000 Subject: A clue nobody has brought up AFAIK... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122184 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ravenclaw001" wrote: >(large snip--reading original thru up thread is recommended) > Was Young Tom Riddle a Gryffindor? > >mhbobbin: I am intrigued by this idea. So far, the only thing I can come up with against it is weak---Hagrid's comment that there wasn't a bad wizard that hadn't come from Slytherin. This comment is weak because the WW believes Sirius, a Gryffindor, was a bad wizard. And later, even Hagrid would have to believe Pettigrew was a bad wizard. And the best evidence we have on him was that he was a Gryffindor. (Best evidence being the discussion of the selection of Lupin as the Prefect to keep his friends in order.) In addition, Riddle envisions himself as the Heir of Slytherin. Intriguing idea that a Gryffindor would see himself that way. Intriguing but what would it change? And Riddle likes to hang out with big snakes and speaks Parselmouth. It would be consistent with the concept of debunking the whole House structure. A well-rounded person would have the best qualities of each of the houses, not just one of the houses. And not that Riddle is well rounded but the concept that Slytherin is evil and the only House which turns out evil seems to need serious debunking. mhbobbin From meriaugust at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 18:53:43 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:53:43 -0000 Subject: A clue nobody has brought up AFAIK... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122185 Eric Oppen wrote: When Tom Riddle shopped Hagrid, and got him expelled, he had to have gone into the Gryffindor dorms. Herself has said that Hagrid was a Gryff (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) and I'm quite sure that even someone as lacking in the common-sense department as Our Hagrid wouldn't have had an illegal-and-dangerous acromantula hidden outside of his own dorm. Meri now: Interesting theory, but IIRC Aragog himself says that he never saw any part of the castle except the basement room where he was raised. And in the diary scene I am fairly sure that Harry recognizes the dungeons where he has potions lessons as the place where Riddle confronts Hagrid. This isn't to say that prefects don't have acess to places in the castle that regular students don't (which only leads to the obvious question of where these areas are?) but I can't imagine them being allowed to go into other student's dorms. Just think: a hotly anticipated Quidditch match comes up and one house awakens to see its entire team turned into snails thanks to their opponents. That would open up a fairly large window for tampering in all kinds of things. Meri - thinking that the corridors are dangerous enough at Hogwarts without having to worry about being atacked by a rival in your own dorm! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 19:15:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:15:36 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: <41EC638D.9638.40CDFB@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122186 Matt wrote: Some have said that Snape's teaching methods might not be the nicest teaching methods, but that they work for some and even most students, so it is okay. However, when a teacher engages in personal attacks on students, then there is a line that is being crossed. Even if many of the students benefit from a "hard" teacher, if a minority of students suffer under that teacher (such as Neville), then the method is wrong, and a better teaching method should be found. Shaun: This simply isn't reasonable in my view. It is pretty much impossible to expect a teachers' - any teachers' - methods to work for every child they teach. Every single method of education in existence fails to work for some kids, and harms some kids. This is because children are individuals with individual learning styles. There are considerable overlaps among how children learn, but there are pretty much no universals. If you eliminate from education, every single method that a minority of students could suffer from, you will wind up eliminating every single method of teaching. huge snip. Alla: Well, it is entirely reasonable in mine. I am not advocating eliminating all different teaching styles, but I do believe that cruelness and vindictiveness has no business in the classroom. Even if the teacher abuses ONE child in the classroom, such teacher has no business teaching, not IMO and we have enough evidence to argue that Snape abuses at least two and to some extent Hermione two, IMO. I think that the assumption that Snape has sadistic tendencies is supported by JKR's saying that he does not get DA, because Dumbledore is afraid that it is going to bring the worst in him. I also want to thank Vmonte for wonderful list of the examples here. :o) But let's forget Snape's teaching methods per se for as second. Imagine the situation that your child goes to school where his/her teacher was your class mate who for some reason ... dislikes you very much and singles out your child based on THAT REASON ONLY. Would you still argue that such situation is OK? Oh, yes and imagine that you know for sure that with the different teacher your child can excel in the subject. Going back to Snape's teaching methods... I still say that we have no definite proof that any of the Gryffs except Hermione learn anything in his class, even though Umbridge does call his class "advanced". I am entirely willing to assume that Snape does teach some students well, so don't you think that the LEAST that Dumbledore owes students who suffer in Snape's class is to hire another Potion master? I know, we would have no story then. :o) Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 19:21:27 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:21:27 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122187 Tonks here: What I am saying is, yes, Snape is a mean, nasty man. But once he was a scared little boy. And the scared little boy, in order to survive the abuse took part of the abuser into himself. This is what I mean (in an earlier post) when I say that Snape as a child internalized his father figure. Nasty people don't start life as nasty people. And true some are so nasty that we can not see past that and pity them. I have met nasty people too, and some I could have compassion on and some I just hated with all the rage I had within me. Snape is certainly a well written character to cause such strong reactions (for or against)from us all. Alla: Oh, Tonks, absolutely. Snape is VERY well-written character, that I can never deny and usually I DO feel sorry for the characters like him at least in fiction in RL too, but I need to see that he is SORRY for what he had done or AT LEAST does not do those things anymore. You know what I am saying? To me Snape continues to wrong the innocents and my first instinct to feel sorry for abused not for the abuser. And yes, he looks like abuse victim and as I said many times his emotional development seems to be stucked in his teens, but that is precisely why Snape became significantly less symapthetic figure to me after OOP. From the abuse victim he became abuser himself. Does he need help? Absolutely. Am I supposed to cut him more slack for what he does to children? Not in my opinion. Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 19:35:09 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:35:09 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius related? Was: Re: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122188 Alla: Magda developed this theory in the post 110109. I thought for a long time that Snape and Sirius or Snape and James can be related. This sure sounds like a good one. And remember when Sirius shows Harry the tapestry? Harry could have missed few names on there surely. I do think that all of this blood relatedness of many pureblood families will lead us to new interesting discoveries. Maddy: What I think is likely to be the most interesting part of the tapestry is what is *not* on there. I'm very skeptical that the Blacks were actually toujours pur. In one generation there were at least two (Sirius and Andromeda), so I can't help but think there are more burn marks on it. I think there might be some canon evidence to support the idea that Snape and Sirius are related. (At least, it could be) (from Chapter 24, Occlumency, starting on page 457 from Bloomsbury/Raincoast) -- 'Sit down, Potter.' 'You know,' said Sirius loudly, leaning back on his rear chair legs and speaking to the ceiling, 'I think I'd prefer it if you didn't give orders here, Snape. It's my house, you see.' An ugly flush suffused Snape's pallid face. -- To me it doesn't seem to be enough that it's simply Sirius's house to cause Snape to blush like that. What if Snape was Sirius's half brother, and the elder one? (We now know that Snape's birthday is in January) If he was the elder, illegitimate child, Sirius mentioning that the house belongs to him could be a slap in the face to Snape if he could have been the first born son and entitled to any Black inheritence, such as the house. Call me crazy, but I think this makes some sense. Any thoughts? Alla: It absolutely makes sense to me, Maddy. I think Charme recently quoted this quote too , so if it is suspicious to several people, something is up, right? :o) You are right, it is quite possible that Tapestry does not mention some familiar names, but my feeling is that last name "Snape' is somewhere on it. I may be wrong, of course. I just got an impression from that conversation that Harry was paying attention to only names, which Sirius was talking about . What else may hint to Snape and Sirius being related? (Not necessarily brothers, maybe even cousins) Well, they do have some similar character traits, don't they? :o) They look to some extend simiar too. And Sirius infamous " He knew more curses when he came to school..." always gave me an impression that he knew Snape BEFORE they came to school. Just my opinion, Alla From manawydan at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 17 19:40:01 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:40:01 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] In Defense of Snape (long) References: <1105967681.20938.57653.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002e01c4fccc$5888ba20$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 122189 Charme wrote: > And as Harry hurtled towards the door, a jar of dead cockroaches exploded > over his head. He wrenched the door open and flew along the corridor, > stopping only when he had put three floors between himself and Snape. There > he leaned against the wall, panting, and rubbing his bruised arm." > > Testy, testy....bruised arm, falling hard on the dungeon floor. Wonder if DD > knows about those actions...... He surely will, if only when he finds his source of Cockroach Clusters has disappeared... Sorry about the one liner Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From manawydan at ntlworld.com Mon Jan 17 19:55:18 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:55:18 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) References: <1105989437.48413.22095.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003f01c4fcce$799fe100$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 122190 vmonte wrote: >Do you think that JKR's experiences with her Snape like teacher were >good experiences? No, I don't think so. > >The Record, Northern NJ 14 October 1999 > >-Professor Snape, she said, was based on a teacher she despised: >-"The great thing about becoming a writer is you can get revenge on >everyone." >The Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ 16 October 1999 > >-She also reported that Professor Snape is based on a chemistry >teacher who hated her and made her life miserable. The real Snape was a guy named John Nettleship who was head of science at the school JKR attended. He was "outed" back in 2002. Here's the link http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0900entertainment/0050artsnews/tm_objectid=12335306&method=full&siteid=50082-name_page.html Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From Cfitz812 at aol.com Mon Jan 17 20:02:57 2005 From: Cfitz812 at aol.com (Claire) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:02:57 -0000 Subject: His mother's eyes (was: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/TT/ LV mortality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122191 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Kemper wrote: > > > In GF, we have a dark potion. > > "Bone of the father unknowingly given you will renew your son. > > Flesh of the servant willingly given you will revive your master. > > Blood of the enemy forcibly taken you will resurrect your foe." > > > > What about on a fateful Halloween, there was a love charm. > > Blood of the mother freely given you will protect your blood. > > Soul of the mother secretly given you will guard your son. > > Life of the mother knowingly given you will defend your child. > > > > Lily cuts her hand then places her hand on Harry's forehead. The > cut on her hand is lightning/eihwaz shaped. She looks into her son's > eyes, and their souls touch. A part of her soul stays with Harry; he > has his mother's eyes. Lily sacrifices herself, sealing the `mother's > shield' charm. > > > > What if one of the Ancient Laws of Magic, as it were, is you can't > curse the dead and, if you do, something happens. The curse rebounds > back to the curser. > > So when the AK is cast against Harry, it rebounds back to LV because > Lily is dead, and a part of Lily, through her charm, is in Harry. > > > > But then, why didn't LV die? I don't know, but I'm thinking about it. > > Carol responds: > I've also been arguing for a protective charm placed on Baby!Harry, > but your version gives me shivers. Also, we have indications that Lily > was good with Charms but nothing has been said about her and potions. > Still, a potion combined with an incantation does sound like a form of > "ancient magic" so I'm certainly not ruling it out. > > Here's my version, combining my theories and yours and attempting to > answer the question about Voldemort: > > Lily places an elaborate Protego (shield charm) on Baby Harry, perhaps > involving an incantation like the one kemper hypothesized (as opposed > to the mere name of the spell), and, using her finger, marks Harry's > forehead with an (defense) eihwaz rune, like a priest marking a baby's > forehead with a cross in a baptismal service. The incantation > specifies that the charm will be activated by her self-sacrifice. > Shortly afterwards, she is murdered, sacrificing herself for Harry and > activating the charm. Voldemort tries to kill Harry, and the powerful > Protego erupts through Harry's forehead, leaving an eihwaz-shaped > opening that later turns into a scar. The Protego deflects the AK onto > Voldemort, who is not killed because of the protections he put on > himself (even he doesn't know which "experiments" made him immortal, > but something did. See the speech in the graveyard quoted by Juli in > post 121918). The force of the Protego explodes not only Voldemort but > everything around him, and the house crashes on dead Lily and > Baby!Harry. (Dead James is somewhere outside the house where he died > duelling with Voldemort.) While the wound is open, some of Voldemort's > powers and possibly some of his anger enters into Harry. (I don't > think, as explained elsewhere, that he permanently lost those powers, > but he can't use them until he regains a body, and meanwhile, Harry, > marked as Voldemort's equal by the very scar that symbolizes his > protection, now possesses some of the same powers in latent form.) > > Anyway, I suppose Lily could have cut herself and used her blood to > mark Harry with the rune to symbolize blood protection, but I don't > see the necessity for that, or for the part about looking into his > eyes. But at any rate, I think an explanation like this allows the > scar to be caused by a cut when the AK hit (AKs normally don't leave > any mark) and at the same time allows the scar to be a symbol of his > mother's protection, the eihwaz (defense) rune. > > As noted in an earlier post, JKR did say that the shape of the scar > wasn't the most important thing about it, but she didn't say that the > shape wasn't important at all. > > Valky, what do you think? Are we hitting close to the mark? > > Carol Claire responds: I'm delurking after a very long time because this theory utterly intrigues me (Carol, it gave me goosebumps too--nice going, Kemper). Especially since, after reading several of the entries, I remembered a couple of things: 1. Reading not long ago the fact that Lily's wand was good for charm work was going to be important. Which correlates nicely with Kemper's theory. 2. Along the rune lines, could Hermione's mistranslation during her Ancient Rune's OWL have a bearing here? From doliesl at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 20:16:20 2005 From: doliesl at yahoo.com (d) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:16:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: <003f01c4fcce$799fe100$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: <20050117201620.21045.qmail@web13708.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122192 > vmonte wrote: > >-She also reported that Professor Snape is based on a chemistry > >teacher who hated her and made her life miserable. Where did you read that chemistry teacher hated her? > The real Snape was a guy named John Nettleship who was head of science at > the school JKR attended. > > He was "outed" back in 2002. > > Here's the link > http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0900entertainment/0050artsnews/tm_objectid=12335306&method=full&siteid=50082-name_page.html Here're some more trivia about Snape and the person who might have inspired this awesome character :D What Mr.Nettleship's collegues said about him: from 'The Times Educational Supplement' June 27, 2003: For Mike Thompson, a science teacher at the school for 30 years, the similarities between Hogwarts and the Wyedean of the 1970s are more explicit. "Professor Snape, the potions master, is undoubtedly John Nettleship, the head of chemistry," he said. "He had a big nose, and long, dark hair, just like Alan Rickman in the film. He could be quite strict. He wasn't the most popular guy." >From Mr.Nettleship himself (on JKR and her mother): from "The Scotsman' Jun 16 2003 After 12 years bringing up her daughters, Anne Rowling secured the position of lab technician at Wyedean Comprehensive under the supervision of John Nettleship, the schools head of science. Nettleship remembers Joanne, whom he taught, as a bright but quiet girl and considers himself an early inspiration for Professor Snape. "I think chemistry maybe made the most impact on her because I did teach her about the philosophers stone, the alchemists stone. Possibly she knew about it already, but I did include it in my lessons and explained how it turned things to gold." He then chuckles before adding: "It seems to have worked for her, hasnt it." Although bright, she was not the most enthusiastic student, as Nettleship, who is now retired, recalls: "Her attitude in the science lessons was more like Harrys in the potions class rather than Hermiones." Anne Rowling, meanwhile, was delighted to be around the beakers and chemicals and working once again after such a long absence. "She was absolutely brilliant, a sparkling character, totally reliable, very interested in words and stories and things like that. Although her job was on the technical side, she was also very imaginative," says Nettleship. -D. From ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com Mon Jan 17 20:22:10 2005 From: ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com (ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:22:10 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake Message-ID: <1eb.328d82cd.2f1d7872@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122193 In a message dated 1/11/2005 3:08:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: Also, an indication that Marietta had a strong desire to leave but couldn't bring herself to act independant of the group. What people CAN do, and what people are LIKELY to do are often very very different. Through the whole thing, Marietta is clearly doing something she doesn't want to do. She is yielding to pressure from Cho, and pressure from the group. When I was 14 I was hanging out with two of my friends. We were bored. We lived in the country and there's nothing to do. Like idiots, we decided to take my mom's car and drive into town (they were 13 and 14). It was a terrible idea. We all thought so, but nobody said anything against it because the other two were doing it. Sure, there was the option of saying 'Hey, let's not do this," and if somebody else had said it each of us would have agreed. Nobody wanted to be the one to actually speak up, so we all went along with it even though we didn't really want to. There's a huge difference between an option being avaliable and an option actually being presented to you. If somebody had said "If you don't want to join, go now," I bet a couple of people other than Marietta would have gone as well. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 21:07:05 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:07:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122194 "pippin_999" wrote: > Erm, I'm sure you realize this makes > Harry wrong either way too. No, I'm afraid I didn't realize that. > Either the lessons were doing some good, > in which case he was wrong not to practice Agreed. > or they weren't, in which case he was > wrong to resent being thrown out of > the office. Harry was wrong to resent having a sadistic teacher who couldn't or wouldn't teach Occlumency properly? Harry was wrong to resent being thrown across the room, pelted with objects and threatened? I don't think so. > it would be reasonable for Harry to > be angry at Snape for being a crummy > teacher. Except that Harry *doesn't * > think Snape is a crummy teacher I was trying to be generous and give Snape every benefit of the doubt when I said he was a crummy teacher of Occlumency. Harry has thought and said many times that the lessons make him weaker, the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do. And Harry should be very good at this, Snape himself said that skill in Occlumency is similar to skill at resisting the Imperious Curse, and we know Harry has extraordinary, probably unprecedented, talent in that regard; so Harry should be able to pick up Occlumency in five minutes flat. But that didn't happen. Why? I can only think of 2 possibilities, either Snape was an incompetent teacher OR he was sabotaging the lessons deliberately. Neither paints a pretty picture of Snape. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 21:12:44 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:12:44 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122195 Pippin: Erm, I'm sure you realize this makes Harry wrong either way too. Either the lessons were doing some good, in which case he was wrong not to practice, or they weren't, in which case he was wrong to resent being thrown out of the office. Alla: Eh, yes,of course. It is just Snape was MORE wrong in both cases. Pippin: You are right that in either case, it would be reasonable for Harry to be angry at Snape for being a crummy teacher. Except that Harry *doesn't * think Snape is a crummy teacher. He has never once thought, either in potions or in occlumency, "If Snape didn't badger me and make me feel like a failure, I could learn this stuff." It's the conclusion of some readers, but not, so far, of Harry himself. Alla: I beg to differ, Pippin. Harry does reach such conclusion, more than once. He does not generalise it, but in each of the following instances he does question Snape's teaching ability, IMO. "With Snape absent from the proceedings he found that he was much more relaxed than he usually was while making potions. Neville, who was sitting very near Harry, also looked happier than Harry had ever seen him during a Potions class" - OOP, p.716. We also Have Harry's "I am trying,... but you are not telling me how" - OOP, p.535, which as you recently agreed is quite a legitimate complaint against Snape's teaching style. Oh and in PoA before their boggart lesson ,when Snape so "kindly" puts Neville down before lesson starts: "Neville went scarlet. Harry glared at Snape; it was bad enough that he bullied Neville in his own classes, let alone doing it in front of other teachers" -PoA, p.132, paperback, amer.edition. So, I'd say Harry has plenty negative thoughts about Snape's teaching style. Just my opinion, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 21:15:33 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:15:33 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122196 >>vmonte responds: >Professor Snape was forcing them to research antidotes. They took this one seriously, as he had hinted that he might be poisoning one of them before Christmas to see if their antidote worked.< Betsy: Perfect example of Snape being a good teacher. Nothing like a little motivation to get the students working! And an example of Snape not being evil -- no one was actually poisoned. >>vmonte: >Malfoy got Hermione!" Ron said. "Look!" >He forced Hermione to show Snape her teeth?she was doing her best to hide them with her hands, though this was difficult as they had now grown down past her collar. Pansy Parkinson and the other Slytherin girls were doubled up with silent giggles, pointing at Hermione from behind Snape's back. Betsy: Proof that Snape is not a nice man and that he does favor his House. Something I stated in my very first post. >>vmonte: >The more Snape treats these kids like garbage the less respect they are going to have for him. I admit though that the children are learning a great lesson here, although not about potions.< Betsy: I agree with you. Snape is in no way earning Harry's respect, which could (and has) cause(d) problems when they have to work together. I think Snape would agree with the "it's better to be feared than loved," philosophy of life. I'm not saying Snape is right but I don't see how this makes Snape evil. >>vmonte: Even the bad guy knows... Betsy: I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say that Crouch, Jr. (who had a hand in crucioing Neville's parents into insanity) is a better man than Snape? Or are you pointing to this part when Crouch!Moody says: "Meaning that Dumbledore's very interested to know who's got it in for that boy!" said Moody, limping nearer still to the foot of the stairs. "And so am I, Snape... very interested..." Because, as we later learn, it is actually Crouch!Moody himself who has it in for Harry, not Snape at all. Or this part here?: "I merely thought," said Snape, in a voice of forced calm, "that if Potter was wandering around after hours again ...it's an unfortunate habit of his ...he should be stopped. For?for his own safety." "Ah, I see," said Moody softly. "Got Potter's best interests at heart, have you?" There was a pause. Snape and Moody were still staring at each other, [...] "I think I will go back to bed," Snape said curtly. "Best idea you've had all night," said Moody. Because, Snape actually does have Harry's safety at heart (something Crouch!Moody certainly does not). Though I do think that Snape does enjoy catching Harry out. It confirms all of Snape's worst expectations of Harry. I have never argued that Snape has warm and fuzzy thoughts towards Harry. But Snape doesn't want Harry dead. >>vmonte: Ron doesn't get enough credit... >"So you think Snape could be up to something, then?" asked Harry, but Hermione broke in. >"Look, I don't care what you say, Dumbledore trusts Snape?" >"Oh give it a rest, Hermione," said Ron impatiently. "I know Dumbledores brilliant and everything, but that doesn't mean a really clever Dark wizard couldn't fool him?"< Betsy: I can't recall what book this scene is in, but Ron *always* suspects Snape as being the big bad of that year, and he is *always* wrong. >>vmonte: And it's always important to be an assertive teacher and let those brats know just how much you loath them... Betsy: I've used this example, and explained this example in my first post on this subject. Please see message # 122040. I wouldn't say Snape is showing the students he loaths them - he's telling them they'd better do their reading and they'd better pay attention... or else. >>vmonte: And he never shows preferential treatment... >"Professor," drawled Malfoy, "Weasley's mutilating my roots, sir."< [I kept this line in because it makes me ROFL every time I read it. :) --Betsy] Betsy: Oh, Snape definitely favors the Slytherins. I've never argued that he doesn't. All I'm trying to say is this doesn't make him evil. Though I've also tried to show that he might have a hidden motive for giving the children of Death Eaters, like Draco Malfoy, an easy way of it. >>vmonte: Teacher tip! Don't forget to threaten your students pets and then deduct house points when their pet doesn't die... >vmonte: Jealous much? >"How extraordinarily like your father you are, Potter," Snape said suddenly, his eyes glinting. "He too was exceedingly arrogant. A small amount of talent on the Quidditch field made him think he was a cut above the rest of us too. Strutting around the place with his friends and admirers... The resemblance between you is uncanny." >"My dad didn't strut," said Harry, before he could stop himself. "And neither do I." >"Your father didn't set much store by rules either," Snape went on, pressing his advantage, his thin face full of malice. "Rules were for lesser mortals, not Quidditch Cup-winners. His head was so swollen?" Betsy: Snape was right, of course. Harry's father did strut, and often. James wasn't above hexing students in the halls either. And IIRC this scene occurs when Harry is caught breaking school rules and putting his own life in danger. Again. I can see that Snape would be a bit jealous of the school's BMOC (big man on campus). Most freaks and geeks are -- though that's only a part of the tangle of emotions the bullied and picked-on feel towards their tormentors. >>vmonte: >and a racist too.. >"Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works," hissed Snape. "Get out of the way, Potter." >"YOU'RE PATHETIC!" Harry yelled. "JUST BECAUSE THEY MADE A FOOL OF YOU AT SCHOOL YOU WON'T EVEN LISTEN?" >"SILENCE! I WILL NOT BE SPOKEN TO LIKE THAT!" Snape shrieked, looking madder than ever. "Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well served if he'd killed you! You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black?now get out of the way, or I will make you. GET OUT OF THE WAY, POTTER!" Betsy: I don't see any sign of racism in this scene, I'm sorry. Is it the werewolf comment? That doesn't strike me as racist. Snape thinks Lupin has betrayed Dumbledore and led Harry into a trap, as Snape was lead into a similar trap when he was a student. Snape was almost killed by Lupin at that time, so there's a reason for the distrust. I generally think of racism as illogical stereotyping. Betsy From ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com Mon Jan 17 21:14:47 2005 From: ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com (ReturnOfTheMutt at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:14:47 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta and the DA. Message-ID: <62.4c909004.2f1d84c7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122197 In a message dated 1/10/2005 6:28:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, delwynmarch at yahoo.com writes: My problem was : you say that even professionals didn't manage to find a way to prevent treason during the Cold War, so we shouldn't expect Hermione to have found one. But by your own admission, you consider the situation with the DA in OoP to be similar to a hot war such as WWII. So my question was : why compare Hermione's range of action with the range of actions of the secret services during the Cold War, when the 2 situations are not similar according to what you stated earlier? I would rather expect you to stick with your previous parallels and discuss Hermione's range of actions compared to that of the different types of partisans during WWII. Maybe you could make your point just as easily for all I know, but when you shift from one similitude to another, it looks, well, dishonest. Especially when you then refuse to answer my questions and prefer to use sarcasm and ridicule to try and make me feel bad for even daring to ask those questions in the first place. You're question had nothing to do with what Egg said. s/he wasn't comparing the WW war to the cold war, s/he was saying that nobody has ever found a way to prevent betrayal, the cold war being an example of a time when preventing betraying was really important but it still wasn't possible. The parallel had to do with people being able to peg trators, not the type of war. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 21:23:35 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:23:35 -0000 Subject: Marietta and the DA- Hermione's Mistake In-Reply-To: <1eb.328d82cd.2f1d7872@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122198 ReturnOfTheMutt at a... wrote: > Through the whole thing, Marietta > is clearly doing something she > doesn't want to do. At the time that wasn't clear at all, at least not to me, several others seemed much more reluctant than Marietta. Tell the truth, when you first read about the meeting in the Hog's Head did you immediately zero in on Marietta and say to yourself "she will turn out to be a traitor"? If you did you're smarter than I am. > She is yielding to pressure from Cho, > and pressure from the group. She is yielding to pressure from the group to do the right thing, peer pressure is not always bad. It's just a pity the pressure could not be sustained. Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 21:37:51 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:37:51 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: <200501171309313.SM00788@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122199 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > The real thing that sticks in my craw about Severus is that he *still* treats Harry horribly when they are alone, even when he *knows* Harry truly IS a hero, and when he knows Harry is smart enough not to go blabbing to others that SS is really a good guy. I think that adds up to SS being mean, petty, vindictive, and unforgiving, but also to his being broken from something that happened a long time ago that he cannot forget or let go. (Snip> > Vivamus Tonks here: 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. It is only because he is the prophesy child that he is told anything. Second Snape is a spy and this is not a game. This is serious and dangerous work that Snape is doing. Why should he let down his guard for some kid who will first blab to his friends and Snape knows who else!!! Snape is not stupid you know. Even WE know that he will tell Ron and Hermione!! And even if he doesn't he will start acting differently toward Snape. There will not be the same amount of hatred in his eyes and someone will notice. Also just because we think that Snape is on the side of DD and the good does not mean that his basic personally is suddenly altered. He is a flawed human being and will continue to be. I think that, as I have said before, that JKR is showing us that anyone can join in the fight against good and evil and be on the side of the good. Even people with very nasty personalities like Snape. And I know this was kind of a Snapish post. ;-) Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 21:43:46 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:43:46 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: <200501171309313.SM00788@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122200 >>vmonte responds: >[entire outstanding post snipped -- wonderful illustrations directly from canon of just how horrible Snape has been to Harry and the other Gryffindors] >>Vivamus: >Most of the theories about Severus really do seem to leave out his behavior, don't they?< Betsy: I'd like to think that I tackled Snape's behavior head on in my post. I don't try and say Snape is nice, I don't try and say he's fair, and I don't suggest he's not a scary teacher. I used some of the very examples vmonte brought up to support my theory. 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? Obviously, I think this is possible. Others, just as obviously, disagree. >>Vivamus: >The only justification I can see for his behavior towards the Gryffindors is that he is acting as a spy again, pretending to be a loyal DE, and so must be consistently nasty towards them where the Slytherins will see it. It's hard to see him doing that, with DD publicly testifying that he was a spy, but I suppose LV could think him a double, since he DIDN'T successfully warn the Potters, and he could be a double-double, but that seems weird, too. Who would trust someone like that? LV is no fool.< Betsy: I do think Snape is a spy. I don't think he's a double agent. The open court testimony of Dumbledore *is* a problem, I agree. (Though I wonder if it *was* an open court. The amount of witches and wizards suggest it was, though Rita Skeeter wasn't there, so maybe no reporters were there at all, which would suggest the court was in fact closed.) But Lucius Malfoy appears to accept Snape (as per Draco and Umbridge anyway) and I can't see him being friendly with a traitor of his Dark Lord. >>Vivamus: >OTOH, it really doesn't fit with his being evil, does it? If he were evil, he would try to hide it by treating Potter and the Gryffindors better, wouldn't he -- just as Crouch!Moody did, right up until the end.< Betsy: Yes! Thank you! This is indeed my point! Evil, in these books, is so often disguised as attractive and good, that Snape with all of his obvious prickles just doesn't fit the profile. >>Vivamus: > The real thing that sticks in my craw about Severus is that he *still* treats Harry horribly when they are alone, even when he *knows* Harry truly IS a hero, and when he knows Harry is smart enough not to go blabbing to others that SS is really a good guy. I think that adds up to SS being mean, petty, vindictive, and unforgiving, but also to his being broken from something that happened a long time ago that he cannot forget or let go.< Betsy: I think Snape does *not* think Harry is smart. I think he thinks Harry acts with typical Gryffindor bravado and headstrong carelessness and that Harry has just scrapped through his various adventures by the skin of his teeth. There are definitely some "James issues" going on with Snape, but I don't think it colors his thinking as much as some think it does. I think Snape is more interested in getting Harry to *think* and to actually *listen* to his elders, than in some school-boy vendetta. The fasinating thing for me is how *alike* Snape and Harry actually are. Harry has much more in common with Snape than James. I think that if they were able to get past their issues, Snape and Harry could make quite a good team. But they both have a lot of issues to get past. So I'll just cross my fingers and hope for the best! :) Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 21:45:01 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:45:01 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122201 Tonks here: 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. It is only because he is the prophesy child that he is told anything. Alla: I think it is pretty big "because". :o) Tonks: Second Snape is a spy and this is not a game. This is serious and dangerous work that Snape is doing. Why should he let down his guard for some kid who will first blab to his friends and Snape knows who else!!! Snape is not stupid you know. Even WE know that he will tell Ron and Hermione!! And even if he doesn't he will start acting differently toward Snape. There will not be the same amount of hatred in his eyes and someone will notice. Alla: I am not asking you to agree with me that Snape may not be spying anymore, but I am asking you to pretend for a second that you agree. :o) If we knew for sure that Snape did not go back to Voldemort, would you agree that Snape has NOT justification whatsoever for treating Harry like he does? Personally, I think that even if he is spying,it is no justification, but since his "spying duties" are often argued as an excuse, I wonder what do you think. Thanks, Alla From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 21:55:09 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:55:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050117215509.22273.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122202 > "Vivamus" wrote: > > The real thing that sticks in my craw about Severus is that he > *still* treats Harry horribly when they are alone, even when he > *knows* Harry truly IS a hero, and when he knows Harry is smart > enough not to go blabbing to others that SS is really a good guy. > I think that adds up to SS being mean, petty, vindictive, and > unforgiving, but also to his being broken from something that > happened a long time ago that he cannot forget or let go. > (Snip> When they're alone? You mean, just Snape, Harry and the Voldemort-chip in Harry's mind? Snape's a horrible guy - EVERYONE agrees with this. I really don't know why this is controversial for some people. You can be a HORRIBLE person and still think that murdering people is a Bad Thing. Morality is not the same as niceness. 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 Jan 17 21:58:53 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:58:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122203 >>Eggplant: >And Harry should be very good at this, Snape himself said that skill in Occlumency is similar to skill at resisting the Imperious Curse, and we know Harry has extraordinary, probably unprecedented, talent in that regard; so Harry should be able to pick up Occlumency in five minutes flat. But that didn't happen. Why?< Betsy: Maybe because Harry wasn't trying? He never did the homework Snape assigned. Of course he didn't lean anything. (And no wonder Snape got frustrated.) >>Eggplant: >Harry was wrong to resent being thrown across the room, pelted with objects and threatened?< Betsy: Hell yeah, Harry was wrong. You read my private journal and I'd throw a jar of cockroaches at you myself. (Um... If I had a jar of cockroaches. Which I don't. Because - ewww.) Snape grabbed Harry out of the pensieve, threw him towards the exit, told him to get out and threw something at him (above him actually - Harry didn't get hit by the jar) to hurry him on his way. Actually, Snape was being very good at getting Harry out of the room before he *really* lost his temper. And doesn't this go towards your I'd rather someone be nice than good argument? We know Harry is good, but sticking his head into Snape's pensieve was definitely *not* nice. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 22:00:11 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:00:11 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: <20050117215509.22273.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122204 Magda: When they're alone? You mean, just Snape, Harry and the Voldemort-chip in Harry's mind? Snape's a horrible guy - EVERYONE agrees with this. I really don't know why this is controversial for some people. You can be a HORRIBLE person and still think that murdering people is a Bad Thing. Morality is not the same as niceness. Alla: Not everyone agrees with the fact that Snape is a horrible guy. Otherwise our Snape bashing and Snape defending sessions would have died out pretty fast. :o) And even if I forget my doubts whether Snape now really thinks that murdering people is a bad thing, I would still think that those who abuse children for their pleasure are not "moral" people. Just my opinion, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 22:12:00 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:12:00 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122205 >>Alla: >Not everyone agrees with the fact that Snape is a horrible guy. Otherwise our Snape bashing and Snape defending sessions would have died out pretty fast. :o)< Betsy: I think the argument is a matter of degree. A sort of how horrible is horrible. For example you say: >>Alla: >And even if I forget my doubts whether Snape now really thinks that murdering people is a bad thing, I would still think that those who abuse children for their pleasure are not "moral" people.< Betsy: And I say, I really don't think Snape *abuses* children. Being snarky and scary and demanding though horrible is *not* abuse. At least in my book. But I know we disagree on this -- and probably always will. :) But it does make for some interesting discussions, and I do wonder if by the end of the series one of the "sides" will have to come around. Who knows, this debate may go on *forever*!! :D Betsy From drednort at alphalink.com.au Mon Jan 17 22:15:42 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:15:42 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: References: <41EC638D.9638.40CDFB@localhost> Message-ID: <41ECD3BE.26063.1F71FE3@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122206 On 17 Jan 2005 at 14:47, vmonte wrote: > Harassment, threats, vindictiveness, and cruelty are not what I would > call a valid teaching style; it's more a life style/choice. And I'm > not talking about forcing a teacher to cater their classroom to one > child; I'm talking about treating "all" children in a classroom like > human beings. Sure you can teach children with individual styles by > using Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, or by trying > cooperative learning strategies, by using Bloom's Taxonomy, whatever. > But to say that cruelty is a valid teaching technique is absurd. Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences and Bloom's Taxonomy have a lot of utility in a typical classroom. But they don't magically create classrooms that successfully teach all children in those classes - they just tend to increase the number of kids being serviced. That's a good thing, but it doesn't come close to meaning every child is being served. I work with gifted kids - Bloom's Taxonomy quite often works for these kids - but not always. Multiple Intelligence based teaching actually harms a lot of gifted kids - it's a very recognised problem. This is the point - methods that are seen as valid (and are often quite justifiably seen as valid) often don't work for all kids. We don't dismiss these methods simply because they don't work for all children. We don't even dismiss these methods even when we know they harm some children. You describe what Snape does as cruelty. I wouldn't use that word personally, but whatever you want to call it, I can assure you that methods of teaching very much like those used by Snape, worked for me. They worked well for me. They worked for me, when just about every other method didn't. Hearing people say that calling these methods valid is absurd, is frankly, rather hurtful and rather offensive to me. When you spent much of your childhood being denied an education appropriate to your needs and finally were lucky enough to wind up at a school which actually managed to teach you... well, frankly, when I see people describing the methods of education that worked for me as invalid, or wrong, it sends a very clear message to me. My rights weren't important. My needs weren't important. Apparently I shouldn't have got an education at all - because the methods that worked for me weren't 'valid'. That's really *nice* to constantly hear and read, you know. I take education very seriously. So seriously in fact that I gave up a six figure income a couple of years ago to spend the next four years living on a pittance to study for an education degree. When I qualify in two years time (I'm halfway through now) I am, at most, going to earn half of what I was earning at the age of twenty five, for the rest of my career. Why have I done this? Because kids like me - kids like the type of kid I was, still don't get an appropriate education in my country, and in fact, in most of the western world (I don't really know about anywhere else). And they don't get it because people have typically and often decided that their right to an education that meets their needs, isn't as important as other peoples right to the same. (Now, I hasten to add, that I think 'Snape-like' methods work for only a minority of the special population I am interested in. I don't want people to get the impression I want lots and lots of Snapes around - I don't. I want a lot more Lupins, a lot more McGonagall's and just the occasional Snape). I've worked as an advocate for kids who are denied appropriate education for a decade now (and I'm not even thirty until Wednesday, so that's pretty much all my adult life). I have been a witness before government inquiries into education. I have written articles on education. Sometime in the first half of this year, a book on education is being published in the United States, and I wrote an entire chapter of it. I'm studying to be a teacher - that takes time, so I have two more years of that - but I do know a fair bit about education, already. And I know that just about the worst thing that can be done in education is for someone to simply decide that a particular method of teaching is 'invalid'. I've been on the receiving end of that. It's not fun - and it's not fair. It is hard to assess the effectiveness of Snape's methods. To do that fairly, in my view, we'd need to first of all know what marks his students receive, and we don't get that much information on that. But people shouldn't dismiss the way he teaches simply because it doesn't match their perception of how schools should operate. It's not fair to a teacher. And it's not fair to any of his or students who might be learning more effectively in that classroom than they do in one that is closer to the norm. Perhaps because they are not that close to the norm themselves. Perhaps because their personality is a little different. Perhaps because the way they think isn't exactly normal. > Shaun wrote: > Earlier today, Pippin said this: > > "But I think if you've had bad experiences with a RL teacher who > reminds you of Snape, they get projected on to the character, and > if you've had good experiences with a Snape style teacher they get > projected too. IMO, we'd all like to validate our experiences by > having Snape get the fate we wish our real life teachers could have > had." > > vmonte responds: > > Do you think that JKR's experiences with her Snape like teacher were > good experiences? No, I don't think so. No, I don't think so. But honestly, I don't think whether JKR had good experiences or bad experiences with the teacher she based Snape on is relevant to whether or not Snape is a good teacher. Frankly, if the only way to interpret Snape is *precisely* in the way that JKR sees Snape, then she would not be writing well. She would be creating, pretty much by definition, a completely one dimensional character. Different people see the same person differently in the real world, based on their own experiences, prejudices, philosophies - a whole range of things. An author whose characters can only be seen through the filter of the authors experiences, prejudices, and philosophies isn't much of an author. His or her charatcer will be one dimensional stereotypes. I don't really think that applies to JKR. I have no doubt that she sees the characteristics taken from a teacher she knew in real life, and given to Snape as characteristics of a bad teacher. But what we, the readers, are presented with are the 'charateristics'. We do not have to accept JKRs beliefs about what those characteristics represent as the one true interpretation. What she believes is interesting, certainly, and gives an insight into what she intended. But her filters of experience, her filters of personal beliefs, are not something she can, or should impose on her readers. 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 mgrantwich at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 22:19:40 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:19:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050117221940.30802.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122207 > Alla: > > Not everyone agrees with the fact that Snape is a horrible guy. > Otherwise our Snape bashing and Snape defending sessions would > have died out pretty fast. :o) > > And even if I forget my doubts whether Snape now really thinks that > murdering people is a bad thing, I would still think that those > who abuse children for their pleasure are not "moral" people. > > Just my opinion, > Snape is mean to Harry but that is not the same as "abuse". There are degrees here, and to pretend there aren't is to conflate a number of behaviours under one heading. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 22:27:15 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:27:15 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122208 >vmonte: >Professor Snape was forcing them to research antidotes. They took this one seriously, as he had hinted that he might be poisoning one of them before Christmas to see if their antidote worked.< >Betsy wrote: Perfect example of Snape being a good teacher. Nothing like a little motivation to get the students working! And an example of Snape not being evil -- no one was actually poisoned. vmonte responds: Huh? >vmonte: >Malfoy got Hermione!" Ron said. "Look!" >He forced Hermione to show Snape her teeth?she was doing her best to hide them with her hands, though this was difficult as they had now grown down past her collar. Pansy Parkinson and the other Slytherin girls were doubled up with silent giggles, pointing at Hermione from behind Snape's back. >Betsy wrote: Proof that Snape is not a nice man and that he does favor his House. Something I stated in my very first post. vmonte responds: Is this a sign of Snape being a good teacher and motivator? Or is this just a small excusable quirk he has. Poor Snape, lets give him a break kind of thing... >>vmonte: >The more Snape treats these kids like garbage the less respect they are going to have for him. I admit though that the children are learning a great lesson here, although not about potions.< >Betsy: I think Snape would agree with the "it's better to be feared than loved," philosophy of life. I'm not saying Snape is right but I don't see how this makes Snape evil. vmonte responds: Cruelty is evil. >vmonte: Even the bad guy knows... >Betsy: I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say that Crouch, Jr. (who had a hand in crucioing Neville's parents into insanity) is a better man than Snape? Or are you pointing to this part when Crouch!Moody says: "Meaning that Dumbledore's very interested to know who's got it in for that boy!" said Moody, limping nearer still to the foot of the stairs. "And so am I, Snape... very interested..." Because, as we later learn, it is actually Crouch!Moody himself who has it in for Harry, not Snape at all. vmonte responds: Nope, I did not say that. What I'm saying is simply that it takes one to know one. >Betsy: Or this part here?: "I merely thought," said Snape, in a voice of forced calm, "that if Potter was wandering around after hours again ...it's an unfortunate habit of his ...he should be stopped. For?for his own safety." "Ah, I see," said Moody softly. "Got Potter's best interests at heart, have you?" There was a pause. Snape and Moody were still staring at each other, [...] "I think I will go back to bed," Snape said curtly. "Best idea you've had all night," said Moody. >Because, Snape actually does have Harry's safety at heart (something Crouch!Moody certainly does not). Though I do think that Snape does enjoy catching Harry out. It confirms all of Snape's worst expectations of Harry. I have never argued that Snape has warm and fuzzy thoughts towards Harry. But Snape doesn't want Harry dead. vmonte responds: You think so? I don't. If Snape had nothing to hide in this scene why did run with his tail between his legs--what a coward. >vmonte: Ron doesn't get enough credit... >"So you think Snape could be up to something, then?" asked Harry, but Hermione broke in. >"Look, I don't care what you say, Dumbledore trusts Snape?" >"Oh give it a rest, Hermione," said Ron impatiently. "I know Dumbledores brilliant and everything, but that doesn't mean a really clever Dark wizard couldn't fool him?"< >Betsy: I can't recall what book this scene is in, but Ron *always* suspects Snape as being the big bad of that year, and he is *always* wrong. vmonte responds: I think the adults at Hogwarts are over compensating (making justifications) for Snape's bad behavior, much like many adults on this site do. Ask most kids whether Snape is good or bad, they will tell you. JKR even states in her interviews that children are not fooled by this kind of teacher. >vmonte: And it's always important to be an assertive teacher and let those brats know just how much you loathe them... >Betsy: I've used this example, and explained this example in my first post on this subject. Please see message # 122040. I wouldn't say Snape is showing the students he loathes them - he's telling them they'd better do their reading and they'd better pay attention... or else. vmonte responds: Wow, nice strategy. Dear Diary, Tomorrow is the first day of term. Note to self: Remember to humiliate children in class and show them who is boss. PS. Make sure to pick one or two out that you can continuously use throughout the year as whipping boys/girls. >vmonte: And he never shows preferential treatment... >Betsy: Oh, Snape definitely favors the Slytherins. I've never argued that he doesn't. All I'm trying to say is this doesn't make him evil. Though I've also tried to show that he might have a hidden motive for giving the children of Death Eaters, like Draco Malfoy, an easy way of it. vmonte responds: Oh I see. If the Slytherins are coddled then they won't learn as much as the other students and this will lead to them not being recruitable Voldemort agents. >vmonte: Teacher tip! Don't forget to threaten your student's pets and then deduct house points when their pet doesn't die... Betsy: Like I said earlier, Snape is good at the motivating. And again, as you pointed out, no amphibian died in the making of this scene. (The points were clearly taken because Hermione and Neville cheated. In some schools such behavior can lead to expulsion.) vmonte responds: Do you mean expulsion of the student or the teacher? >vmonte: Jealous much? >"How extraordinarily like your father you are, Potter," Snape said suddenly, his eyes glinting. "He too was exceedingly arrogant. A small amount of talent on the Quidditch field made him think he was a cut above the rest of us too. Strutting around the place with his friends and admirers... The resemblance between you is uncanny." >"My dad didn't strut," said Harry, before he could stop himself. "And neither do I." >"Your father didn't set much store by rules either," Snape went on, pressing his advantage, his thin face full of malice. "Rules were for lesser mortals, not Quidditch Cup-winners. His head was so swollen?" >Betsy: Snape was right, of course. Harry's father did strut, and often. James wasn't above hexing students in the halls either. And IIRC this scene occurs when Harry is caught breaking school rules and putting his own life in danger. Again. I can see that Snape would be a bit jealous of the school's BMOC (big man on campus). Most freaks and geeks are -- though that's only a part of the tangle of emotions the bullied and picked-on feel towards their tormentors. vmonte responds: All I have to say here is: SNAPE GROW UP ALREADY! SO WHAT IF YOU'RE A GEEK! GET OVER IT! >vmonte: >and a racist too.. >"Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works," hissed Snape. "Get out of the way, Potter." >"YOU'RE PATHETIC!" Harry yelled. "JUST BECAUSE THEY MADE A FOOL OF YOU AT SCHOOL YOU WON'T EVEN LISTEN?" >"SILENCE! >Betsy: I don't see any sign of racism in this scene, I'm sorry. Is it the werewolf comment? That doesn't strike me as racist. Snape thinks Lupin has betrayed Dumbledore and led Harry into a trap, as Snape was lead into a similar trap when he was a student. Snape was almost killed by Lupin at that time, so there's a reason for the distrust. I generally think of racism as illogical stereotyping. vmonte responds: This is your most upsetting comment BTW. What do you think a werewolf represents in JKR's world? Pick any derogatory name and insert it into where the word werewolf should be. How does it sound now? I think people should be called by their names don't you. How about if Snape had yelled out: Don't ask me to fathom the way Lupin's mind works," instead. Vivian From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 17 22:41:07 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:41:07 -0000 Subject: A clue nobody has brought up AFAIK... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122209 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mhbobbin" wrote: mhbobbin: > In addition, Riddle envisions himself as the Heir of Slytherin. > Intriguing idea that a Gryffindor would see himself that way. > Intriguing but what would it change? And Riddle likes to hang out > with big snakes and speaks Parselmouth. Geoff: You almost make this sound as if he is role-playing. Canon suggests that he is what he envisions himself to be: '"You think I was going to use my filthy Muggle father's name for ever? I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin himself, through my mother's side?"' (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.231 UK edition) '"You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore calmly, "Because Lord Voldermort - who is the last remaining descendant of Salazar Slytherin - can speak Parseltongue."' (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) I think it highly unlikely that the Sorting Hat would place him in Gryffindor with such a close connection to the founder of Slytherin. Going back to the genesis of this idea, that Hagrid would not hide Aragog outside the dormitory. The description of the location to which Tom Riddle went doesn't chime with being the Gryffindor dormitories. We are told that it was the room which, in Harry's day, has become Snape's classroom. The area is in darkness, the door is ajar, no one comes or goes - it doesn't sound like the dormitory. Again, the description of Aragog suggests that it would be a difficult beastie to hide in an open dormitory shared with others. Nope, I'll vote for Tom being in Slytherin. Geoff http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com Enjoy a virtual visit to the Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 22:41:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:41:36 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122210 Betsy: Snape was right, of course. Harry's father did strut, and often. James wasn't above hexing students in the halls either. And IIRC this scene occurs when Harry is caught breaking school rules and putting his own life in danger. Again. I can see that Snape would be a bit jealous of the school's BMOC (big man on campus). Most freaks and geeks are -- though that's only a part of the tangle of emotions the bullied and picked-on feel towards their tormentors. Alla: I must have missed the scene in the books when Harry picked up on Snape. This is one of my strongest "want to slap Snape" moment. James is dead . Snape has NO right whatsoever to criticise him in front of Harry, regardless whether Snape was right or wrong, IMO Vmonte responds: All I have to say here is: SNAPE GROW UP ALREADY! SO WHAT IF YOU'RE A GEEK! GET OVER IT! Alla: Oh, I would not count much on it, Vmonte. I don't think Snape ever managed to grow up as far as Harry and James are concerened. He is so engrossed in his petty childhood vendettas that he does not realise that he won long time ago. James is dead. He is alive. Maybe it is time to stop tormenting James's son and get to know him for who he is. Sigh... Just my opinion, Alla From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 22:45:40 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:45:40 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: <41ECD3BE.26063.1F71FE3@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122211 Shuan wrote: You describe what Snape does as cruelty. I wouldn't use that word personally, but whatever you want to call it, I can assure you that methods of teaching very much like those used by Snape, worked for me. They worked well for me. They worked for me, when just about every other method didn't. Hearing people say that calling these methods valid is absurd, is frankly, rather hurtful and rather offensive to me. When you spent much of your childhood being denied an education appropriate to your needs and finally were lucky enough to wind up at a school which actually managed to teach you... well, frankly, when I see people describing the methods of education that worked for me as invalid, or wrong, it sends a very clear message to me. My rights weren't important. My needs weren't important. Apparently I shouldn't have got an education at all - because the methods that worked for me weren't 'valid'. That's really *nice* to constantly hear and read, you know. vmonte responds: Sorry, Shaun. I never said anything about your education. I'm talking about the Harry Potter series. I'm also not sure why wanting a teacher to treat children fairly and without malice would make you upset with me. I personally do not think that treating children the way Snape does is right. A teacher who does not have control of their emotions in the classroom (like Snape) is a danger IMO. Dumbledore is right to not allow Snape the opportunity to teach DADA, it would be a fatal mistake, IMO. Take care... Vivian :) From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Jan 17 22:51:09 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:51:09 -0000 Subject: A clue nobody has brought up AFAIK... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122212 mhbobbin wrote: > > In addition, Riddle envisions himself as the Heir of Slytherin. > > Intriguing idea that a Gryffindor would see himself that way. > > Intriguing but what would it change? And Riddle likes to hang > > out with big snakes and speaks Parselmouth. > > Geoff: > You almost make this sound as if he is role-playing. > > Canon suggests that he is what he envisions himself to be: > > '"You think I was going to use my filthy Muggle father's name for > ever? I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin > himself, through my mother's side?"' > > (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.231 UK edition) > > '"You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbledore > calmly, "Because Lord Voldermort - who is the last remaining > descendant of Salazar Slytherin - can speak Parseltongue."' > > (COS "Dobby's Reward" p.245 UK edition) > > I think it highly unlikely that the Sorting Hat would place him in > Gryffindor with such a close connection to the founder of > Slytherin. > > Going back to the genesis of this idea, that Hagrid would not hide > Aragog outside the dormitory. The description of the location to > which Tom Riddle went doesn't chime with being the Gryffindor > dormitories. We are told that it was the room which, in Harry's > day, has become Snape's classroom. The area is in darkness, the > door is ajar, no one comes or goes - it doesn't sound like the > dormitory. Again, the description of Aragog suggests that it would > be a difficult beastie to hide in an open dormitory shared with > others. > > Nope, I'll vote for Tom being in Slytherin. Not to mention way way back in PS, chapter 5: Diagon Alley: "Better Hufflepuff than Slytherin," said Hagrid darkly. "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin. You- Know-Who was one." And Hagrid would know. Dungrollin "You hissed all my mystery lectures and tasted two whole worms!" ? Rev. Spooner From drednort at alphalink.com.au Mon Jan 17 23:01:00 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:01:00 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: References: <41ECD3BE.26063.1F71FE3@localhost> Message-ID: <41ECDE5C.5329.2209AF7@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122213 On 17 Jan 2005 at 22:45, vmonte wrote: > vmonte responds: > Sorry, Shaun. I never said anything about your education. I'm talking > about the Harry Potter series. I'm aware of that. I wasn't meaning to imply anything about anyone here. I was just trying to explain where I am coming from. Why I feel compelled sometimes to defend Snape. > I'm also not sure why wanting a > teacher to treat children fairly and without malice would make you > upset with me. I personally do not think that treating children the > way Snape does is right. A teacher who does not have control of their > emotions in the classroom (like Snape) is a danger IMO. I'm not upset with you. You're fully entitled to your opinions, and I think I understand where they come from. I was just trying to explain a bit about where my experiences come from. I'm not sure about you - but I think a lot of people wind up objecting to Snape because they have a particular visceral reaction to the way he teaches. It horrifies them, and that's where they start from. They look for reasons to condemn Snape as a teacher, from a starting point of assuming he MUST be bad, because of the emotional reaction he creates in them. That's perfectly valid, in my view. But I come at it from a different angle. Because of my experiences, I don't have the same visceral reaction to the way Snape teaches. Instead, I have an entirely different (though equally visceral reaction). I don't really think many people on this list and elsewhere sit down and logically analyse the way Snape teaches to arrive at a conclusion about whether he is a good teacher or a bad teacher. Instead, I think that most (perhaps not all, but the vast majority) of us start out by deciding based on emotion, and perhaps experiences, perhaps our philosophical understanding of whether or not we think Snape is a good or a bad teacher - and then we look at the 'evidence' with that preconception always present and construct rational arguments that are designed to arrive at the conclusion we've already reached based on our initial emotional reaction. And because of this, I don't think people are likely to change their views. Because it's not a logical debate, based on facts (even though both sides can, in my view marshall both logic and facts to support their views). It's funadamentally a debate based on emotional reactions, and particular philosophical and ideological viewpoints. That's certainly true of me... and I think it's true of a lot of other people involved as well. 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 xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 17:48:38 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:48:38 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Time-turner not a quick fix Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122214 Vivian writes: >It was rather easily given to Hermione wasn't it? And do you really >think it was for school? ***I think Dumbledore did know they would use it - which has to give him some sort of preconception. If he knew that Sirius was in danger before, why did he not know if OoP? My only logical explanation is that he did know, but this time he didn't do anything about it because Sirius had to die. From a book-writing standpoint I knew why Sirius had to die - because she had to prevent Harry leaving the Dursley's at any cost. I wasn't surprised at all when she offed him. From a plotline standpoint, I'm not sure at all why Sirius had to die. >I don't like TT stories either; I've always hated them, except for >how JKR has used it. IMO the next time we actually see (read about) >a TT being used it will not work out favorably. ***True. What's to keep LV from getting his paws on one? Why hasn't he gone back in time to take Harry out once and for all? That always happens in the movies. Maybe LV watched Terminator a few times and knew it would never work. :) >What do you suppose Harry or Hermione would do if Ron's parents were >killed in book 6? ***Same thing Harry should be doing to get Sirius back. Especially when all it would take to save Sirius is someone bumping Bellatrix. And in the confusion, who would see it? >It has been previously discussed, on this site that >perhaps Fred and George are already in possession of a TT. One >poster suggested that F&G used a TT to find out what was going to >happen at the Quidditch National in GoF. Remember the bet? ***That one cracked me up! Those two would be using the darned thing willy nilly! If I were Dumbledore, I'd specifically put a special "anti-Fred and George" charm on the thing to ensure they never got their hands on it. I think they're winning the match was just intuition on their part. They are definitely clever. >I think that someone with no experience using a TT is going to use >one causing catastrophic consequences. ***Neville is the first one that comes to mind. Wouldn't he love to go back and save his parents? And isn't his name pretty much synonymous with catastrophe? >BTW no one is going to save Lily and James because, IMO, I think that >they believed that the only way Harry would survive would be if they >died. ***Exactly. I think even Harry couldn't figure out a way to go back and save them. Not without changing EVERYTHING that came later. Just think, Harry would grow up with parents, but his memories of Ron and Hermione and all of his Hogwarts experiences would vanish. In trade for what? Complete unknown. Not many people would sacrifice their current friends and loved ones for a possibility, even one as tantalyzing as Harry's. Nicky Joe From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Mon Jan 17 23:13:40 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:13:40 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122215 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Alla: > I don't think Snape ever > managed to grow up as far as Harry and James are concerened. > > He is so engrossed in his petty childhood vendettas that he does not > realise that he won long time ago. James is dead. He is alive. Maybe > it is time to stop tormenting James's son and get to know him for > who he is. Sigh... > Renee: That James is dead is precisely the problem, I think. Snape is furious at James for being dead: now he'll never get the better of him. Maybe that's why he's constantly provoking and goading Harry, deliberately antagonising him so he'll eventually be a worthy substitute for James. He'll either be in for a disappointment if Harry takes the moral high-road, or for a nasty surprise when Harry turns out to be the more capable wizard. From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 17:49:38 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:49:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122216 AyanEva writes: >My only other explanation is that he's projecting his own problems >onto Snape. I can't put my finger on it, but his reaction just seems >off. I wish I could explain it better, but I'm trying my best! ***These hypotheses seem needlessly complex to me. I always thought of Harry's burst of anger as perfectly justified, simply because Snape ALWAYS seems to be turning up at the most inopportune times for Harry. This was just another episode in a long, long line of Snape interferences. Harry is about to fry Malfoy, Snape appears, and OF COURSE Snape is going to punish Harry and let Malfoy off with a smirk - I'd be enraged, too. And SSSusan summed it up nicely - his anger hasn't changed a bit, it's how he plans to deal with it that's different. He's reached the point of not giving a tinker's dam what Snape thinks or what Snape will do. All his respect for Snape is gone, even the grudging "well he IS a teacher" tiny bit of respect he used to have. Our little boy is growing up. Nicky Joe From department.of.mysteries at gmail.com Mon Jan 17 21:26:35 2005 From: department.of.mysteries at gmail.com (Kaesa Aurelia) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:26:35 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122217 > > > >Dee Dee wrote: > > After OOP we get the picture that there are more than one means of > > time travel. > >Kelly wrote: > This may be a stupid question, but when to we get a picture > that there are other means to time travel? I don't remember > any other way. > > I think she meant the part in the Department of Mysteries, where the Unspeakables appear to be experimenting with/manipulating time; remember the Death Eater who got his head caught in the jar and it kept going from baby to adult to baby again? (I have a feeling they're the "all kinds of people" McGonagall had to write letters to before Hermione got her Time-Turner.) ~Kaesa From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 17:50:24 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:50:24 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (and a little about Tolkien) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122218 Pippin writes: >You did notice, perhaps, that Lupin didn't actually teach Harry to >produce a corporeal patronus? He stopped the lessons while >Harry was still only able to produce a silver vapor -- not enough >to drive a dementor away. ***I hate to jump on the "Lupin could be evil" bandwagon, but Pippin's statement shook me a bit because I just finished GoF again and realized that false appearances are a major theme in this series. In PS/SS, Quirrel appears to be a harmless fraidy cat. Turns out he's half Voldemort. In CoS, the diary appears to be a simple memory recorder and Tom Riddle seems to be just a memory. Wrong, the diary is a horrible magical device and Tom Riddle is Voldemort. In PofA, Scabbers is not a scruffy little rat at all. He's Voldemort's boy! And the evil Sirius Black turns out to be Harry's loving godfather. In GoF, she ramps it up a notch. Not only does Moody seem to be a good guy, he appears to be Harry's FRIEND. Turns out he's Voldemort's Number One Fan. Oh, and Rita Skeeter turns out to be an Animagus. And Madam Maxine turns out to be half- giant. Like Hagrid. I'm sure I forgot some. Made me wonder who else was not who they appeared to be. I have a feeling we'll find out. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 23:07:45 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:07:45 -0000 Subject: Time Travel James (was life debt) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122219 James writes: >Have you heard the theory that Harry goes back in time and saves >Snape? I think with the time travelling capabilities and James and >Harry looking so alike we can't take any James being James for >granted. Oh great, so Harry goes back in time and becomes his own father. Ew. This is just the sort of thing that makes me hate all time travel in fiction. Too many freakish possibilities. Seriously, I can't imagine what would possibly make Harry want to travel back and save Snape. Kill him, maybe, but save him? Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 23:08:09 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:08:09 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122220 Casey writes: >I'll be honest, I never have liked Black. I found him immature, >dismissive of other's feelings and cruel. Even as Peter was their >friend he made fun of him, wanted to pick on Snape because he was >bored, and wanted the full moon, even though he (assuming here) knew >it was difficult for Remus. Then later on he would show his >disappointment because Harry wasn't foolhardy as James was. Sirius had his faults, but he was one of my favorite characters. I did find him rather annoying in OoP, but I think that was mostly because he never got to do anything. He was bored out of his mind. He escaped from Azkaban to get revenge on slimy Wormtail (only to be denied that) then spent the rest of his time in hiding or waiting around for some kind of action. He exchanged one prison for another. He came from a long line of nasty Slytherins, so the occasional nasty remark is not one bit out of character. I think I like him mostly because he was trying hard to fight his upbringing and to become the sort of person that James would respect - the sort of person that he thought James was. Yes, he had plenty of nasty in him, but he knew right from wrong and he tried to take the correct path when it was most important. Sure he was vicious and petty over trivial things, but he would have died for James and for Harry and he would NEVER have gone over to Voldemort the way Wormtail did. And let's face it, I wanted a father figure for Harry, even a flawed one. Nicky Joe From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Jan 17 22:19:07 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:19:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122221 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > Harry was wrong to resent having a sadistic teacher who couldn't or > wouldn't teach Occlumency properly? Harry was wrong to resent being > thrown across the room, pelted with objects and threatened? I don't > think so. Well, I don't see any difference in the way he teaches Occlumency compared to the way he teaches potions. As for the second comment: the little sneak got off far lighter than he deserved, and the only way that was, was because these lessons were a secret so there was no way Snape could explain why he would have kept some memories in a pensieve when teaching extra potions. What really, really bothers me in Harry is that he never, ever, even considers going back to Snape to apologize. He feels sorry for young Snape, is disillusioned about his dad, but nowhere we see that he feels remorse or even guilt about violating another persons privacy on purpose. Going back after a few days to say he was terribly wrong really would have shown character. But he prefers being ignored in potions class, the easy way out. As for the Trevor scene: Neville honestly thought Snape would potions his toad, and I bet Snape knew that, and he also knew that Hermione would help. He's too experiences a teachter not to. Snape was being vile here, there are other ways he could pressure Neville that would have motivated him to do the work himself, instead of begging Hermione for help (and thus learning not as much). Gerry From a_rude_mechanical at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 23:41:39 2005 From: a_rude_mechanical at yahoo.com (a_rude_mechanical) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:41:39 -0000 Subject: OotP Chapter Discussion: 36, Only One He Ever Feared Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122222 Here's the first half of the summary/discussion of OotP Chapter Thirty Six, "The Only One He Ever Feared". The discussion questions occur within the summary and are marked with three dashes. Thanks!! Harry struggles with Lupin, calling madly for Sirius who has fallen through the veil. Lupin tries to tell Harry that Sirius cannot come back, but Harry refuses to listen. However, it slowly dawns on Harry that Sirius isn't responding to his frantic calls, and therefore must be unable to return. Meanwhile, the battle between the Order and the DEs continues around them. ---I find it interesting that it is Lupin who is with Harry at Sirius' death/crossing/disappearance/whatever. Why did Rowling choose Lupin rather than any other adult in Harry's world? ---How does Lupin know about the veil? How does he know that Sirius can't come back after falling through it? I mean, this is the Department of Mysteries, right? What's the deal? Dumbldore immobilizes the DEs as Kingsley continues the fight with Bellatrix. Neville offers condolences to Harry, then Lupin uses a counter-jinx to remove the spell on Neville's legs. While Lupin, Harry, and Neville talk, Bellatrix escapes Kingsley. DD fires a spell that she deflects. Harry pulls free from Lupin and goes after her, screaming that he plans to kill her. He chases her back through the room with all the brains, and then past Luna, Ginny, Ron, and Hermione, out to the corridor leading to the lifts. At the last minute Bellatrix slams the door in his face and the walls and doors begin to spin. Harry yells in frustration, "Where's the exit?" He has inadvertently discovered the secret of the entrance?all you have to do is ask. ---I love this! It reminds me so of Tolkien's riddle at the entrance to Moria: Speak friend, and enter. The correct door opens and Harry runs to the lifts. Bellatrix has already taken a lift up, so he waits for the next one. ---Wizards don't need electricity, nor medicine; they can apparate/disapparate; portkeys carry them from one location in the world to another and yet they still have to wait for elevators. Which calls to mind this question: why in the world doesn't Bellatrix simply disapparate? DD clearly believes that the other DEs might because he immobilizes them with disapparation in mind. So .wha??? Harry follows her up to the Atrium and catches her before she reaches the phone booth lift. She fires a curse at him but misses. Harry hides behind the fountain. She taunts him and he hits her with the Cruciatus curse. He manages only to knock her off her feet. Bellatrix no longer finds the situation amusing, but he has done no real damage. She mocks his attempt and aims a Cruciatus at him that takes off the centaur statue's arm. Bellayrix explains that she learned the Dark Arts from LV himself and was his most loyal servant. Harry attempts a stunning curse that she deflects, removing one of the goblin statue's ears in the process. ---The fountain and its subsequent destruction in this chapter is a rather glaring metaphor. Does the destruction reflect/foreshadow something? If so, what? Bellatrix demands the prophecy of Harry, who tells her that the sphere has been destroyed. Immediately his scar begins to burn and he feels LV's anger; Harry taunts Bellatrix with it. She begins to apologize to LV, who suddenly appears in the hall. LV prepares to kill Harry, ignoring Bellatrix's warnings that "He is here." ---By "he" we are left to assume DD, I suppose? The statue of the wizard comes to life and deflects LV's killing curse. LV sees DD standing behind Harry and attempts to kill him, but DD moves too quickly. All the statues in the fountain come to life?the witch pins Bellatrix to the floor, the wizard moves Harry out from between DD and LV, the goblin and house elf move to the fireplaces, and the centaur canters around the two wizards. DD tells "Tom" that the aurors are coming. --Keep an eye on the goblin and the house elf?what exactly are they doing?? Thanks for reading, and I'll post the rest on Wednesday!! Elisabeth From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 23:42:21 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:42:21 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122223 Festuco wrote: Well, I don't see any difference in the way he teaches Occlumency compared to the way he teaches potions. Alla: That we agree on. He is the same sadistic teacher in both, IMO. Festuco: As for the second comment: the little sneak got off far lighter than he deserved, and the only way that was, was because these lessons were a secret so there was no way Snape could explain why he would have kept some memories in a pensieve when teaching extra potions. What really, really bothers me in Harry is that he never, ever, even considers going back to Snape to apologize. He feels sorry for young Snape, is disillusioned about his dad, but nowhere we see that he feels remorse or even guilt about violating another persons privacy on purpose. Going back after a few days to say he was terribly wrong really would have shown character.But he prefers being ignored in potions class, the easy way out. Alla: I don't know. I don't remember Snape giving Harry a chance to apologise. I remember him physically throwing out Harry out of his office. And of course he prefers being ignored in Potions class. After the kind of treatment Snape gave him during the lessons, I would prefer being ignored too, you know to catch a little break from hysterical sadist. Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 23:46:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:46:26 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122224 Renee: That James is dead is precisely the problem, I think. Snape is furious at James for being dead: now he'll never get the better of him. Maybe that's why he's constantly provoking and goading Harry, deliberately antagonising him so he'll eventually be a worthy substitute for James. He'll either be in for a disappointment if Harry takes the moral high-road, or for a nasty surprise when Harry turns out to be the more capable wizard. Alla: Quite possible, Renee, quite possible. Do you think it is also connected with impossibility to pay life debt on Snape's part? It was debated many times what kind of bond is created. Do you think it is possible that untill you repay the debt, you will physically suffer? And yes, I know that Harry will take moral high road eventually, but I would LOVE to see a nasty surprise for Snape, at least for a little while. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 23:46:44 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:46:44 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122225 vmonte wrote: I couldn't help reading some of the previous Snape posts > without adding some of JKR's documented comments about him. > > [JKR:] But you must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater. > He will have seen things that. . . > vmonte: > He was a Death Eater. And we are going to find out some > pretty nasty things about his past. Carol responds: Note "he will have *seen*," not he will have done. So while we're free to speculate about what he may have done as a Death Eater, we merely know from this passage that he *witnessed* a death or deaths. We still don't know what he did. Given LV's penchant for putting his DEs to their best use (Dolohov to murder cruelly, Bellatrix and her sidekicks to Crucio people, Mulciber as an Imperius specialist), it makes sense to me that Snape's chief use would be as a potion maker, especially given that LV was still seeking immortality and didn't know, even after Godric's Hollow, exactly which experiments had worked. Any speculation as to what Snape did as a Death Eater is, at this point, exactly that: speculation. I for one don't think that Dumbledore would have hired him if he had actually killed anyone. But even if he did do some really terrible things, he seems to have fully repented and to be on the side of Dumbledore and the Order. We've seen him helping Dumbledore. We do not yet have any grounds (other than Ron's and Harry's suspicions) that he is helping Voldemort. vmonte quoting interview: > What about Snape? > JKR: Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I > myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think that they are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse > his power. He's not a particularly pleasant person at all. However, > everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I'll just say that because > there is more to him than meets the eye and you will find out part of what I am talking about if you read Book 4. [WBUR-99] Carol responds: "Not a particularly pleasant person" is a far cry from "evil person." And note the "however" in this quote, which follows right after "not a particularly pleasant person." There's more to him than meets the eye--more, IOW, than the unpleasant personality. As for what's in Book 4, that's where he remains in Hogwarts when Karkaroff flees ("Flee, then flee! I shall remain at Hogwarts"), courageously shows Fudge his Dark Mark and tries to explain the significance of the darkening (Voldemort is really back), and goes off on a secret and perilous mission for Dumbledore. Definitely more to snape than meets the eye of someone who looks at him only as a severe and sarcastic Potions Master. Carol From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 23:47:47 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:47:47 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122226 >>Betsy wrote: >Proof that Snape is not a nice man and that he does favor his House. Something I stated in my very first post. >>vmonte responds: >Is this a sign of Snape being a good teacher and motivator? Or is this just a small excusable quirk he has. Poor Snape, lets give him a break kind of thing...< Betsy: It's a sign that Snape is not a nice man. Umm. Like I said. Twenty billion times. >>Betsy: >I think Snape would agree with the "it's better to be feared than loved," philosophy of life. I'm not saying Snape is right but I don't see how this makes Snape evil.< >>vmonte responds: Cruelty is evil. Betsy: So James and Sirius and Fred and George Weasley are evil then. >>Betsy: >Because, Snape actually does have Harry's safety at heart (something Crouch!Moody certainly does not). Though I do think that Snape does enjoy catching Harry out. It confirms all of Snape's worst expectations of Harry. I have never argued that Snape has warm and fuzzy thoughts towards Harry. But Snape doesn't want Harry dead.< >>vmonte responds: >You think so? I don't. If Snape had nothing to hide in this scene why did run with his tail between his legs--what a coward.< Betsy: Okay. So you think Snape is still working for Voldemort and does want to kill Harry. That clears some things up for me. It's not a theory I subscribe too (obviously! ) but if Snape is the big villain for you, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. All of Snape's actions will be tilted in a certain direction for you. We'll just have to wait until the final page of book 7 to see how things turn out. >>Betsy: >I wouldn't say Snape is showing the students he loathes them - he's telling them they'd better do their reading and they'd better pay attention... or else.< >>vmonte responds: >Wow, nice strategy. Dear Diary, Tomorrow is the first day of term. Note to self: Remember to humiliate children in class and show them who is boss. PS. Make sure to pick one or two out that you can continuously use throughout the year as whipping boys/girls.< Betsy: Yup, pretty much! :) >>Betsy: >Oh, Snape definitely favors the Slytherins. I've never argued that he doesn't. All I'm trying to say is this doesn't make him evil. Though I've also tried to show that he might have a hidden motive for giving the children of Death Eaters, like Draco Malfoy, an easy way of it.< >>vmonte responds: >Oh I see. If the Slytherins are coddled then they won't learn as much as the other students and this will lead to them not being recruitable Voldemort agents.< Betsy: Hee! Not a bad theory! >>vmonte: Teacher tip! Don't forget to threaten your student's pets and then deduct house points when their pet doesn't die... >>Betsy: >Like I said earlier, Snape is good at the motivating. And again, as you pointed out, no amphibian died in the making of this scene. (The points were clearly taken because Hermione and Neville cheated. In some schools such behavior can lead to expulsion.) >>vmonte responds: >Do you mean expulsion of the student or the teacher?< Betsy: In the schools I attended, if a student cheated, the student was usually the one held accountable. >>Betsy: >I don't see any sign of racism in this scene, I'm sorry. Is it the werewolf comment? That doesn't strike me as racist. Snape thinks Lupin has betrayed Dumbledore and led Harry into a trap, as Snape was lead into a similar trap when he was a student. Snape was almost killed by Lupin at that time, so there's a reason for the distrust. I generally think of racism as illogical stereotyping.< >>vmonte responds: >This is your most upsetting comment BTW. What do you think a werewolf represents in JKR's world? Pick any derogatory name and insert it into where the word werewolf should be. How does it sound now? I think people should be called by their names don't you. >How about if Snape had yelled out: Don't ask me to fathom the way Lupin's mind works," instead.< Betsy: Ah. Yes, Snape is rude to not refer to Lupin by his name. Though the term "werewolf" is not actually a derogatory name. Lupin *is* a werewolf. And when Lupin doesn't take his potion he will eat any little children that cross his path. Which would make for a very bad teacher in my book. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 00:16:09 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:16:09 -0000 Subject: OotP Chapter Discussion: 36, Only One He Ever Feared In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122227 Elisabeth wrote: --I find it interesting that it is Lupin who is with Harry at Sirius' death/crossing/disappearance/whatever. Why did Rowling choose Lupin rather than any other adult in Harry's world? --How does Lupin know about the veil? How does he know that Sirius can't come back after falling through it? I mean, this is the Department of Mysteries, right? What's the deal? Alla: Hi, Elisabeth! I like your questions. I also was curious why Lupin and no one else stopped Harry. Since I don't think that Lupin is ESE, for today I settled on the speculation that Lupin simply knows more about the Veil then he lets on. For example he may have been working in the Department of Mysteries and studying the Veil during those twelve years. That is why he knew that Veil is deadly. As member of SAD DENIAL, I prefer to think that he was mistaken though. I think that Harry will travel through it at some point and comes back. Just my opinion, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 00:29:38 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:29:38 -0000 Subject: Butterbeer (Was: Ok, Stupid Question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122228 Potioncat wrote: > We know JKR was thinking of Butterscotch. (From a previous post) But > it also reminds me of Ginger Ale. Neither Ginger Ale nor > butterscotch are alcoholic. > > Buttered Rum? Well now, that's a different story! > Potioncat Carol adds: And let's not forget root beer--so called, I think, because of the foamy "head." If butterbeer is amber-colored (or yellow, like butter) and foamy, the name might derive from the resemblance to real beer. (I tend to think that it also contains a very small percentage of alcohol, which has a significant effect on Winky simply because she weighs about thirty pounds. Carol From inkling108 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 00:53:50 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:53:50 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <002e01c4fccc$5888ba20$704b6d51@f3b7j4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122229 Inkling here, weighing in on Snape again (can't help myself): I'd like to go back to Betsy's original post, specifically the point she made about Snape being a competent teacher despite his snarly personal style. (Please bear with me, I'm catching up after a weekend spent away from the computer.) Despite my recent criticism of Snape, I actually agree with Betsy on this issue. Snape *is* a competent teacher -- in Potions. In fact what bothers me about his teaching style in Occlumency lessons is that it differs so much from his style in Potions. For example: In Potions Snape always provides a detailed and specific method, as well as the materials needed to produce the potion, and enough time to get the job done. In Occlumency he does not provide a method, he does not make clear what kind of skills are required, and he does not give Harry enough time to prepare himself before breaking into his mind. In Potions Snape always corrects a student by pointing out exactly what he's doing wrong (in singularly nasty fashion, it must be said, but he does tell them what they need to fix). In Occlumency he offers no specific corrections. Instead he accuses Harry of not trying hard enough, of wasting his time, etc. After watching Snape teach Potions for five books, I think we can make the following observations concerning Snape as a teacher: It is in character for him to be nasty. It is not in character for him to be vague and evasive. It is in character for him to attempt to sabotage students emotionally (as in numerous examples already cited). It is not in character for him to attempt to sabotage students procedurally ("Snape had struck before Harry was ready, before Harry had even begun to summon any force of resistance...") It is in character for him to be supremely self confident and in control. It is not in character for him to appear "unnerved" and "agitated." Now, Snape exhibits all of these strange behaviors in the first lesson, long before Harry looks in the pensieve or flips him with the Protego charm. Which leads me to say again (at the risk of sounding like a broken record) that the personal drama that unfolds between the two in the course of the lessons, while it is compelling, does not shed light on what Snape's agenda was when he set out to give the lessons in the first place. Inkling, late to the party... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 00:54:40 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:54:40 -0000 Subject: Bellatrix's age (Was: Narcissa Malfoy ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122230 Juli: > > We already know that Snape and the Marauders are about the same age, so if Bella is about Snape's age, this means she and Sirius are both the same age also, which is about 36. > > > Based on the Black tapestry and where the sisters are at and the > order of their names, I would place Narcissa as the youngest and > Bellatrix as the oldest. She's probably around Lucius' age. > > "phoenixgod2000" Carol responds: Not to repeat myself, but Sirius says near the beginning of OoP that he last saw Bellatrix when he was Harry's age (just rurned fifteen, between his fourth and fifth years). Since Bellatrix was part of the Slytherin gang, her school years would indeed have overlapped Sirius's and Snape's, but she can't be the same age they are or Sirius would have last seen her at the end of his own seventh year, which would have been the same as his. Instead, her seventh year seems to correspond with his fourth. Note, too, that neither she nor any other members of the Slytherin gang is present during the Pensieve scene. That would, BTW, make her only two years younger than Lucius Malfoy, who is five years older than Snape. The quote, to repeat, is in "The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black" in OoP. And if my calculation for her age is right, she can't be the oldest or Andromeda would not have had time to marry and give birth to Tonks. So again I suggest that Narcissa is Lucius's age, Andromeda a year younger, and Bellatrix the youngest (two years younger than Narcissa). Not fact, I realize, but I don't see any other way to interpret the canon as we have it. BTW, Narcissa could easily have had Draco seven years or so into her marriage. She probably would have been in no hurry to spoil her figure by producing an heir for Lucius. And she would still have been quite young when she had Draco (about 26), especially by WW standards. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 01:11:32 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:11:32 -0000 Subject: Rune symbol on forehead (was His Mother's eyes) In-Reply-To: <20050115191913.44106.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122231 Carol theorized earlier: > > > Lily places an elaborate Protego (shield charm) on Baby Harry, perhaps involving an incantation and, using her finger, marks Harry's forehead with an eihwaz (defense) rune, like a priest marking a baby's forehead with a cross in a baptismal service. > > > > Niffer writes: > > But instead of Eihwaz, I think it is Sowelu, which means Wholeness, Life Force, or the Sun's Energy. It too looks like a lightning bolt, but it fits Harry much better. > > > > Juli: > > But if it is truly a rune why hasn't anybody noticed it? Even Hermione knows runes, she's taken that course, and she can't recognize a simple rune? I don't think so. What if it is just a scar shaped like a lighting bolt? Carol responds: Part of the basis for this theory is Hermione's specific reference to the eihwaz rune, which she confused with ehwaz. I don't think JKR would have thrown in that detail for no reason. And also, of course, the defense rune fits with the Protego spell, which I'm speculating was modified and strengthened in some way using "ancient magic." I think that Hermione *will* notice the resemblance of the scar to the rune at some point. But she first saw it before she knew anything about runes and is used to thinking of it as a lightning bolt if she thinks about it at all. Rather like Ron taking four years to catch on that Hermione, one of his two best friends, is a girl. Maybe Hermione will "spot" that it's an eihwaz rune in Book 6 or 7, be astounded that a wound given by Voldemort would have that shape, and go rushing to the library to check into rune-related magic. "Ancient magic," "ancient runes." It could all fit very nicely together. (Or Juli could be right and it's just a meaningless, boring old lightning bolt. But since I think that Lily must have placed a protective charm on Harry, I like the idea that the rune reflects her protection.) Carol From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Jan 18 01:11:01 2005 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:11:01 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] OotP Chapter Discussion: 36, Only One He Ever Feared In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1075014772.20050117171101@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122232 Monday, January 17, 2005, 3:41:39 PM, a_rude_mechanical wrote: a> ---The fountain and its subsequent destruction in this chapter is a a> rather glaring metaphor. Does the destruction reflect/foreshadow a> something? If so, what? I think it is a metaphor for the destruction of the MoM's long-standing delusion that the Wizarding World is one of peace and harmony. (Note DD's remarks in the next chapter about how the statue "told a lie".) -- Dave From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 18 01:34:12 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:34:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rune symbol on forehead (was His Mother's eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050118013412.26029.qmail@web52002.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122234 > > > > Niffer writes: > > But instead of Eihwaz, I think it is Sowelu, which means Wholeness, Life Force, or the Sun's Energy. It too looks like a lightning bolt, but it fits Harry much better. > > Luckdragon: The mark does look more like Sowilo (see below)and it's properties seem more pertinant to Harry, but the fact that the eihwaz rune (see below)is mentioned does make it seem more likely, unless it's just an introduction to the subject and will be expanded on in future books. Eihwaz: (EI: Yew tree.) Strength, reliability, dependability, trustworthiness. Enlightenment, endurance. Defense, protection. The driving force to acquire, providing motivation and a sense of purpose. Indicates that you have set your sights on a reasonable target and can achieve your goals. An honest man who can be relied upon. Eihwaz Reversed or Merkstave: Confusion, destruction, dissatisfaction, weakness Sowilo: (S: The sun.) Success, goals achieved, honor. The life-force, health. A time when power will be available to you for positive changes in your life, victory, health, and success. Contact between the higher self and the unconscious. Wholeness, power, elemental force, sword of flame, cleansing fire. Sowilo Merkstave (Sowilo cannot be reversed, but may lie in opposition): False goals, bad counsel, false success, gullibility, loss of goals. Destruction, retribution, justice, casting down of vanity. Wrath of god. --------------------------------- Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 01:34:14 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:34:14 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122235 Carol responds: Note "he will have *seen*," not he will have done. So while we're free to speculate about what he may have done as a Death Eater, we merely know from this passage that he *witnessed* a death or deaths. We still don't know what he did. Given LV's penchant for putting his DEs to their best use (Dolohov to murder cruelly, Bellatrix and her sidekicks to Crucio people, Mulciber as an Imperius specialist), it makes sense to me that Snape's chief use would be as a potion maker, especially given that LV was still seeking immortality and didn't know, even after Godric's Hollow, exactly which experiments had worked. Any speculation as to what Snape did as a Death Eater is, at this point, exactly that: speculation. I for one don't think that Dumbledore would have hired him if he had actually killed anyone. But even if he did do some really terrible things, he seems to have fully repented and to be on the side of Dumbledore and the Order. We've seen him helping Dumbledore. We do not yet have any grounds (other than Ron's and Harry's suspicions) that he is helping Voldemort. vmonte responds: If all that Snape ever did for Voldemort was make potions, why then doesn't Dumbledore give him the post of DADA teacher? It's probably because Dumbledore knows something we don't. It seems to me that Voldemort uses his henchmen to do all kinds of dirty work. Lucius is used not only for dirty business deals, but he also becomes an accomplice to murder (Cedric, and many more I'm sure. In fact, if it weren't for Harry escaping, he would have also been a child murderer in GoF.) So, what kinds of things would Snape have seen I wonder? People being tortured, perhaps? How about Moody's photograph? There were several Order members that were murdered, along with their entire family (children included). That must have been fun to watch. (This is not a relevant comment but who's big idea was it to take a picture of the Order anyway? I wonder if a DE got a hold of this picture and used it as a check list to kill off Order members.) I realize that Dumbledore is more forgiving than I probably am. He may truly believe that Snape has repented, but I just don't see it. He enjoys making people suffer too much. He reminds me more of Iago, from Othello (someone who is great at manipulating others with words), rather than Saint Paul, the Convert. By the way, St. Paul once hated and persecuted Christians, even assisting at the stoning of Saint Stephen the Martyr. And now he is considered a great Christian Saint. As I'm writing this, another idea has struck me. That perhaps Snape's conversion has not yet happened, but that Dumbledore has forgiven him because he has faith that Snape will eventually do what is right. Everyone knows that JKR is a Christian and that she uses Christian themes in the HP books. Is it really possible that Snape is being set- up for a big conversion at the end of book 7? In the story of Saint Paul, he was on his way to Damascus to arrest another group of Christians when he was knocked to the ground and struck blind by a heavenly light; and was given the message that in persecuting Christians, he was persecuting Christ. Will Snape get struck with a bright "green" light? Whose voice will he hear I wonder? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 01:44:56 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:44:56 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122236 Betsy: I think Snape would agree with the "it's better to be feared than loved," philosophy of life. I'm not saying Snape is right but I don't see how this makes Snape evil. vmonte responds: Cruelty is evil. Tonks replies to Vmonte now: A wise man once told me a story: There was a little bird shivering in the cold bitter winter. A cow came along and crapped on the little bird. The bird was warm and comfortable. A kind hearted person came along and said "or you poor thing this smells bad, it was a foul thing the cow did to you". And this person shoveled the crap away. The little bird died. Froze to death. Moral: Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy, and not everyone who shovels it away is your friend. ----------- >Betsy: I can see that Snape would be a bit jealous of the school's BMOC (big man on campus). Most freaks and geeks are -- though that's only a part of the tangle of emotions the bullied and picked-on feel towards their tormentors. Tonks replies now: I don't think most as you say "freaks and geeks" want to be big man on campus. Often the BMOC is a smart-ass that acts that way because he feels insecure under it all. Being seen as a *big man* is important to him, as it was to James. On the other hand, I think that most very intelligent students don't even care about that sort of thing. They do not want to be bullied. But, so long as they are left alone I think that they are perfectly happy with who they are and what they are doing. As to Snape, Allen Rickman says that Snape wants recognition, this is not the same as envy. ---------- Inkling wrote: In fact what bothers me about his teaching style in Occlumency lessons is that it differs so much from his style in Potions. (Snip, snip) It is in character for him to be supremely self confident and in control. It is not in character for him to appear "unnerved" and "agitated." Now, Snape exhibits all of these strange behaviors in the first lesson, long before Harry looks in the pensieve or flips him with the Protego charm. Which leads me to say again (at the risk of sounding like a broken record) that the personal drama that unfolds between the two in the course of the lessons, while it is compelling, does not shed light on what Snape's agenda was when he set out to give the lessons in the first place. Tonks replies now: This is why I suspect that it was not a teaching lesson at all. That Snape was given the job to find LV in Harry and separate him out so that whatever comes next can happen. If it was a lesson, it is possible that it is something that can not be taught the same way as Potions. He might be using a more Eastern approach. Also there was a reason DD thought it would be too dangerous for Harry to be taught by DD himself. This all points to the *lessons* as being more than they appear to be, IMHO. And vmorte, I think Snape would like the idea that you might consider him as a St. Paul figure. He does seem to have the same personality. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 01:48:01 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:48:01 -0000 Subject: Order's photograph. Was:Re: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122237 Vmonte: huge snip (This is not a relevant comment but who's big idea was it to take a picture of the Order anyway? I wonder if a DE got a hold of this picture and used it as a check list to kill off Order members.) Alla: Lupin, of course it was Lupin's idea. :o) Seriously though, do they ever mention who took this photograph? I don't remember. It could not have been dear Peter's idea, since he was on the photograph, I guess. Or could he suggest it anyway and camera was working magically by itself, no person needed to do the trick. JMO, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 02:00:58 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:00:58 -0000 Subject: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/Time-turner/ LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122238 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kaesa Aurelia wrote: > > I think she meant the part in the Department of Mysteries, where the Unspeakables appear to be experimenting with/manipulating time; > remember the Death Eater who got his head caught in the jar and it > kept going from baby to adult to baby again? ((SNIP) > ~Kaesa Tonk here: AND WHY WOULD JKR PUT THIS IN THE BOOK??? I said in another post, that LV messed with time to stay imortal. Remember the baby in the graveyard... HELLO.. is anyone out there listening???? Tonks_op From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Tue Jan 18 02:02:40 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:02:40 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Sirius related? Was: Re: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <08DC7384-68F5-11D9-BC66-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 122239 On Tuesday, January 18, 2005, at 06:35 am, dumbledore11214 wrote: > To me it doesn't seem to be enough that it's simply Sirius's house to > cause Snape to blush like that. What if Snape was Sirius's half > brother, and the elder one? (We now know that Snape's birthday is in > January) If he was the elder, illegitimate child, Sirius mentioning > that the house belongs to him could be a slap in the face to Snape if > he could have been the first born son and entitled to any Black > inheritence, such as the house. > > Call me crazy, but I think this makes some sense. Any thoughts? > If this half-brother theory were true, Snape could easily be the child of a previous marriage with a 'non-pureblood' woman. The Blacks could have place some kind of entail on the property so that it could only go to pure-blood descendants. He could have rejected the name or had it rejected for him in his childhood. Anyone who reads gothic or regencies could come up with a plot along those lines without any trouble! eg: Very Young Daddy Black runs away with beautiful muggle Miss Snape and marries her. Grandpa Black fetches him back, annuls the marriage & threatens Miss Snape with being changed into a frog if she tells anyone the truth. Young Daddy Black marries beautiful muggle Miss Smith and divorces her six months later. Thoroughly ashamed of his wife and child, he offers her a lumps sum if she never tells anyone the truth. She remarries Bullying Mr Snape (who wants the lump sum) while her baby is small, so baby grows up as a Snape, but he finds out the truth during the Voldemort years. I could go on - but I'll spare ya! Jocelyn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 02:12:18 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:12:18 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122240 Alla wrote: > > First and foremost I keep asking this question all the time and I > did not get the satisfactory answer yet. > > So, maybe you can help me out :o) > Since when in order to be a good human being, you don't have to > be "nice" human being? > > I hear this argument all the time. Snape is a good man, but he is > not a nice man. You know, in my book " not nice" quite often > equals "bad" in a worst sense of this word. > Hi, Alla. Here's my answer, which I know in advance you won't agree with. First, nice doesn't equal good. Look at Crouch!Moody and Lockhart, who were both a great deal nicer to Harry than Snape but neither of whom was good. Rita Skeeter at times also tries to seem like Harry's friend, but we know she isn't. Or how about Umbridge nicely offering Harry tea or coffee in her office? And the opposite is also true--McGonagall is not always nice--witness the way she humiliates Neville when he loses his list of passwords--but only a few people have argued that she's evil. Snape, we all agree, is not a nice man, though he can be civil when he chooses. And he has been a DE, at which time he certainly could not have been good. But he has (unless DD is wrong) changed sides. He is now not only serving but risking his life for the side of good. He is a member of the Order, doing everything in his power to stop evil in the form of Lord Voldemort. And compared with other characters in the story, notably Voldemort, Bellatrix and her fellow Death Eaters, and Umbridge, the "evil" he still does is very small potatoes. He does not Imperio his students or turn them into bouncing ferrets like Crouch!Moody; he does not make them write lines in their own blood or attempt to Crucio them like Umbridge. There are purely evil characters in this series; there are mostly good but fallible characters (DD, Harry, Ron, Hermione, Lupin, McGonagall, et al.), and there are "gray" characters with both evil and good traits, notably Severus Snape and Sirius Black. I'm not sure that I would call Snape a good man, but he has virtues--loyalty and courage--that should be weighed along with his sarcasm and unfairness in judging his character, and I will bet you a year's supply of butterbeer that there *is* a redemptive pattern to Snape and that JKR's surprise was not because the interviewer was wrong but because he had anticipated Snape's redemption in Harry's eyes in Book 7. Carol From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 02:20:12 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:20:12 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius related? Was: Re: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: <08DC7384-68F5-11D9-BC66-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122241 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > > > If this half-brother theory were true, Snape could easily be the child of a previous marriage with a 'non-pureblood' woman. (SNIP) > > Very Young Daddy Black runs away with beautiful muggle Miss (SNIP) and marries her. Grandpa Black fetches him back, annuls the marriage & threatens Miss (SNIP) with being changed into a frog if she tells anyone the truth. > (SNIP) She remarries Bullying Mr Snape (SNIP) while her baby is small, so baby grows up as a Snape, but he finds out the truth during the Voldemort years. SNIP > Jocelyn Tonks: I have sniped and tucked your ideas to make a new story above. Add to that: Mr. Black marries his son off to a pureblood within a month or 2 of the annulment/divorce and she gets PG right away.. and you end up with two boys about the same age, from the same father with different surnames. It just might work. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 02:30:46 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:30:46 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122242 Carol: Hi, Alla. Here's my answer, which I know in advance you won't agree with. First, nice doesn't equal good. Look at Crouch!Moody and Lockhart, who were both a great deal nicer to Harry than Snape but neither of whom was good. Rita Skeeter at times also tries to seem like Harry's friend, but we know she isn't. Or how about Umbridge nicely offering Harry tea or coffee in her office? And the opposite is also true--McGonagall is not always nice--witness the way she humiliates Neville when he loses his list of passwords--but only a few people have argued that she's evil. Alla: Hey, Carol! You do know me well. :o) I said earlier that if niceness means just "pleasant person to be around" then I have no problem accepting that " nice does not equal good" I also said earlier that in my book "nice" is more than that. It is how person genuinely treats people around them. If person is having fun watching other person in distress, I do have trouble calling such person " nice" or "good", but that is just me. By the way, the examples you gave are not the examples of genuine " nice" but "fake" one, don't you agree? Crouch!Moody and Lockhart could care less about Harry. Any other person who was kind to Harry does seem to care genuinely about him. Carol: snip. and I will bet you a year's supply of butterbeer that there *is* a redemptive pattern to Snape and that JKR's surprise was not because the interviewer was wrong but because he had anticipated Snape's redemption in Harry's eyes in Book 7. Alla: Not sure if I accept this bet, Carol, since I am also pretty confident that at the end Snape will redeem himself, BUT I am also offering you a bet that before that happens we WILL be lead to believe that Snape has betrayed the Order OR we will learn that Snape has never truly changed the sides at all. In short, before Snape's big redemption thing, we will learn something TRULY nasty about him. How about THAT bet? :o) JMO, Alla From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 02:39:18 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:39:18 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122243 >Betsy: It's a sign that Snape is not a nice man. Umm. Like I said. Twenty billion times. vmonte responds: He's not a good teacher either... :) >Betsy: >I think Snape would agree with the "it's better to be feared than loved," philosophy of life. I'm not saying Snape is right but I don't see how this makes Snape evil.< >vmonte responds: Cruelty is evil. >Betsy: So James and Sirius and Fred and George Weasley are evil then. vmonte responds: James, Sirius, Fred and George are just stupid teenagers. Snape is a grown man. (Although, James and Sirius are worse than Fred & George IMO.) >vmonte responds: >You think so? I don't. If Snape had nothing to hide in this scene why did he run with his tail between his legs--what a coward.< ) but if Snape is the big villain for you, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. All of Snape's actions will be tilted in a certain direction for you. We'll just have to wait until the final page of book 7 to see how things turn out. vmonte responds: Honestly, I think that Snape mainly works for himself. And he may eventually go through some big spiritual conversion in book 7, I just don't think, at this point in time, he is good. >vmonte responds: >Wow, nice strategy. Dear Diary, Tomorrow is the first day of term. Note to self: Remember to humiliate children in class and show them who is boss. PS. Make sure to pick one or two out that you can continuously use throughout the year as whipping boys/girls.< Betsy: Yup, pretty much! :) vmonte: Ok, you made me laugh here! >Betsy: >Oh, Snape definitely favors the Slytherins. I've never argued that he doesn't. All I'm trying to say is this doesn't make him evil. Though I've also tried to show that he might have a hidden motive for giving the children of Death Eaters, like Draco Malfoy, an easy way of it.< >vmonte responds: >Oh I see. If the Slytherins are coddled then they won't learn as much as the other students and this will lead to them not being recruitable Voldemort agents.< >Betsy: Hee! Not a bad theory! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122244 > Tonks: > > [slight snip] Mr. Black marries his son off to a pureblood within a month > or 2 of the annulment/divorce and she gets PG right away.. and you > end up with two boys about the same age, from the same father with > different surnames. > > It just might work. Maddy: I love where this theory is going...but I've got something to add that has just occured to me. (And please tell me, if I'm letting my imagination run away with me.) But here it is: Sirius was the last of the Blacks. Sirius is dead. So who does Grimmauld Place fall to? Could it be illitimate-half-brother!Snape?? Ooh...that would certainly bring about some interesting scenes. =) Maddy *is very glad that people like this theory -- it's been bouncing around my brain for a while, and I'm glad I'm not the only one!* From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 02:46:02 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:46:02 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122245 Alla: Not sure if I accept this bet, Carol, since I am also pretty confident that at the end Snape will redeem himself, BUT I am also offering you a bet that before that happens we WILL be lead to believe that Snape has betrayed the Order OR we will learn that Snape has never truly changed the sides at all. In short, before Snape's big redemption thing, we will learn something TRULY nasty about him. How about THAT bet? :o) vmonte responds: Yeah, I think so too. We are on the same wave length Alla. Vivian From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 03:20:50 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:20:50 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122246 Betsy wrote: > Okay, I think it *is* a given that Snape is a spy. There are a lot of hints dropped around, but Snape finally states it in OotP. > > "That is just as well, Potter," said Snape coldly, "because you are neither special nor important, and it is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters." "No -- that's your job, isn't it?" Harry shot at him. [...] "Yes, Potter," he said, his eyes glinting. "That is my job." (OotP Scholastic ed. pg. 591) > > It can't get much clearer than that. Carol responds: This part I agree with completely. > > And I think it *is* a given that Snape does go back to Voldemort. In GoF, Voldemort lists three missing Death Eaters. We know that one is Crouch, Jr., one is Karkaroff, and one is Snape. Voldemort calls one his "most faithful servant [...] He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived > here tonight..." Obviously - this is Crouch, Jr. Carol responds: Again, I agree. All the textual evidence points to Crouch!Moody as the faithful servant. But. . . . The other missing Death Eater "has left me forever... he will be killed, of course." > That must be Karkaroff. If it was Snape, he'd be keeping Sirius company at Grimmauld Place or be locked up within Hogwarts. Carol responds: Here's where I disagree. We know that Karkaroff fled, and that he was considering doing so since at least the night of the Yule Ball. Karkaroff ratted on his fellow Death Eaters and is afraid of the consequences. There's certainly no reason for Voldemort to think that Karkaroff has "left him forever" on principle. He is simply afraid of the punishment that he'll receive at the hands of the DEs as well as Voldemort if he returns. I imagine that Voldemort expected exactly this behavior, particularly if Barty Jr. was keeping tabs on the "Death Eaters who walked free" and passing on his knowledge to Snape. We don't know that Karkaroff is dead, and there's IMO a good likelihood that he'll be caught and punished in Book 6 or 7. He *is* a coward and Snape is not; Voldemort would know that well. And > Lucius Malfoy would not speak highly of Snape to Umbridge (OotP pg. > 745). Which means Snape is the Death Eater, "too cowardly to > return... he will pay." (GoF Scholastic, paperback, pgs. 651-2) > > What else was Dumbledore sending Snape off to do at the end of GoF? Snape paled and even Dumbledore was apprehensive (ibid pg. 713). Again, it seems fairly obvious to me that Snape is about to return to Voldemort and take whatever payment Voldemort will dish out to him. Carol responds: Again, Snape is not a coward and Voldemort would know this from past experience. He also knows that Snape opposed Quirrell's quest for the Sorceror's Stone and he may know from Barty Jr. or Wormtail (who spent quite a bit of time as Scabbers and may have overheard some juicy tidbits) that Snape is Dumbledore's righthand man. He may know of Snape's intention to remain at Hogwarts. So why isn't Snape dead or in hiding? I don't think it's because he played the repentant coward a la Avery and returned to take his punishment. Nor would he have hidden unless he really was as cowardly as Karkaroff. I think that rather than return directly to Voldemort, he went to Lucius Malfoy and explained to him that he couldn't attend the meeting because you can't apparate from Hogwarts or its grounds. Malfoy would then pass on the explanation to Voldemort, who would probably want to see Snape in person and try to detect the lie in his eyes. Snape, being a "superb Occlumens," would pass the test. So Snape was able to conduct his spy activities (I don't think he's a *double* agent) undetected, finding out, exactly as he told Harry, what the Dark Lord is telling his Death Eaters. Snape is skating on thin ice, always at risk of being detected, but as a quintessential Slytherin, he knows exactly how to act in front of Malfoy et al. to avoid arousing their suspicion. But with Malfoy in prison, his job is about to become much harder. At any rate, I also thought the identity of the missing Death Eaters was crystal clear and obvious, but it appears that we're both wrong on that count. Carol, who agrees with most of Betsy's points but snipped them to focus on this one From madettebeau at gmail.com Tue Jan 18 03:30:59 2005 From: madettebeau at gmail.com (madlysarcastic) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:30:59 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122247 > vmonte: > Yes, Lupin has a dangerous and deadly disease. And I will not be > surprised to learn that he may have killed someone in the past while > a werewolf. But his malady has nothing to do with him being a good > teacher or not. > > I truly believe that Snape is "still" a racist and that he > intentionally treats Lupin badly because of what he is. Maddy: I think Snape's treatment of Lupin is twofold. I think that while at Hogwart's he didn't like Lupin because he was friends with James and Sirius. And when he discovered that Lupin disappeared now and then, he became curious. He also may have thought he could get Lupin in trouble and thereby punish all the Marauders. But once he found out that Lupin was a werewolf, it wasn't that he was racist that added to his dislike of Lupin -- it was the fact that he suspected Lupin and his friends broke the rules and got away with it. So he wanted to *use* the prejudices that wizarding society already has against werewolves against Lupin. I have the impression that while maybe Snape was brought up to have the pure-blood prejudice, he did realize at some point that there's no truth to it, but he doesn't/didn't care if it allowed him to have an advantage over others. (I think deep down Snape really does want to be respected and looked up to, but his need for that is expressed in very ineffective ways.) =) Maddy From HP5Freak at aol.com Tue Jan 18 04:00:44 2005 From: HP5Freak at aol.com (HP5Freak at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:00:44 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Sirius related? Was: Re: Half blood prince etym... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122248 In a message dated 1/17/2005 8:52:20 PM Central Standard Time, madettebeau at gmail.com writes: > > > >Tonks: > > > >[slight snip] Mr. Black marries his son off to a pureblood within a > month > >or 2 of the annulment/divorce and she gets PG right away.. and you > >end up with two boys about the same age, from the same father with > >different surnames. > > > >It just might work. > Amberlyn: While I love this theory....(mostly because I was involved in a discussion on it six months ago...)...I have noticed a problem with this current theory... We seem to be associating the bully we see in the memory as Mr. Snape...Severus Snape's stepfather. In the book, this ugly character is described as having a hook nose. While Snape is surely not the only one with a hook nose, we are told often enough he has one...enough times to assume that this is Snape's NATURAL father...so perhaps this is Mr. Black...or maybe Snape's mother was a Black herself....... Just a thought.... Amberlyn [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 04:08:21 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:08:21 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius related? Was: Re: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122249 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "madlysarcastic" wrote: > > > Tonks: > > > > [slight snip] Mr. Black marries his son off to a pureblood within a month or 2 of the annulment/divorce and she gets PG right away.. and you end up with two boys about the same age, from the same father with different surnames. > > > > It just might work. > > Maddy: > > I love where this theory is going...but I've got something to add that has just occured to me. (And please tell me, if I'm letting my > imagination run away with me.) But here it is: Sirius was the last of the Blacks. Sirius is dead. So who does Grimmauld Place fall to? Could it be illitimate-half-brother!Snape?? Ooh...that would certainly bring about some interesting scenes. > Maddy Tonks here: Yes that is were we are all going with this. Except Snape is not an illitimate child. He is the child of a muggle and Sirius' father from his first marrage, short though it was. (of course the woman could have been a mudblood instead of a muggle, but it would be just as bad to the Black family.) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 04:23:59 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:23:59 -0000 Subject: Was Snape spying in OOP? Re: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122250 Alla wrote: > I respectfully refer you to post 118133 by Carolynwhite, which > mentions many previous threads about who Voldie thing meant by three > missing deatheaters and it is not a given at all that Snape is the > one who is too cowardly too return. It is a possibility, but it is > also a possibility that Snape is the one who left forever and will > be killed. > > Consider for a second PS/SS events. Voldie was THERE even though in > Quirrel's body. Wouldn't he notice that Snape is not exactly > faithful to him? Granted, it is not a sure thing, but it is a > possibility, IMO. > > Consider Dumbledore's testimony and "he is now no more DE than I > am". Could it be that from many people present at the hearing some > sympathized DE and tipped them of and don't forget that dear Rita > Skeeter was present there. I am pretty sure that she published > Dumbledore's testimony. > Carol responds: As I indicated in another post, I agree with you that Snape is probably "the one I [Voldemort] believe has left me forever" rather than the coward, which fits Karkaroff rather than Snape. But Snape's status as a former DE is *not* well known in the WW and his name was not published along with those of Malfoy, Nott, etc. It seems that his status as a spy and Dumbledore's testimony that "he is now no more a Death Eather than I am" somehow protected him from exposure. At any rate, Rita Skeeter was *not* present at Karkaroff's hearing, which was apparently closed to the press and the public (only members of the Wizengamot were present, IIRC). Karkaroff's testimony had to be secret to protect his status as informant. You're thinking of Ludo Bagman's hearing, which was apparently widely publicized because of his status as a favorite WW athlete. Snape would not be safe from Rita if she knew his background; a former DE teaching at Hogwarts would make a much bigger story than Hermione supposedly breaking Harry's heart. Note that Rita is eavesdropping at the Yule Ball (OoP Am. ed. 427) and picks up on Hagrid's conversation with Madame Maxime but not on the implications of Snape's conversation with Karkaroff. And when the Daily Prophet criticizes Dumbledore's hiring practices (a half-giant, a werewolf, and a deluded ex-auror are mentioned), Snape is not on the list. As I've said before, if Snape's DE past had been publicized, three quarters of the parents would bombard Dumbledore with letters demanding his resignation. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 04:30:50 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 04:30:50 -0000 Subject: blood magic spells In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122251 Luckdragon: > With all the talk of Harry's scar actually being a rune symbol I > came across an interesting site (Ancient History presents blood > magic) which explains many types of blood magic that provides > answers to both Harry's scar and what rituals Voldemort may have > used to change his being. > > There is a blood oath which requires the voluntary sacrafice of life > and the marking of another with a runic symbol which could pertain > to Harry and lily. > > There are also explanations as to how sacrificing small amounts f > life force can enhance magical ability. Many of the spells listed > would explain what has changed Tom Riddle to Voldemort including > changes in physical appearance ie) glowing eyes, purlescent skin, > serpentine eyes etc. Attempts to become an astral being which would > enhance powers or resurrection and death cheat spells. > > It is definitely worth reading. Carol responds: That sounds as if it would fit nicely with the eihwaz rune/protective charm theory, which I didn't originate but have embellished a bit and find intriguing. I can't even remember which poster here first proposed it, but I've never thought that Lily's sacrifice in itself was sufficient to save Harry. (Maybe she'll speak up and remind me?) At any rate, the site sounds helpful. Can you give us the URL? Thanks, Carol From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Tue Jan 18 04:42:49 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:42:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: blood magic spells In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050118044250.88882.qmail@web52007.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122252 justcarol67 wrote: Luckdragon: > With all the talk of Harry's scar actually being a rune symbol I > came across an interesting site (Ancient History presents blood > magic) which explains many types of blood magic that provides > answers to both Harry's scar and what rituals Voldemort may have > used to change his being. > > There is a blood oath which requires the voluntary sacrafice of life > and the marking of another with a runic symbol which could pertain > to Harry and lily. > > There are also explanations as to how sacrificing small amounts f > life force can enhance magical ability. Many of the spells listed > would explain what has changed Tom Riddle to Voldemort including > changes in physical appearance ie) glowing eyes, purlescent skin, > serpentine eyes etc. Attempts to become an astral being which would > enhance powers or resurrection and death cheat spells. > > It is definitely worth reading. Carol responds: That sounds as if it would fit nicely with the eihwaz rune/protective charm theory, which I didn't originate but have embellished a bit and find intriguing. I can't even remember which poster here first proposed it, but I've never thought that Lily's sacrifice in itself was sufficient to save Harry. (Maybe she'll speak up and remind me?) At any rate, the site sounds helpful. Can you give us the URL? Thanks, Carol Luckdragon: http://ancientfiles.dumpshock.com/Blood.html 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 caseylane at wideopenwest.com Tue Jan 18 05:08:47 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:08:47 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122253 Nicky Joe: I like him mostly because he was trying hard to fight his upbringing and to become the sort of person that James would respect - the sort of person that he thought James was. Casey: I never got that. I saw a Black that encouraged James' worst traits, not one that tried to improve himself for him. Is there a scene I missed that showed Black trying to make himself better for James? Nicky Joe: Yes, he had plenty of nasty in him, but he knew right from wrong and he tried to take the correct path when it was most important. Sure he was vicious and petty over trivial things, but he would have died for James and for Harry and he would NEVER have gone over to Voldemort the way Wormtail did. Casey: Trivial? He tried to murder a classmate and used a friend as the weapon of death. That doesn't sound, to me, like he knew right from wrong. Or didn't care if he did. Nicky Joe: And let's face it, I wanted a father figure for Harry, even a flawed one. Casey: So, it was the *potential* to be a father figure that makes you like him, even if he actually wasn't much of one. I'm just trying to understand why people actually like him and want him to come back. I just don't understand the attraction. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 18 05:30:30 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:30:30 -0000 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122254 > Kemper wrote: So when the AK is cast against Harry, it rebounds back to LV because Lily is dead, and a part of Lily, through her charm, is in Harry. > > But then, why didn't LV die? I don't know, but I'm thinking about it. > Valky to Kemper: Like Carol and others, I think your theory makes for spine-tingling story telling. As well as that, I am really beginning to believe the graveyard ressurrection potion reveals something to us. So as far as I am concerned you are on the right track there. > Carol responds: > I've also been arguing for a protective charm placed on Baby!Harry, > but your version gives me shivers. Also, we have indications that Lily was good with Charms but nothing has been said about her and potions. Still, a potion combined with an incantation does sound like a form of "ancient magic" so I'm certainly not ruling it out. > Valky to Carol: Hi sorry for the late reply Carol, it seems that this thread is getting close to the mark going by all the interest, don't you think. ;D Like I said I am entirely dead certain that Lily's brilliance in Charmwork relates to what she did in Godrics Hollow that night to protect Harry. The most interesting Charm spell we have been shown to date is the Fidelius, but I wonder how it is performed, is it placed on the Secret Keeper or on the Secret or both? The reason I ask is that the Protean Charm that Hermione uses on the DA (Newt Level BTW, it is advanced to affect people with charms) charms the object and it affects the people that sign 'to the object.' I wonder does the Secret keeper have to sign to something, too? Basically what I am reaching for is that Charms seem to be placed on something rather than someone, and there does seem a need for an agreement to be made on that object. So say that Lily placed the Charm on her blood, that it be spilled to protect itself where ever else it is. The Voldemort would have to agree to that. I think "No not Harry, take me instead" says Lily. "O.K. Foolish woman, if you insist I will kill you." say Voldie will suffice. The contract is made. Now if Voldemort spills Lily's blood he cannot spill it again because he has agreed under a Charm spell on it. Having said all that there is still the matter of the mark on Harrys head and the result on Voldemort to disentangle. Carol worte: > Here's my version, combining my theories and Kempers and attempting to answer the question about Voldemort: > > Lily places an elaborate Protego (shield charm) on Baby Harry, perhaps involving an incantation like the one Kemper hypothesized (as opposed to the mere name of the spell), and, using her finger, marks Harry's forehead with an (defense) eihwaz rune, The Protego deflects the AK onto Voldemort, who is not killed because of the protections he put on himself (even he doesn't know which "experiments" made him immortal, but something did. While the wound is open, some of Voldemort's powers and possibly some of his anger enters into Harry. Harry, marked as Voldemort's equal by the very scar that symbolizes his protection, now possesses some of the same powers in latent form.) Valky: Ok. now heres my version incorporating the parts I personally believe stand out in Carol and Kempers and other posts. Lily seals her blood with a Charm, her last line of defence for her son she decides to use when her beloved husband dies and she realises that she and Harry are alone. She probably spills her own blood to do this, and most likely she gives Harry some ceremonial gift of her blood, like the baptism that Carol suggested. Voldemort enters the room and tells her to stand aside, why I don't really know but somehow, she expects him to because this is her means of activating the Charm. because he has given her the chance to live she is in a position to offer her blood as a sacrifice for Harry. Voldemort thinks nothing of it because it seems foolish and pointless to him that she let herself die, so he says "OK you're an idiot, by the way I am going to kill your son anyway." _insert high cold laughter_ and AK's Lily. Like the members of the DA under Hermione's spell Voldemort has no idea what he just signed to so he tries to AK Harry. Who's the idiot now? He cannot spill Lily's blood a second time so the AK fails, but Voldemort has summoned the fiercest of his hatred to perform this curse, he wants all trace of this threat to his dominion obliterated, its big heavy and powerful. It touches Harry and bang it becomes a curse on Voldemort due to the charm. Much in the way the Protean was activated. Voldemort thinks he is dying, but he's not about to go out without a fight, like a hot air balloon going down he starts offloading weight to keep himself alive, including Tom Riddle and all his powers. But the curse keeps coming at its target The betrayer, until nothing is left but a ugly creature. Stupid Voldemort again, Lily is no killer, her charm was never going to kill him, but it did incite the reaction to be expected of him. As DD says "Naturally" he threw everything he could spare at the charms wrath. His powers, his former self, whatever was left of his innocence. The only power he had left was his ability to possess the bodies of others. (BTW Is this a clue that Tom had allowed himself to be possessed by an entity of evil in his experiments?) So what does that all have to do with Runes? Ok here's the part you've probably skipped to. First I noted a couple of interesting posts from Gerry Gerry wrote: the scar is described as a lightning bolt. And that would mean the sowulo rune, and not the eihwaz. and in another post Gerry also wrote: But if we want to speculate about the scar as a rune (which is fun), I think it important we use the right rune. These are good points so I had a look at some Runic Alphabets. The sowulo rune corresponds to the letter S: In terms of LV that could mean. 1. The sound of a Snake hissing... Parseltongue. 2. the Name Slytherin 3. It also looks like a snake. It means Sun when it is in its original position, a blessing. It cannot be reversed, but can a appear in opposition. Now I think that this is the one question we really need to consider about Runes. When Hermione mentions the Eiwahz Rune, are we supposed to associate it with a lightning bolt? It only looks a *little* like one. OTOH it is symbolic of the Yew tree, which we should all be aware by now is the wood of Voldemorts wand. Are we being given a clue about Voldemorts wand vs Harry's wand instead ? The Holly Tree Rune is Ur and it indicates untapped potential and physical strength. More on runes - it is the Algiz that is specifically used to indicate shield, it is like a Y with a vertical line in the top, the first meaning given eiwahz, by Hermione, in OOtP is defence but eiwahz also means having a sense of purpose. It is likely we are going to be able to apply a study in runes to the events in the books. As Carol points out the mention of it by Hermione almost 100% qualifies it as a clue. And since it's about all we have on runes it must apply to something we are already seeing in detail, which does lead to the scar. If Harry is scarred with eiwahz, though, does it mean he's wearing a mark of defense as per the meaning of the eiwahz, or does it mean he's marked by the Yew tree and therefore death? OTOH if he's not scarred with the eiwahz at all what exactly does the scar mean, and what else could the eiwahz apply to? The other things we know about the scar other than shape are that it is on Harry's head, it wasn't caused by the AK because AK leaves no scar , that Harry got it when he got Voldemorts powers and Voldemort was reduced to nothing, and finally that he is connected to Voldemort either through it or by means of something that relates to it. All in all I am no closer than ever before, but that could be my own fault because, in the past year we have all, I think, gotten *too* close to the right answers, and I don't want to spoil the ending for myself. I might be sabotaging, I don't know. :D Valky From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 06:55:16 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:55:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122255 "horridporrid03" wrote: > Maybe because Harry wasn't trying? He never > did the homework Snape assigned. Of course > he didn't lean anything. It must be more than that, Harry didn't need to do homework to master the Imperious Curse and according to Snape that's very similar to Occlumency. Even some very formidable characters, like the real Moody and Crouch Junior and Senior, find it very difficult to resist the Imperius Curse, it seems to take them years of effort to even win even a partial victory. Yet Harry learned how to throw it off completely in just a few minutes in his very first lesson. There must be a reason he couldn't do the same with Occlumency and I think that reason is Snape. > Hell yeah, Harry was wrong. You read my > private journal and I'd throw a jar of > cockroaches at you myself. Harry had every right to look at the Pensive because Snape was not fighting fair. Snape was an adult and a skilled professor of magic and yet he took the precaution of removing his most embarrassing memories before they started to probe each others minds. Snape did NOT give Harry, who was just a school boy, the same opportunity and in fact when he found something humiliating, like the incident of the dog chasing him up a tree, rubbed Harry's nose in it. That seems cowardly to me. It's like the heavyweight boxing champion of the world putting on protective padding before fighting a little boy while the kid gets nothing. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 07:09:40 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:09:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122256 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > I don't see any difference in the way > he teaches Occlumency compared to the > way he teaches potions. Everyone says that in order to learn Occlumency you must have a calm mind but just before each lesson starts Snape never forgets to do something to make Harry absolutely furious; a poor teaching method for this subject to say the least. > nowhere we see that he [Harry] feels > remorse or even guilt about violating > another persons privacy on purpose. > Going back after a few days to say he > was terribly wrong really would > have shown character. Well perhaps he should apologize, right after Snape first apologizes to Harry for violating privacy on purpose. At least when Harry found out something embarrassing about Snape he didn't make fun of him, unlike what Snape did when he found embarrassing things in Harry's mind. Eggplant From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 18 07:54:00 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:54:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122257 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: Gerry: > What really, really bothers me in Harry > is that he never, ever, even considers going back to Snape to > apologize. He feels sorry for young Snape, is disillusioned about his > dad, but nowhere we see that he feels remorse or even guilt about > violating another persons privacy on purpose. Going back after a few > days to say he was terribly wrong really would have shown character. > But he prefers being ignored in potions class, the easy way out. Geoff: I tried to find a reply I wrote on this very matter months ago when the topic cropped up previously but I'll have to say roughly the same thing again. Is Harry /really/ going to risk going back to Snape even to try to apologise? Is he going to risk the sneering, humiliation, sarcasm and unfairness which has been directed at him for the previous four and a half years or so? Can you see Snape smiling and clapping Harry on the shoulder and saying "Thanks, Potter, I appreciate that"? He has got too many hangups of his own to be able to handle it in a way which would heal the breach between them. I believe that if there is going to be any sort of rapprochment between them, it will have to start from Snape's end. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Jan 18 08:25:53 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:25:53 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122258 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Renee: > That James is dead is precisely the problem, I think. Snape is > furious at James for being dead: now he'll never get the better of > him. Maybe that's why he's constantly provoking and goading Harry, > deliberately antagonising him so he'll eventually be a worthy > substitute for James. He'll either be in for a disappointment if > Harry takes the moral high-road, or for a nasty surprise when Harry > turns out to be the more capable wizard. > > > Alla: > > Quite possible, Renee, quite possible. Do you think it is also > connected with impossibility to pay life debt on Snape's part? It > was debated many times what kind of bond is created. Do you think it > is possible that untill you repay the debt, you will physically > suffer? > Renee: Well, I don't know about physical, but it seems likely he's suffering mentally. > > And yes, I know that Harry will take moral high road eventually, but > I would LOVE to see a nasty surprise for Snape, at least for a > little while. Renee: Personally, I hope we'll get both! From trekkie at stofanet.dk Tue Jan 18 11:43:20 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:43:20 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) References: Message-ID: <008801c4fd52$e8cab1c0$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122259 ----- Original Message ----- From: "justcarol67" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:20 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) >> And I think it *is* a given that Snape does go back to Voldemort. > In GoF, Voldemort lists three missing Death Eaters. We know that one > is Crouch, Jr., one is Karkaroff, and one is Snape. Voldemort calls > one his "most faithful servant [...] He is at Hogwarts, that faithful > servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived >> here tonight..." Obviously - this is Crouch, Jr. Do we know for sure that Snape was actually missing from that meeting?! ~TrekkieGrrrl From trekkie at stofanet.dk Tue Jan 18 11:55:46 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:55:46 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) References: Message-ID: <00a001c4fd54$a5b41820$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122260 >> "horridporrid03" wrote: > >> Maybe because Harry wasn't trying? He never >> did the homework Snape assigned. Of course >> he didn't lean anything. > >Eggplant: > It must be more than that, Harry didn't need to do homework to > master the Imperious Curse and according to Snape that's very > similar to Occlumency. Even some very formidable characters, like > the real Moody and Crouch Junior and Senior, find it very difficult > to resist the Imperius Curse, it seems to take them years of effort > to even win even a partial victory. Yet Harry learned how to throw > it off completely in just a few minutes in his very first lesson. > There must be a reason he couldn't do the same with Occlumency and I > think that reason is Snape. Or perhaps Snape though that you used the same means as when you resisted the imperipous curse, so he believed that Harry would *know* how to do it, by using the same method - only it didn't work because Harry didn't *want* to work with Snape? > >> Hell yeah, Harry was wrong. You read my >> private journal and I'd throw a jar of >> cockroaches at you myself. > > Harry had every right to look at the Pensive because Snape was not > fighting fair. Snape was an adult and a skilled professor of magic > and yet he took the precaution of removing his most embarrassing > memories before they started to probe each others minds. Snape did > NOT give Harry, who was just a school boy, the same opportunity and > in fact when he found something humiliating, like the incident of > the dog chasing him up a tree, rubbed Harry's nose in it. That seems > cowardly to me. It's like the heavyweight boxing champion of the > world putting on protective padding before fighting a little boy > while the kid gets nothing. Since when has two wrongs equalled one right? Just because Snape did something wrong it doesn't entitle Harry to do something wrong (or worse) to Snape. It would be the same as to suggest that if you steal my purse, it's ok that I steal your car? Or break into your house? Exactely the point that Snape removed that memory was the very reason why Harry was *not* entitled to see it. And I just can't see that the dog chasing Harry up a tree can be likened with Severus being humiliated and stripped(?) in front of the whole school just because the Marauders were bored. As a matter of fact, Snape could have chosen to show Harry that memory to prove that James was a beast. ~TrekkieGrrrl who is still an avid Snape supporter. From easimm at yahoo.com Mon Jan 17 22:01:27 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:01:27 -0000 Subject: Must Harry Die? Answer in SS/PS? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122261 bboyminn: > "...either must die at the hand of the other..." > > True that's simple and straight forward enough, BUT... > > "...for neither can live while the other survives..." Tonks_op wrote: > But somehow in whatever was done to Harry by the "ancient magic" and > Lily's sacrifice, Harry will, I think, somehow survive death. He > will die, LV will die with him and Harry will come back, like I have > said before. Even if this is not what happens, LV's end has > something to do with what happened at GH that night or even before > that night. I think your theory is really interesting, but I found what might be a simpler answer to the question. I just happened to open up SS/PS to the chapter "Through the Trapdoor", which starts off saying, "In years to come, Harry would never quite remember how he had managed to get through his exams when he half expected Voldemort to come bursting through the door at any moment." Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part, but the fact that Harry will come to a time in which he will have the luxury to let his memory stray to his first year at Hogwarts, indicates to me that he will be alive for at least several years after he has finished with Hogwarts. My own experience is that I didn't wonder how I survived the things I went through while at school until at least 5 years after all of my formal schooling was over. -snorky From deeblegirl at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 01:20:03 2005 From: deeblegirl at yahoo.com (deeblegirl) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:20:03 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122262 Everyone's made a lot of interesting points about what degree of horribleness Snape exhibits. I'd like to point out a few more bits of canon that shed some light on his character. For instance, OotP, Chapter 32: ------------------------------------- "You wanted to see me, Headmistress?" said Snape, looking around at all the pairs of struggling students with an expression of complete indifference. "Ah, Professor Snape," said Umbridge, smiling widely and standing up again. "Yes, I would like another bottle of Veritaserum, as quick as you can, please." "You took my last bottle to interrogate Potter," he said, surveying her coolly through his greasy curtains of black hair. "Surely you did not use it all? I told you that three drops would be sufficient." [snipping Umbridge's increasingly rude attempts to get a truth-telling potion from the Potions Master] "I have already told you," said Snape smoothly, "that I have no further stocks of Veritaserum. Unless you wish to poison Potter -- and I assure you I would have the greatest sympathy with you if you did -- I cannot help you. The only trouble is that most venoms act too fast to give the victim much time for truth-telling...." [snipping Harry's attempts to get his message across] "I have no idea," said Snape coldly. "Potter, when I want nonsense shouted at me I shall give you a Babbling Beverage. And Crabbe, loosen your hold a little, if Longbottom suffocates it will mean a lot of tedious paperwork, and I am afraid I shall have to mention it on your reference if ever you apply for a job." *** Back to Deeble: Now, how many people think Snape had no more Veritaserum in his stores? Anybody? Bueller? This is a masterwork of misdirection ("You took my last bottle") and subtle attempts to help disguised as sarcasm. In fact, it's only by cloaking everything he's said with an air of "complete indifference" that he could hope to deal with the situation without appearing to be a Dumbledore loyalist. As it is, he's still accused of being purposely unhelpful. It's particularly noteworthy, I think, that he took the time to ensure that Neville would get through this situation when all appearances would suggest that he thinks the boy is a waste of oxygen. Part of what makes Snape so intriguing is that you get the feeling that you need to listen to what he's not saying every time he opens his mouth. Also, I think we're given a good reason to believe that the teaching staff considers Snape to be One of Them. Just take a look at CoS, Chapter 16, one of the few times we see Snape when he doesn't know he's on Harryvision: ---------------------------- Snape stepped forward. "Just the man," he said. "The very man. A girl has been snatched by the monster, Lockhart. Taken into the Chamber of Secrets itself. Your moment has come at last." Lockhart blanched. "That's right, Gilderoy," chipped in Professor Sprout. "Weren't you saying just last night that you've known all along where the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets is?" "I -- well, I--" sputtered Lockhart. "Yes, didn't you tell me you were sure you knew what was inside it?" piped up Professor Flitwick. "D-did I? I don't recall--" "I certainly remember you saying you were sorry you hadn't had a crack at the monster before Hagrid was arrested," said Snape. "Didn't you say that the whole affair had been bungled, and that you should have been given a free rein from the first?" [snipping more Lockhart bashing, ending with Lockhart leaving] "Right," said Professor McGonagall, whose nostrils were flared, "that's got him out from under our feet." *** Perhaps the best clue we get that Snape and McGonagall are friends of at least the bickering sort is his reaction when she returns from the hospital in OotP. "Professor McGonagall!" said Snape, striding forward. "Out of St. Mungo's, I see!" This is unusual for him -- the man who speaks softly unless he's worked up about something deems her worthy of two exclamation points. And he strides toward her, no less. AND he offers nothing more biting than a "oh -- well -- I suppose ..." when she suggests that Harry and company deserve 50 points apiece. It would be difficult enough to see the true Snape through, say, McGonagall's eyes. It's impossible to see him through Harry's. Cheers, Deeble From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Tue Jan 18 12:21:29 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:21:29 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7B346669-694B-11D9-BC66-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 122263 On Tuesday, January 18, 2005, at 05:55 pm, eggplant9998 wrote: > Harry had every right to look at the Pensive because Snape was not > fighting fair. Egglant, this is not a morally valid reason. Harry's only excuse for violating the privacy of another human being in this way is that he is a child and he gave in to temptation. When he is a man we expect that he will know better, and have stronger moral fibre. Furthermore, it is my belief that the way we fight reveals whether our morals are truly part of ourselves, or merely a glove we slip on and off at will. We can never claim the moral high ground unless we hold OURSELVES to the highest standards, whatever provocation we may feel is offered to us. Moral behaviour is not about what they did to us, it's about what we do to them. Jocelyn From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 02:05:12 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:05:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Rune symbol on forehead (was His Mother's eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050118020512.30968.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122264 > > Juli earlier: > > > > But if it is truly a rune why hasn't anybody > noticed it? Even > Hermione knows runes, she's taken that course, and > she can't recognize > a simple rune? I don't think so. What if it is just > a scar shaped like > a lighting bolt? > > Carol responds: > Part of the basis for this theory is Hermione's > specific reference to > the eihwaz rune, which she confused with ehwaz. I > don't think JKR > would have thrown in that detail for no reason. Juli again: I hadn't thought of that, she's used to see Harry's lightbolt-shaped scar, so she can't see the eihwaz. > And also, of course, > the defense rune fits with the Protego spell, which > I'm speculating > was modified and strengthened in some way using > "ancient magic." Juli: I definitively agree on this, I'm pretty sure that Lily (and possibly also James and Sirius) did some additional protective spells for Harry. I keep thinking of Harry's christening. I am a catholic, and as I see it, when a child is christened he is welcomed into the religion and protected against evils. Maybe the christening in the WW is even more complex and the protection is more literal than methaphorical. I really don't know a lot about runes though I have studied them, but they seem kind of opposite, I mean Runes are from a specific region (which I forgot right now), and spells or magic seems to be more universal. Juli __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jessz31 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 05:22:52 2005 From: jessz31 at yahoo.com (Jessica) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:22:52 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122265 Casey: I'm just trying to understand why people actually like him and want him to come back. I just don't understand the attraction. Jessica: The reason I like Sirius was mainly because of Harry. You have to understand that Harry has never had anyone in his life that he could potentially feel love for. I think Sirius was the one to let Harry feel that. And when he was taken from him, it was just such a sad moment for Harry. From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 13:02:13 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:02:13 -0000 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122266 > Valky to Carol: Hi sorry for the late reply Carol, it seems that this thread is getting close to the mark going by all the interest, don't you think. ;D Like I said I am entirely dead certain that Lily's brilliance in Charmwork relates to what she did in Godrics Hollow that night to protect Harry. The most interesting Charm spell we have been shown to date is the Fidelius, but I wonder how it is performed, is it placed on the Secret Keeper or on the Secret or both? The reason I ask is that the Protean Charm that Hermione uses on the DA (Newt Level BTW, it is advanced to affect people with charms) charms the object and it affects the people that sign 'to the object.' I wonder does the Secret keeper have to sign to something, too? vmonte responds: This is very interesting. I had to do some research on Runes so that I could join in on your discussion. I wanted to add another thought to your posts. Several months ago a poster named Jen Reese came up with a theory regarding Sirius's induction as Harry's Godfather. She described a baptism/contract that bonded Sirius to Harry forever. Do you think it is possible that it was during this ceremony that the sowulo rune was applied to Harry's head? In Christian ceremonies the sign of the cross is made on the child's forehead with holy water, perhaps this is when Harry's protection was applied. I've attached some great links below. http://www.gobiel.com/sonsofruss/runes/sowulo.jpg http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/ http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/meanings.html "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." vmonte again: Doesn't the above quote sound like something Firenze would say? Also, when we first meet Luna on the Hogwarts Express she is reading an article on Rune divination. Do you think it will be with her help that Harry disregards Trelawny's prophecy to begin charting his own way? Vivian From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 13:08:54 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:08:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122268 > Alla: > > I beg to differ, Pippin. Harry does reach such conclusion, more than > once. He does not generalise it, but in each of the following > instances he does question Snape's teaching ability, IMO. > > "With Snape absent from the proceedings he found that he was much > more relaxed than he usually was while making potions. Neville, who > was sitting very near Harry, also looked happier than Harry had ever > seen him during a Potions class" - OOP, p.716. > > We also Have Harry's "I am trying,... but you are not telling me > how" - OOP, p.535, which as you recently agreed is quite a > legitimate complaint against Snape's teaching style. > > Oh and in PoA before their boggart lesson ,when Snape so "kindly" > puts Neville down before lesson starts: > > "Neville went scarlet. Harry glared at Snape; it was bad enough that > he bullied Neville in his own classes, let alone doing it in front > of other teachers" -PoA, p.132, paperback, amer.edition. > > So, I'd say Harry has plenty negative thoughts about Snape's > teaching style. Finwitch: Good point. I just like to add (for Betsy), that Harry *did* try to practice. (I don't have the book with me, but...) He tried to clear his mind of all emotion, but found himself focusing on how much he loathed the pair of them (Snape & Umbridge) instead. Later, Harry uses the excuse: Couldn't have done it even if he had tried. We *do* have one case where his excuse happened. Maybe it's not an excuse, maybe it's just the truth of it: Harry's unable to clear mind of all emotion. I can tell of a personal experience, having trouble to get sleep in the evenings. I tried to calm myself by reading an encyclopedia or a dictionary - (most boring thing I could think of) but I just found myself getting exited about all that information and words instead of getting bored and getting some sleep. On top of that, poor Harry has the additional problems of being 15 (and therefore subject to hormonal disblance & extreme emotions), having a death-threat over his head, being seriously mistreated by two adults who are his teachers, considered a liar and/or a lunatic by most wizards, worry that the only adult he trusts (but most of the wizarding world considers a murderer) of getting caught, having his mind attacked several times... You know, with all that, I'm surprised that Harry managed to learn *anything* at all that year. (did he?) Finwitch From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Tue Jan 18 13:21:06 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:21:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501180821559.SM00788@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 122269 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > > The real thing that sticks in my craw about Severus is that he > *still* treats Harry horribly when they are alone, even when he > *knows* Harry truly IS a hero, and when he knows Harry is > smart enough not to go blabbing to others that SS is really a > good guy. I think that adds up to SS being mean, petty, > vindictive, and unforgiving, but also to his being broken > from something that happened a long time ago that he cannot > forget or let go. > (Snip> > > Vivamus > > > Tonks here: > 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. It is only > because he is the prophesy child that he is told anything. > Second Snape is a spy and this is not a game. This is serious > and dangerous work that Snape is doing. > Why should he let down his guard for some kid who will first > blab to his friends and Snape knows who else!!! Snape is not > stupid you know. Even WE know that he will tell Ron and > Hermione!! And even if he doesn't he will start acting > differently toward Snape. There will not be the same amount > of hatred in his eyes and someone will notice. > > Also just because we think that Snape is on the side of DD > and the good does not mean that his basic personally is > suddenly altered. > He is a flawed human being and will continue to be. I think > that, as I have said before, that JKR is showing us that > anyone can join in the fight against good and evil and be on > the side of the good. > Even people with very nasty personalities like Snape. > > And I know this was kind of a Snapish post. ;-) Tonks_op Vivamus: I completely agree with most of what you are saying, Tonks. IF SS is indeed a spy, which seems very strange given the DD testimony about him at a *public* trial, but seems to be suggested by SS telling Harry, "yes, that is my job," then he must put up a horrible front to Harry and the Gryffindors to be convincing. Certainly he is a flawed human being, and I also agree that JKR is showing us that "bad" people can still make right choices, and fight against evil. (I think, however, she is also showing us that "good" people can make wrong choices -- as in the Prank, in Dobby's "help" of Harry, in Hermione's "help" of Harry and others, etc. In HBP, I suspect that Harry will do something very bad, as (I think) mooseming suggested, partly to *show* this muddling between who we are and the choices we still have ahead of us.) Where we differ is that SS is clearly not just acting. He may have an excuse for acting hatefully towards Harry, but he also does hate Harry, and he takes every opportunity to vent his feelings on him, in a very childish way -- whether Slytherins are present or not. We've had hints as to why, but we don't really know, yet. Even with his need to be convincing as a spy, he is still mean, petty, and vindictive. If the guess about past brokenness is correct, and his feelings towards Harry have something to do with Lily, then he is also unforgiving. I guess the fundamental difference is one of ethics. This is war, and we are talking about the defeat of LV, which does, I think, justify some extraordinary measures. At what point, however, can tormenting children be said to be justifiable because "the end justifies the means"? I have a hard time excusing his behavior when he is clearly taking sadistic pleasure from being nasty to the Gryffindors. He has become Neville's worst nightmare. We do agree that he is fighting on the good guys' side, and that he is a sad, unhappy, "very nasty" character. My guess is that this is why DD has never let him have the DA job -- he really *is* a nasty man, and that would give him too much license to vent his unpleasantness on the students. I'm expecting that, at some point in the future (probably not until after SS has died to save Harry), someone (DD, or maybe Lupin) will tell Harry that SS *had* to be that nasty to him, to be convincing to the DE kids. Harry will also find out about SS's love for Lily, and his attempt to save them from LV in the first place, but again, only after SS is dead. It will leave Harry with an emotional burden of such magnitude that he will never be free from it -- and what a wonderful plot device! He *can't* forgive SS, because he was a mean, nasty, vindictive man (and none of that was an act), but he *has* to forgive SS, because SS died to save him, tried to save him from LV in the first place, and had a (partial) justification for his behavior towards Harry all these years. If I'm right about that, I think it will be pointing up to one of the better-designed coming-of-age plots in literature. Vivamus, who is an act-deontologist. Snickersqueak, however, disagrees, and points out that there are no ethics in a perfect universe, only cats, cat-toys, and attendants. (He also wants to know why I haven't corrected the universe's dog problem yet.) From elsyee_h at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 13:27:23 2005 From: elsyee_h at yahoo.com (Tammy) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:27:23 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <008801c4fd52$e8cab1c0$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122270 > >Carol wrote: > >> And I think it *is* a given that Snape does go back to Voldemort. > > In GoF, Voldemort lists three missing Death Eaters. We know that one > > is Crouch, Jr., one is Karkaroff, and one is Snape. Voldemort calls > > one his "most faithful servant [...] He is at Hogwarts, that faithful > > servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived > >> here tonight..." Obviously - this is Crouch, Jr. >TrekkieGrrrl replied: > Do we know for sure that Snape was actually missing from that meeting?! > Tammy: Personally I don't believe Snape was at the graveyard, but I love to argue to point that he COULD have been there... so here's my version of how it could have happened: Snape could have been one of the DE's at the graveyard. There is approximately one hour missing from the time Harry leaves by portkey and arrives by portkey. If you presume that Dumbledore suspected something of this magnitude (which he had to, given that Kararoff and Snape's marks were getting darker), then he probably set up arrangements with Snape to get him quickly outside of Hogwarts in case he would need to go to be at Voldemort's side, merely to protect Harry. You've got to figure that the judges knew rather quickly that Harry and Cedric were missing. I'm sure they could see through the maze somehow or over the maze, in order to be able to judge the competition. Even if not, they probably had a spell of some sort on the cup so they would know the moment someone touched it. So Snape would have known Harry was missing shortly after Harry was zapped to Voldemort. It took a bit for Voldemort to kill Cedric (okay, Wormtail), gloat, and be restored. Beyond that, it took a few minutes before the DE's started to appear. Thus, we could say about 15 minutes or so between Harry disappearing and the DEs showing up. We know that Hogwarts is bordered on one side by the Forbidden Forest. The forest is next to the Quidditch field (read PoA to see that). And according to JKR's drawing, the Quidditch field is near the gates as well. Thus Snape had plenty of time to get through the forest (hey, he's a DADA master too! Stuff in that forest would be child's play for him) or the gate to a place where he could apparate to wherever Voldemort called him. Even if you presume that he only figured it out once the mark started to burn, it says that it took several minutes for the DEs to appear. Snape could have conjured up a robe and mask instantly (I'm presuming the DEs don't carry it on them all the time, so they probably just conjure one up each time), and still had time to run through the forest or the gate to a place where he could apparate. Voldemort did pass some DEs in silence, Snape could have been one of those. I also find it rather hard to believe that a 4th year could escape from Voldemort and at least 7 Death Eaters (he names 7, and passes others in silence so I'm guessing an even dozen) without some help. True, they were stunned, but I think Snape could have been there and doing a spell or two to ensure that Harry got away. Of course he could also truly have been on Voldemort's side and wanted to see the little prat die :P There was also a period of time after Harry returned where we don't see Snape (not until they burst into Moody/Crouch Jr.'s office). That also gave plenty of time for Snape to get back to Hogwarts, virtually unnoticed. And if you remember, when Harry and Dumbledore are trying to convince Fudge that what Harry saw was real, Harry starts naming names. When Harry first starts, it says this about Snape: "Snape made a sudden movement, but as Harry looked at him, Snape's eyes flew back to Fudge." Now it could be that reaction was simply because his "friend" Lucius had just been named. Or it could have been that Snape was afraid that Harry had recognized Snape in the graveyard. And that's my theory. I'm not fully convinced myself that it's the right answer, but I definitely like it as a possibility. -Tammy, who likes to open possibilities. From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 13:36:31 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:36:31 -0000 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122271 Valky wrote: As DD says "Naturally" he threw everything he could spare at the charms wrath. His powers, his former self, whatever was left of his innocence. The only power he had left was his ability to possess the bodies of others. (BTW Is this a clue that Tom had allowed himself to be possessed by an entity of evil in his experiments?) So what does that all have to do with Runes? Ok here's the part you've probably skipped to. First I noted a couple of interesting posts from Gerry Gerry wrote: the scar is described as a lightning bolt. And that would mean the sowulo rune, and not the eihwaz. The sowulo rune corresponds to the letter S: In terms of LV that could mean. 1. The sound of a Snake hissing... Parseltongue. 2. the Name Slytherin 3. It also looks like a snake. vmonte responds: Valky, was it you that mentioned that perhaps Voldemort made his own contract with an evil entity that sealed his own immortality? This actually could turn out to be Voldemort's greatest mistake. What is the relationship between Voldemort and the dementors anyway? Didn't JKR recently tell a fan that perhaps Harry might receive another kiss in the near future? What if it's not the kiss of a girl, but a dementor's kiss. Maybe the dementors are attracted to Harry because of what Harry has inside of him (Tom Riddle?). Is it possible that the dementors are trying to get rid of the hold Voldemort has over them? Is it possible that Harry will need to almost die in order to get rid of what is inside of him? Will Snape put a stopper on his death? What if the dementors are actually the left over remnants/discarded soulless shells of the people that the evil entity has used throughout time. (Could it be SS?) vmonte From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 18 13:43:00 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:43:00 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122272 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Again, Snape is not a coward and Voldemort would know this from past experience. He also knows that Snape opposed Quirrell's quest for the Sorceror's Stone and he may know from Barty Jr. or Wormtail (who spent quite a bit of time as Scabbers and may have overheard some juicy tidbits) that Snape is Dumbledore's righthand man. He may know of Snape's intention to remain at Hogwarts. So why isn't Snape dead or in hiding? I don't think it's because he played the repentant coward a la Avery and returned to take his punishment. Nor would he have hidden unless he really was as cowardly as Karkaroff. > Valky: No you are quite right Carol. After PS/SS, the most likely scenario is that Snape is the one who Voldie said he *believed* has left him forever, notice his uncertainty. Quirrel in PS/SS says that Snape "seems the type" to be in his position aiding LV to resurrect. So if, to Quirrel, Sevvie seemed the type, then most likely he also did seem likewise to Vapomort. Carol: > I think that rather than return directly to Voldemort, he went to > Lucius Malfoy and explained to him that he couldn't attend the meeting because you can't apparate from Hogwarts or its grounds. Malfoy would then pass on the explanation to Voldemort, who would probably want to see Snape in person and try to detect the lie in his eyes. Valky: Actually Carol I think Snape has something far more substantial than weak excuses to offer Voldemort. What Dumbledore knows. We know Dumbledore has a knack for revealing interesting information without actually telling the whole story. I believe we'll find that this has ben DD and Snapes plan all along. Snape has a lot of valuable Dumbldore wisdom to impart, at their discretion *they* are imparting small amounts of information to LV. It is making Sevvie look like an always faithful servant. Carol: > Snape is skating on thin ice, Valky: I have to agree. Verry thin ice, I am sure that LV is taking Snapes explanation of "...where your loyalties lie..." with copious amounts of salt. However as long as Sevvie continues to be a useful link to Dumbledores intellectual power, he will keep him around. Fortunately for Severus he *doesn't* have to feign his loathing for Harry, Lupin and Gryffindor virtues, so he will be able to maintain his charade well. OTOH I think that in HBP there might be a trial for Snape, when LV demands that he explain what Dumbldore knows about the things he found *inside* Harry Potter at the end of OOtP. It's just a hunch but I think that when Voldemort and Snape butt heads on this one Snape might slip up on it. From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 13:43:46 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:43:46 -0000 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122273 vmonte again: Another quick thought. Perhaps this is the reason that Sirius had to die according to JKR. Maybe his death will activate another kind of protection for Harry. Perhaps, like James and Lily, Sirius made a choice to die to further protect Harry. At least he was able to choose how he would die. He died fighting! Which is a much more nobler way to die than via a dementor's kiss. Vivian From josturgess at eircom.net Tue Jan 18 13:51:06 2005 From: josturgess at eircom.net (mooseming) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:51:06 -0000 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122274 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > Valky wrote: > > What if the dementors are actually the left over remnants/discarded > soulless shells of the people that the evil entity has used throughout > time. (Could it be SS?) > > vmonte ...or what if dementors are the shells of people who have passed through the veil???? Regards Jo btw see OTChatter for belated mooseming mystery denial/apology From Snarryfan at aol.com Tue Jan 18 14:05:02 2005 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:05:02 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122275 Eggplant wrote: > Well perhaps he should apologize, right after Snape first apologizes > to Harry for violating privacy on purpose. At least when Harry found > out something embarrassing about Snape he didn't make fun of him, > unlike what Snape did when he found embarrassing things in Harry's > mind. > When? I can see the dog's question, but (from what I remember) it was the only one. He paled after having seen Cedric's death, and then gave his "feelings is weakness" speech when he saw how Harry reacted. After Harry saw him weak (crying when a little boy) he's furious, but he still managed to say a good thing (if I'm not mistaken, it was "I don't remember saying to use this hex, but it was effective") Dudders and cie beating him, the scene when he's stucked by the gang in a toilet, those ones, Snape never said anything about them. It was something that always make me wondered. Why did we never hear: "My, the precious Potter can't defend himself against mere muggles, tsk" "Why are you late Potter? a problem in the toilet?" And he probably think Harry talked to Hermione and Ron, he always do. He knows that Harry and his friends hate him, without doubt since the scene in COS "where is Snape, maybe he's ill, maybe he's fired, maybe he's right behind you". How could he know that the teens who hate him would let pass a chance to laught at him ? I had a better way to explain but the cat just jump on the lap and make me forget what I tried to say. Christelle *OW* the claws! From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 18 14:11:02 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:11:02 -0000 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122276 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > > Valky to Carol: > The most interesting Charm spell we have been shown > to date is the Fidelius, but I wonder how it is performed, is it > placed on the Secret Keeper or on the Secret or both? > I wonder does the Secret keeper have to sign to something, > too? > > vmonte responds: > Several months ago a poster named Jen Reese came up with a theory regarding Sirius's induction as Harry's Godfather. She described a baptism/contract that bonded Sirius to Harry forever. Do you think it is possible that it was during this ceremony that the sowulo rune was applied to Harry's head? > In Christian ceremonies the sign of the cross is made on the child's forehead with holy water, perhaps this is when Harry's protection was applied. > > http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/meanings.html > Valky: Ahh vivian I LOVe JenReese's posts! thankyou for that, baptism is looking more and more to me like the real thing. Did you notice, on the link that I have left above for you, that sowulo cannot be reversed but it can be in opposition. To be in opposition means that the runic symbol "crosses" another one where it falls. Sowluo crossed means among other things "Bad Faith", umm anyone say Malfoy? lol, and also Wrath of God. Surmise perhaps that the sowulo symbol to LV represents the oppositional meaning - if it is thereafter *crossed* um lets say baptismal cross? does it revert? Vmonte quotes: " The future is not fixed. It changes with everything one does. If one does not like the prediction, one can always change paths." > > vmonte again: Doesn't the above quote sound like something Firenze > would say? Also, when we first meet Luna on the Hogwarts Express she is reading an article on Rune divination. Do you think it will be with her help that Harry disregards Trelawny's prophecy to begin > charting his own way? > > Vivian Valky: Ahh now you are REALLY talking my language, isn't Hermione gonna be mad when Luna outshines her in that prestigious subject. ;P I absolutely agree there will be a revelation from Luna that will eventually bring Hermione to respect and and dignify her much more than she imagines she can. This may be it. Actually I am sure this is it. Oooh Hermione is gonna be mad at first. lol Valky also noting that there is more than similarity between Firenze's lecture and the above statement. It's almost word for word! Fact is Runes are definitely going to show up something, no doubt about it. From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 14:11:22 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:11:22 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: <41ECDE5C.5329.2209AF7@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122277 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > That's certainly true of me... and I think it's true of a lot of > other people involved as well. Finwitch: What anyone should do, is figure out what is one's personal method of learning. Channel: Visual (student needs to SEE it - a visual teacher wants to *show* things - up in the canvas/blackboard). Auditive (student needs to hear it - teacher would TALK, Explain etc.). Kinetic (movement. student learns best when *moving* at the same time. Excercise bike or chewing gum or maybe even writing will do in your regular class, teacher will probably move around, and gesture a lot). Most people have more than one channel in use, but some have only one. And I'm not talking about extremes like blind/deaf/invalid. I think that the best kind of teacher would make ALL channels available, one way or other. Then there's of course more: Environment & position: how ordered a table do you like? do you prefer background voices(sound) or silence? how do you prefer to read? - move around with the book open, lie on the floor or sit at a table? What kind of light is best for you? Concentration: One thing at a time or multitasking? Directions: how detailed directions suit you best? Do you like to go from wholity to details or the opposite? Routine or changes? Eating something while you do it? Nah - at school, I think, all channels ought to be available in every class -- but, in one way or other everyone will need to compromise something. They can't serve all students perfectly, but that's the least they can do - allow all learning channels to be used. But at home, I think that parents should not be telling their children how to do their homework (Like well - telling the kid to turn down the music - the child may *need* the music on in order to learn). Finwitch From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 18 14:31:49 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:31:49 -0000 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122278 Vmonte wrote: > > What if the dementors are actually the left over remnants/discarded soulless shells of the people that the evil entity has used throughout time. (Could it be SS?) > > > > vmonte > > ...or what if dementors are the shells of people who have passed > through the veil???? > > Regards > Jo > > btw see OTChatter for belated mooseming mystery denial/apology Valky responds: Ahh the famous mooseming returns! Welcome Back! BTW oopsy misattribution up ther that was vmontes idea. but anyway, its intriguing isn't it, how does one become soulless, I wonder. Are dementors born or are they made? Now Barty Crouch Jr didn't become one when he was kissed so that rules out that option. What are we left with? The veil, yes maybe, but I should really hope that's not true, if anyone returns from the veil, naturally I want it to *be Sirius* fully restored to his former gorgeous self. And I neither like the possibility that vivian brought up of Harry being kissed to rid his soul of Voldemort, oooh no, please no. Whether Dementors are born or made, they are simply too vile for me to want to associate them with Harry's destiny or Sirius' destiny. Oh let them be reunited in death if need be just NOT THAT! Valky :D From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Tue Jan 18 14:54:21 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:54:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501180954296.SM00788@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 122279 > >>Vivamus: > >Most of the theories about Severus really do seem to leave out his > behavior, don't they?< > > Betsy: > I'd like to think that I tackled Snape's behavior head on in my > post. I don't try and say Snape is nice, I don't try and say he's > fair, and I don't suggest he's not a scary teacher. I used some of > the very examples vmonte brought up to support my theory. Vivamus: I must have missed that post. I did catch the references to him as scary, but a good teacher. I also thought the quotes from (don't remember who, sorry) a teacher with 32 years of experience were more to the point -- you cannot justify his abusive behavior as good teaching. Students may learn under his teaching, but that's not the same thing at all. They would also learn well if you simply said, "read the books. You will be tested. Any who don't know the material will be flayed alive." Flay a couple of students as an example (and then magically restore them), and I guarantee that every student would learn the material letter-perfect in record time. Can anyone even begin to think of that as good teaching? Yet, that is better, in some ways, than what SS does, because it is at least fair. There is more to teaching than getting the students to pass an exam. A better test of his quality as a teacher would be to ask how many of his former students are friends of his *after* they finish school, or how many of them go on to become Potions Masters or something similar. > Betsy: > 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? Obviously, I > think this is possible. Others, just as obviously, disagree. Vivamus: I'm not at all sure it is obvious, because you are equating being good as fighting on the side of good. JKR is clearly showing us that there is a lot of gray, and people are not entirely good or entirely bad. I think SS is a bad character fighting on the good side. He is still a deeply lost soul. One corollary of understanding that a "bad" person can fight on the "good" side without himself changing, is that a person fighting on the good side is not necessarily a good person. Another is that SS is still essentially the same person he was when he was a Death Eater -- not nice at all. We have a lot of gray, and JKR has muddied the waters especially around SS and his motives. > >>Vivamus: > >The only justification I can see for his behavior towards the > Gryffindors is that he is acting as a spy again, pretending to be a > loyal DE, and so must be consistently nasty towards them where the > Slytherins will see it. It's hard to see him doing that, with DD > publicly testifying that he was a spy, but I suppose LV could think > him a double, since he DIDN'T successfully warn the Potters, and he > could be a double-double, but that seems weird, too. Who would trust > someone like that? LV is no fool.< > > Betsy: > I do think Snape is a spy. I don't think he's a double agent. The > open court testimony of Dumbledore *is* a problem, I agree. (Though > I wonder if it *was* an open court. The amount of witches and > wizards suggest it was, though Rita Skeeter wasn't there, so maybe no > reporters were there at all, which would suggest the court was in > fact closed.) But Lucius Malfoy appears to accept Snape (as per > Draco and Umbridge anyway) and I can't see him being friendly with a > traitor of his Dark Lord. Vivamus: DD declared him (where there "at least two hundred" present,) to be a spy for DD against LV. The only way LV could accept that (other than the theory I posted earlier about LV realizing he couldn't bend SS so far as to endanger Lily) was if SS was actually a double agent, working for LV while *pretending* to work for DD. It seems barely possible that he could be a double-double, which means he is working for DD while pretending to work for LV while pretending to work for DD, but that makes my head hurt just thinking about it. Again, LV is no fool, and the adage, "once a traitor, always a traitor" would be apt. The question of why the other DEs accept him is also problematic, unless he is a double agent (or a double-double.) > >>Vivamus: > >OTOH, it really doesn't fit with his being evil, does it? If he > were evil, he would try to hide it by treating Potter and the > Gryffindors better, wouldn't he -- just as Crouch!Moody did, right up > until the end.< > > Betsy: > Yes! Thank you! This is indeed my point! Evil, in these books, is so > often disguised as attractive and good, that Snape with all of his > obvious prickles just doesn't fit the profile. Vivamus: Ah, but there is a world of difference between DD and LV. Just because SS is fighting on the side of DD, that does NOT make him all the way at DD's end of the spectrum of good vs. evil. His behavior puts him well over towards the other end of the spectrum, even if he has reasons for fighting for DD. I don't buy ESE!Snape, but it is certainly possible for JKR to take it that way (if he is a double-double.) > >>Vivamus: > > The real thing that sticks in my craw about Severus is that he > *still* treats Harry horribly when they are alone, even when he > *knows* Harry truly IS a hero, and when he knows Harry is smart > enough not to go blabbing to others that SS is really a good guy. I > think that adds up to SS being mean, petty, vindictive, and > unforgiving, but also to his being broken from something that > happened a long time ago that he cannot forget or let go.< > > Betsy: > I think Snape does *not* think Harry is smart. I think he thinks > Harry acts with typical Gryffindor bravado and headstrong > carelessness and that Harry has just scrapped through his various > adventures by the skin of his teeth. Vivamus: I'll grant you that he does not think Harry is smart, but it seems to me more like intentional blindness than anything else. Harry *did* get through that obstacle course protecting the stone, and that takes much more than stupid luck. He also found out where the entrance to the CoS is (when SS and everyone else could not,) and then he went down there, killed the basilisk, destroyed TR, and rescued Ginny. He also fought off a hundred dementors at once, with a Patronus more powerful than perhaps any but DD could have conjured. He got through the tasks in GoF. We are *long* past the point at which any rational person can write Harry off as just an obnoxious schoolboy. Yes, SS could have done so when Harry was an 11-year-old being treated with adulation by almost the whole WW. The rescue of the stone and defeat of Quirrell should have made it clear, however. Each of the books has a number of things in it which place Harry not just above his peers, but so far above them that the adulation really is deserved -- even if Harry no longer gets it. (And that may ultimately be why SS hates him -- because he really *does* deserve the adulation.) > Betsy: > There are definitely some "James issues" going on with Snape, but I > don't think it colors his thinking as much as some think it does. I > think Snape is more interested in getting Harry to *think* and to > actually *listen* to his elders, than in some school-boy vendetta. Vivamus: Where is there canon for SS showing interest in getting Harry to think? He insults and abuses him at every opportunity, but where is he trying to get Harry to think, or listen? He berates him because he hasn't listened, but it seems to me that SS is the one not listening in those scenes, not Harry. > Betsy: > The fasinating thing for me is how *alike* Snape and Harry actually > are. Harry has much more in common with Snape than James. I think > that if they were able to get past their issues, Snape and Harry > could make quite a good team. But they both have a lot of issues to > get past. So I'll just cross my fingers and hope for the best! :) Vivamus: Interesting idea. I think I'll stick with the traditional view that he is much more like James -- and that James was both an obnoxious jerk some of the time (as SS saw him) and a really good man most of the time (as most others saw him.) I guess we'll find out by the end of book 7. Vivamus, who has never found pigeon-holes into which people can be fit. (Snickersqueak, OTOH, like pigeons just fine.) From josturgess at eircom.net Tue Jan 18 14:53:39 2005 From: josturgess at eircom.net (mooseming) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:53:39 -0000 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122280 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > Vmonte wrote: > > > What if the dementors are actually the left over > remnants/discarded soulless shells of the people that the evil > entity has used throughout time. (Could it be SS?) > > > > > > vmonte > > > > ...or what if dementors are the shells of people who have passed > > through the veil???? > > > > Regards > > Jo > > > > btw see OTChatter for belated mooseming mystery denial/apology > > Valky responds: > > Ahh the famous mooseming returns! Welcome Back! BTW oopsy > misattribution up ther that was vmontes idea. but anyway, its > intriguing isn't it, how does one become soulless, I wonder. Are > dementors born or are they made? > > Now Barty Crouch Jr didn't become one when he was kissed so that > rules out that option. What are we left with? The veil, yes maybe, > but I should really hope that's not true, if anyone returns from the > veil, naturally I want it to *be Sirius* fully restored to his > former gorgeous self. > And I neither like the possibility that vivian brought up of Harry > being kissed to rid his soul of Voldemort, oooh no, please no. > > Whether Dementors are born or made, they are simply too vile for me > to want to associate them with Harry's destiny or Sirius' destiny. > Oh let them be reunited in death if need be just NOT THAT! > > Valky :D ah but the romance of that story, can you resist? Harry can't bring Sirius back (JKR has said so) but he could save Sirius' soul and his mortal remains from the old 'fate worse than death'. At the same time Harry could learn that there are 'worse things than death', come to terms with his parents fate and reject immortality, defeat voldy by loving enough to let go.... JKR also said she *had* to kill Sirius, perhaps because he has a job to do which requires him to be dead..... Say hello to Sirius the undead! Jo From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Tue Jan 18 15:12:53 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:12:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: <20050117215509.22273.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200501181013133.SM00788@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 122281 > > "Vivamus" wrote: > > > The real thing that sticks in my craw about Severus is that he > > *still* treats Harry horribly when they are alone, even when he > > *knows* Harry truly IS a hero, and when he knows Harry is > smart enough > > not to go blabbing to others that SS is really a good guy. > > I think that adds up to SS being mean, petty, vindictive, and > > unforgiving, but also to his being broken from something > that happened > > a long time ago that he cannot forget or let go. > > (Snip> > > > When they're alone? You mean, just Snape, Harry and the > Voldemort-chip in Harry's mind? > > Snape's a horrible guy - EVERYONE agrees with this. I really > don't know why this is controversial for some people. You > can be a HORRIBLE person and still think that murdering > people is a Bad Thing. > Morality is not the same as niceness. > > Magda Vivamus: Exactly my point, Magda. I think some are confusing morality and niceness, and saying that if he is fighting for DD, he must really be a good person. Snape is fighting on the good side, but I think he is a bad character. OTOH, there is also the possibility that JKR is pulling yet another switcheroo on us, and he is really working for LV as a double-double agent. It would be a stretch, but she could bring it off, I have no doubt. Vivamus From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 15:35:38 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:35:38 -0000 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122282 Valky wrote: Ahh vivian I LOVe JenReese's posts! thankyou for that, baptism is looking more and more to me like the real thing. Did you notice, on the link that I have left above for you, that sowulo cannot be reversed but it can be in opposition. To be in opposition means that the runic symbol "crosses" another one where it falls. Sowluo crossed means among other things "Bad Faith", umm anyone say Malfoy? lol, and also Wrath of God. Surmise perhaps that the sowulo symbol to LV represents the oppositional meaning - if it is thereafter *crossed* um lets say baptismal cross? does it revert? vmonte responds: Bad Faith, huh? Do you think that perhaps Voldemort's dark mark not only summons his followers at will, but possibly creates an opening (a channel) where his spirit can take over if necessary? Maybe Lily's mark protects (creates a barrier) and Voldemort's mark weakens (opens the gates to the soul). Who knows... Vivian From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 15:42:38 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:42:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: <00a001c4fd54$a5b41820$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122283 TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > Since when has two wrongs equalled one right? Since they found out they were in a war. If this really is a war the good guys will do far more distasteful things than look in Snape's Pensive before they're through. And that's good because it makes things interesting. At the end of the series I want some people to denounce Harry, I want others to say he did what he had to do, I want moral ambiguity, I want controversy not a paragon of ethics. And at the end of the series if you can not find at least one self appointed guardian of the nation's morals who is outraged and says Rowling is corrupting our youth then she is not doing her job. > that Snape removed that memory was > the very reason why Harry was *not* > entitled to see it. Harry had memories that he didn't want Snape to see but Snape found a way to overcome Harry's defenses; Snape had memories he didn't want Harry to see, but he found a way around Snape's precautions. Turn about is fair play and I don't understand why Harry, just a boy, should be held to a higher ethical standard than an adult like Snape. I realize the stereotypical hero always has a white hat, drops the gun if the bad guy threatens to shoot the damsel in distress, and never ever fights dirty even if the other fellow does, but stereotypical heroes are colossal bores and in real life such people are colossal flops too, the strategy just doesn't work. Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 15:46:05 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:46:05 -0000 Subject: blood magic spells In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122284 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda" wrote: > > Luckdragon: > With all the talk of Harry's scar actually being a rune symbol I > came across an interesting site (Ancient History presents blood > magic) which explains many types of blood magic that provides > answers to both Harry's scar and what rituals Voldemort may have > used to change his being. > > There is a blood oath which requires the voluntary sacrafice of life and the marking of another with a runic symbol which could pertain to Harry and lily. > > There are also explanations as to how sacrificing small amounts f > life force can enhance magical ability. Many of the spells listed > would explain what has changed Tom Riddle to Voldemort including > changes in physical appearance ie) glowing eyes, purlescent skin, > serpentine eyes etc. Attempts to become an astral being which would enhance powers or resurrection and death cheat spells. > > It is definitely worth reading. Tonks here: I took a look at that site. It sounds like he is referring to some work of fiction. It does not sound like real magic history. And whatever it is I am sure that JKR did not use anything like that as her inspiration. Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 18 15:59:00 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:59:00 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122285 Eggplant: > It must be more than that, Harry didn't need to do homework to master the Imperious Curse and according to Snape that's very similar to Occlumency. Even some very formidable characters, like the real Moody and Crouch Junior and Senior, find it very difficult to resist the Imperius Curse, it seems to take them years of effort to even win even a partial victory. Yet Harry learned how to throw it off completely in just a few minutes in his very first lesson. > There must be a reason he couldn't do the same with Occlumency and I think that reason is Snape. Pippin: Wait a minute. You're comparing two teachers, Fake!Moody and Snape, on the basis of their apparent success and you decide that Snape must be the saboteur? I don't expect to change your mind, but I find it much, much easier to believe that Fake!Moody was the saboteur. Maybe he let Harry *think* he'd taught him to beat Imperius. Here's the canon: (Moody had insisted on putting Harry through his paces four times in a row, until Harry could throw off the curse entirely) -- GoF ch 15. That's our unreliable narrator talking, you know, the one who told us Harry's parents died in a car crash. My question is, how do we know Fake!Moody didn't lift the curse himself? Snape did it in Occlumency lessons: He pushed himself up again to find Snape staring at him, his wand raised. It looked as though, this time, Snape had lifted the spell before Harry had even tried to fight back.-OOP 24 >From that, I conclude that when Harry came out of his trance, he might not automatically know whether he had successfully fought off the spell or the caster had lifted it. Why did Voldemort think he could use Imperius on Harry? IMO, because he thought his faithful servant had only pretended to teach Harry how to resist it! Of course Voldemort got rather a shock in that regard, just as he did when he tried to possess Harry at the ministry. So far, Harry has proven able to resist several of Voldemort's powers: avada kedavra, imperius, and possession, with little or no instruction. No other wizard has such powers. It would be economical to assume there's one reason for all of that: the power behind the door. Eggplant: That seems cowardly to me. It's like the heavyweight boxing champion of the world putting on protective padding before fighting a little boy while the kid gets nothing. Pippin: This is training, not a contest. I believe in training the instructor often wears more protective gear than the student, because the instructor pulls his punches, whereas the student must learn to fight back with everything he has, as Harry is instructed to. Snape never did get at the memory of Cho, did he? Pippin From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 16:09:20 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:09:20 -0000 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122286 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > I wanted to add another thought to your posts. Several months ago a poster named Jen Reese came up with a theory regarding Sirius's induction as Harry's Godfather. She described a baptism/contract that bonded Sirius to Harry forever. Do you think it is possible that it was during this ceremony that the sowulo rune was applied to Harry's head? > > In Christian ceremonies the sign of the cross is made on the child's forehead with holy water, perhaps this is when Harry's protection was applied. > Tonks now: This is want I said in an earlier post too. I said there was a ceremony where a sign was placed on Harry. Not by Lily as so many seem to think, but by DD. I think Jen said it was at Harry's christening, not baptism. There is no mention in the books of baptism. Anyway to say it AGAIN. Because DD knew about the prophecy there was a special ceremony as part of Harry's christening. DD (not Lily) place an invisible mark on Harry's forehead, like the sign of the cross at a XC baptism. And like the baptismal sign it gives an outer sign (symbol) of an inward spiritual grace. Now I want to add to this: (Drum roll... remember where you heard this folks!!) DD used the BLOOD OF FAULKS. Instead of holy water, DD used a drop of blood of the Phoenix, plus some sort of charm invoking the ancient magic. This plus the later *life freely given* of Lily (the pure one) left Harry unable to die as a result of LV's AK. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 16:55:59 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:55:59 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122287 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tammy" wrote: > Tammy: > > Personally I don't believe Snape was at the graveyard, but I love to argue to point that he COULD have been there... so here's my version of how it could have happened: > > Snape could have been one of the DE's at the graveyard. There is > approximately one hour missing from the time Harry leaves by portkey and arrives by portkey. If you presume that Dumbledore suspected something of this magnitude (which he had to, given that Kararoff and Snape's marks were getting darker), then he probably set up arrangements with Snape to get him quickly outside of Hogwarts in case he would need to go to be at Voldemort's side, merely to protect Harry. > > You've got to figure that the judges knew rather quickly that Harry > and Cedric were missing. I'm sure they could see through the maze > somehow or over the maze, in order to be able to judge the > competition. Even if not, they probably had a spell of some sort on > the cup so they would know the moment someone touched it. So Snape > would have known Harry was missing shortly after Harry was zapped to Voldemort. It took a bit for Voldemort to kill Cedric (okay, > Wormtail), gloat, and be restored. Beyond that, it took a few minutes before the DE's started to appear. Thus, we could say about 15 minutes or so between Harry disappearing and the DEs showing up. We know that Hogwarts is bordered on one side by the Forbidden Forest. The forest is next to the Quidditch field (read PoA to see that). And according to JKR's drawing, the Quidditch field is near the gates as well. > > Thus Snape had plenty of time to get through the forest (hey, he's a DADA master too! Stuff in that forest would be child's play for him) or the gate to a place where he could apparate to wherever Voldemort called him. Even if you presume that he only figured it out once the mark started to burn, it says that it took several minutes for the DEs to appear. Snape could have conjured up a robe and mask instantly (I'm presuming the DEs don't carry it on them all the time, so they probably just conjure one up each time), and still had time to run through the forest or the gate to a place where he could apparate. > > Voldemort did pass some DEs in silence, Snape could have been one of those. (Snip) > > There was also a period of time after Harry returned where we don't > see Snape (not until they burst into Moody/Crouch Jr.'s office). That also gave plenty of time for Snape to get back to Hogwarts, virtually unnoticed. > > And if you remember, when Harry and Dumbledore are trying to convince Fudge that what Harry saw was real, Harry starts naming names. When Harry first starts, it says this about Snape: "Snape made a sudden movement, but as Harry looked at him, Snape's eyes flew back to Fudge." Now it could be that reaction was simply because his "friend" Lucius had just been named. Or it could have been that Snape was afraid that Harry had recognized Snape in the graveyard. > -Tammy. Tonks here: Well now I like this theory. I think it fits. Not sure 100%, but it is possible. I often thought that of the 3 that were not there, Snape was not one of the list. I think that there is another one somewhere (not Barty) that we do not know about. Gosh.. I hope it isn't Lupin. I am sure it is not. Also Snape is still friends with Malfoy, would he be if LV knew that he was the one who *left me forever*. He is not the coward. And how could he spy if LV knew he was not still one of his DE? Tonks_op From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 17:17:42 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:17:42 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122288 Pippin wrote: > how do we know Fake!Moody didn't > lift the curse himself? It's difficult to understand why the fake Moody would want to do that, and we know he didn't need to lift the curse, Harry could do it himself. Not long after this incident mighty Voldemort himself tried to put the Imperius Curse on Harry, he failed. Both the Dark Lord and his Death Eaters seemed surprised at this, it was probably the first time he failed at it. > Why did Voldemort think he could > use Imperius on Harry? He knew the fake Moody couldn't do it but Voldemort fancies himself as the most powerful wizard who ever lived, I imagine he thought he could do better. And Voldemort was loosing face in front of his Death Eaters and was running out of options, he gave Harry an order, he wanted him to beg, but even the Cruciatus Curse couldn't make him do it, so he tried Imperius, and failed again. > I believe in training the instructor > often wears more protective gear > than the student I have never heard of that in my life, it is certainly not something likely to engender respect for the teacher. > the student must learn to fight > back with everything he has Yes, and fighting back with everything he has was exactly what Harry was doing when he looked into the Pensive. If you find that your opponent has made a mistake, like being careless where you put your memories, then the warrior must exploit that mistake. And that is what Harry is really in training to become, a warrior. Eggplant From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 18 17:20:01 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:20:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Harry (11) Message-ID: <20050118172001.87761.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122289 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is very clearly the struggle of the new soul to break the chain to the astral plane of the wrathful universe, the world of Lucifer. There are possibly many people reading this who have no idea of what I mean by the astral plane, and so I will provide some background information to help them understand and visualise. The astral plane is the plane of emotions and desires. Every plane has its own atoms and forces, and the atoms of the astral plane are a bit like sparks of fire of different colours. They are of course imperceptible to the ordinary five senses, but they can be perceived by our "sixth sense", by our "feelings". These atoms can pass through physical atoms and can move very much faster than them. All creatures with a consciousness have an astral field around them, which is often called the astral body or desire body. Astral atoms are moved by a force we call desire or emotion. When we desire something, we create a force which attracts astral atoms of a certain vibration. For example if we have a strong desire for money we will attract atoms which correspond in vibration rate to that desire. If we strongly desire to help other people, this creates a force which attracts astral atoms of a much higher vibration. A clairvoyant person can see these atoms rushing in and out of our astral body, as each vibration radiates a different colour. With one glance people who have this sight can see what sort of a person they are looking at. A spiritual person will have a lovely light blue radiance; an intellectual person a bright yellow one. People with base, selfish desires and emotions will have very muddy, dark colours. A person suffering from depression will have an impenetrable grey cloud around him. A person with a new soul, symbolised by Harry Potter, will have a breathtakingly beautiful golden aura. Harry has a lot of gold! Another extremely important property of astral atoms is that when a mental image is projected into them, they take on the form of that image. To understand this very clearly, think about the Defence against the Dark Arts classes dealing with the boggart. These lessons are perfect for understanding life in the astral plane! Lupin tells his students to concentrate on a form which makes the boggart look ridiculous. That's exactly what happens on the astral plane! If you project a powerful mental image accompanied by a strong emotion or desire, you will create an astral form just like your mental image. Jo KNOWS! As I've pointed out in previous posts, when we lose our physical body and our etheric body, we go on living for a few years in our astral body. This means the astral plane becomes open to us and we can travel throughout its many sub-planes, provided that we can't enter planes which are higher in vibration than our own personal key vibration. Obviously people with a low key vibration will have a rather unpleasant time while those with very spiritual vibrations will live in a land of light, happiness and spiritual companionship. The stories about hell and heaven are based on this, and the film, "What Dreams May Come", with Robin Williams is an excellent representation of life in the astral plane. Once a person is conscious in the astral plane (you don't have to be dead though) he can also learn to change his appearance. Once again, by intense concentration on a mental image, accompanied by a strong desire, a person can change his astral field to resemble anything he likes. Jo demonstrates this by her description of the animagi and metamorphmagi. Transfiguration lessons are exactly the same sort of thing. In the astral plane you can change a teacup into a turtle. Jo is also very careful about what she tells her young readers about the astral world. For example crystal gazing is extremely dangerous for the astral body, but, as we know, she ridicules this practice. Harry, the pure new soul born to the seeker who is thirsting for God, sees nothing in the crystal ball! Another indication how Harry Potter is NOT OCCULT! (We loves ya, Jo) I'm very grateful to John Granger for pointing out to the world that Book 3 is about emotions. The book begins by describing how Harry loses control of his emotions when his aunt tries to denigrate the memory of his parents, and ends with Harry's supernal triumph over his emotions. In my next post I will try to show how dazzlingly beautiful Harry's triumph is, and how we can all share in his emotional liberation. ===== 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 xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 17:45:51 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:45:51 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122290 Casey writes: >I saw a Black that encouraged James' worst traits, >not one that tried to improve himself for him. Is there a scene I >missed that showed Black trying to make himself better for James? I wish I could pull one up for you, but I have a bad habit of giving books away. My copy of OoP is on order. Not sure if I have specifics or if it was just the impression I got. Casey: >Trivial? He tried to murder a classmate and used a friend as the >weapon of death. That doesn't sound, to me, like he knew right from >wrong. Or didn't care if he did. I doubt he would have let it go that far. He had to have guessed someone would save Snape (and as it turned out, someone did). We have to remember this was a teenager, also, and they have a tendency to do very stupid things. It would be easy to rationalize this if something did happen to Snape as, "Hey, it was his own curiosity that killed him. He didn't have to go in there." I'm hoping this incident also made him see the gravity of his pranks, although we have no evidence of that. Casey: >So, it was the *potential* to be a father figure that makes you like >him, even if he actually wasn't much of one. In a way, yes. I think he wasn't much of one because he never had the opportunity. Who knows how things would have turned out if Harry had actually been able to live with him - under normal circumstances, not borderline imprisonment under extrememly tense circumstances; Sirius was like a caged...dog...and was not exposing his best behavior. To me, his snapping at Harry was not meant to be a vicious cut, it was his way of blowing off steam. The closest I can come to explaining it is that I view Sirius as quite a lot like Snape. Maybe that's one reason they hate each other so much. Sirius can be quite callous and self-serving and maybe even downright evil at times, but he's still chosen to be on the side of the good guys. We know that (well, so far) to be a fact, whereas Snape's "side" is still unknown. If Snape - with his massive amount of flaws - turns out to be firmly on DD's side he'll have just as many fans as Sirius. Probably more, judging from the quantity of posts! Nicky Joe From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Jan 18 17:47:00 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:47:00 -0000 Subject: Animagi was (Re: Snape the Legilimens (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122291 Sigune wrote > And in connection with the Snape-as-Animagus thread: is > Animagic 'just' a form of advanced Transfiguration, or is it a gift > you are born with, like Tonks' Metamorphmagic (an assumption which > seems to be partly born out by the fact that you can't choose the > animal you transform into)? But if the latter is the case, isn't it > an immense coincidence that Remus Lupin's three friends all happen to > possess that ability? > > I'd much appreciate everybody's thoughts on the matter. Potioncat: >From memory of canon, it seems to me that the magic for becoming an animagus is learned, and is very advanced transfiguration. Only 7 registered animagi in a century, even knowing not everyone registers, makes it seem very rare indeed. I would think it took both strong magic and powerful motivation to learn it. I also think that IF Snape is an animagus, it is probably something that he is not proud of. Potioncat (who did not see any posts connected to this one and hopes it hasn't already been answered.) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 18:22:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:22:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122292 Eggplant: Since they found out they were in a war. If this really is a war the good guys will do far more distasteful things than look in Snape's Pensive before they're through. And that's good because it makes things interesting. Alla: Hmmm. Yes, it does things more interesting, but still two wrongs do not make it right. I will be the first one to say that Harry was under tremendous amount of stress and NOBODY was exactly answering his questions and he did not go into Pensieve to get a dirt on Snape, but to find the information about that room, BUT Harry's nose did NOT belong in Snape's pensieve, period. Eggplant: Harry had memories that he didn't want Snape to see but Snape found a way to overcome Harry's defenses; Snape had memories he didn't want Harry to see, but he found a way around Snape's precautions. Turn about is fair play and I don't understand why Harry, just a boy, should be held to a higher ethical standard than an adult like Snape. Alla: I do not hold Harry's to higher ethical standard than Snape in their interactions, far from it, in fact the contrary is true, but I am afraid Jo Rowling will. :o) JMO, Alla From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 18 18:39:51 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:39:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: <00a001c4fd54$a5b41820$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122293 "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone." (John 8:6 New International Version) TrekkieGrrrl wrote: > Since when have two wrongs equalled one right? > > Just because Snape did something wrong it doesn't entitle Harry to > do something wrong (or worse) to Snape. > And I just can't see that the dog chasing Harry up a tree can be > likened with Severus being humiliated and stripped(?) in front of the whole school. Geoff: I agree. Two wrongs do not make a right. But how many of us can, hand on heart, say that we have never done something mean or questionable which we have perhaps regretted when we consider the matter afterwards. As I have pointed out several times recently, you can write a list as long as your arm of ways in which Snape has intruded on Harry - inter alia, he has humiliated him, he has been unfair, he has used him as a method of working out his hatred of James. You would need the patience of a saint to handle all this calmly and rationally. Harry is not a saint - none of us are for that matter. He has had all the usual problems of a growing boy in puberty plus a few others unique to Harry Potter so it is not surprising that he comes to the boil occasionally and does something which is perhaps a bit sneaky or underhand. Just taking your examples in passing, do you not think that Harry - as a child -would not be as humiliated by the dog incident as Snape with the Marauders incident? Jocelyn wrote: > Eggplant, this is not a morally valid reason. Harry's only excuse > for violating the privacy of another human being in this way is > that he is a child and he gave in to temptation. When he is a man > we expect that he will know better, and have stronger moral fibre. Geoff: Yes, but to extend on what I wrote above, when we become men (and women) we still allow ourselves the leeway to behave badly on occasions - sometimes deliberately, sometimes without thinking or realising that we have. Where we learn and grow is by reflecting on the fact that we did fail - ourselves if no one else - and try to use our experience in future situations. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 18 18:47:08 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:47:08 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122294 Geoff: >>> Fear is not a way to establish a satisfactory working relationship with a class. Harry was not being cheeky; he spoke quietly and was trying to get Snape to look at Hermione - and also get him off his back. In the later incident, the blame should have been apportioned between Seamus and Neville who were the "team". I expect if Harry and Ron had tried to help these two, Snape would have bounced them for interfering. They were on a hiding to nothing.<<< Betsy replied: > Oh, I agree that Snape was setting Harry up for failure. I just > think there was a reason for the behavior as I state above ["to > make the correct impression on Draco Malfoy. Snape is a spy"]. SSSusan: Seems kind of a dumb thing to do, though, doesn't it? Set Harry up for failure from the beginning? I mean, you're arguing that Snape is one of the Good Guys, one who never wants to see Voldy return, one who wants him eliminated if he does return? Then wouldn't he WANT Harry Potter -- the kid who vanquished Voldy the first time, the only one who apparently has a chance to beat him for good -- to learn? Or are you thinking that at this point Snape knows nothing about Harry's likely role in any future Voldycide? Or that he doesn't believe Voldy will return? It seems to me that that *can't* be your point; otherwise, why would Snape have to maintain a cover w/ the DE kids? If he isn't in on the possibility that Voldy's still hanging around out there, trying to make a comeback, then Snape wouldn't have to maintain any cover or worry about what the DE kids thought of him, would he? IMO (expressed often here), if Snape is really one of DD's Good Guys, future Order material, then he's likely in the know about any Voldy news and would know of Harry's importance. He owes it to The Effort To Eliminate Voldy to do his best to make sure Harry learns. Betsy: > I'm not trying to argue that Snape is the best teacher at Hogwarts, > but he is one of the better ones. SSSusan: And I agree that Snape really knows his stuff, that he is effective in getting many of the students to really pay attention, to work hard, to work to high standards, and, likely, to achieve high marks on OWLS. But his viciousness with Harry & Neville -- the only two potential Prophecy Boys -- seems to me to be shooting The Order's mission in the foot. Siriusly Snapey Susan From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 18:52:37 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:52:37 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: <200501180954296.SM00788@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122295 >>Betsy: >I think Snape does *not* think Harry is smart. I think he thinks Harry acts with typical Gryffindor bravado and headstrong carelessness and that Harry has just scrapped through his various adventures by the skin of his teeth.< >>Vivamus: >I'll grant you that he does not think Harry is smart, but it seems to me more like intentional blindness than anything else. Harry *did* get through that obstacle course protecting the stone, and that takes much more than stupid luck.< Betsy: I actually think Harry was *very* lucky to have gotten out of that particular adventure alive. I also think he very nearly got Voldemort the stone and that his interfering very nearly screwed the pooch for all concerned. See my post on this very subject: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/119865 >>Vivamus: >He also found out where the entrance to the CoS is (when SS and everyone else could not,) and then he went down there, killed the basilisk, destroyed TR, and rescued Ginny.< Betsy: Harry did good here. His one mistake was bringing bloody Lockhart (!?!) of all professors as back-up. Something that would not have impressed Snape. (Though the outcome for Lockhart probably pleased Snape immensely. ) >>Vivamus: >He also fought off a hundred dementors at once, with a Patronus more powerful than perhaps any but DD could have conjured.< Betsy: This was excellent work on Harry's part - but I think we'll all agree that Snape has some issues when it comes to this particular night. So I don't think he'd give Harry his full due here. >>Vivamus: >He got through the tasks in GoF. Betsy: Did he? I seem to recall that Crouch!Moody held Harry's hand pretty much the whole way through. About the only thing Harry did on his own was call his broom to him and show some excellent flying skills. >>Betsy: >There are definitely some "James issues" going on with Snape, but I don't think it colors his thinking as much as some think it does. I think Snape is more interested in getting Harry to *think* and to actually *listen* to his elders, than in some school-boy vendetta.< >>Vivamus: >Where is there canon for SS showing interest in getting Harry to think? He insults and abuses him at every opportunity, but where is he trying to get Harry to think, or listen? He berates him because he hasn't listened, but it seems to me that SS is the one not listening in those scenes, not Harry.< Betsy: I'm at work (hardly working. heh.) so I can't point to exact places in the books, but IIRC he berates Harry for taking unnecessary risks (I'm thinking of the sneaking into Hogsmeade in POA), which would involve thinking. I agree that Snapes methods don't work with Harry. But I'm interested (in this particular discussion) in what Snape is *trying* to accomplish, rather than what he actually does accomplish. If that makes sense. >>Betsy: >The fasinating thing for me is how *alike* Snape and Harry actually are. Harry has much more in common with Snape than James... >>Vivamus: >Interesting idea. I think I'll stick with the traditional view that he is much more like James -- and that James was both an obnoxious jerk some of the time (as SS saw him) and a really good man most of the time (as most others saw him.)< Betsy: James was a golden boy - very extroverted, the king of his school. He loved pulling attention to himself. Harry is nothing like this. He'd much prefer to sit in the background and not be the center of attention. Harry looks like James, has his flying skills (tweaked a bit though - wasn't James a chaser?), and his bravery. But not his personality. Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 19:03:27 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:03:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122296 >>Gerry: >What really, really bothers me in Harry is that he never, ever, even considers going back to Snape to apologize. He feels sorry for young Snape, is disillusioned about his dad, but nowhere we see that he feels remorse or even guilt about violating another persons privacy on purpose. Going back after a few days to say he was terribly wrong really would have shown character. >But he prefers being ignored in potions class, the easy way out.< >>Geoff: >I tried to find a reply I wrote on this very matter months ago when the topic cropped up previously but I'll have to say roughly the same thing again. >Is Harry /really/ going to risk going back to Snape even to try to apologise? Is he going to risk the sneering, humiliation, sarcasm and unfairness which has been directed at him for the previous four and a half years or so? >Can you see Snape smiling and clapping Harry on the shoulder and saying "Thanks, Potter, I appreciate that"? He has got too many hangups of his own to be able to handle it in a way which would heal the breach between them. I believe that if there is going to be any sort of rapprochment between them, it will have to start from Snape's end.< Betsy: I think though, that Gerry's point is that it's the *attempt* to apologize that would show character. Apologizing to your friends or a person you know will quickly forgive you is relatively easy. Apologizing to someone you're not too keen on and who may not even accept the apology is the real test. Also, Gerry is asking for Harry to just *think* about it, just consider whether he should make the attempt. I agree that Snape would probably be fairly nasty (if he even gave Harry a chance to speak), but the fact that Harry didn't make the attempt, didn't even *consider* making the attempt, shows that Harry still has some growing to do himself. Does Harry even realize that he was wrong to snoop? The healing between Snape and Harry may very well need to start from Snape's end. Snape is the adult after all, and I think Snape is the one who started their relationship off wrong in the first place. But Harry needs to do some changing too. Betsy From bethg2 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 19:06:12 2005 From: bethg2 at yahoo.com (bethg2 at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:06:12 -0000 Subject: OotP Chapter Discussion: 36, Only One He Ever Feared In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122297 > Elisabeth wrote: > > --I find it interesting that it is Lupin who is with Harry at > Sirius' death/crossing/disappearance/whatever. Why did Rowling > choose Lupin rather than any other adult in Harry's world? Beth: Why Lupin? Because Remus is the only one left after Sirius falls who is focused on _Harry_ rather than catching the DEs. Tonks was out by then, and Moody is injured. Even if she had left them active, Tonks, Moody, and Kingsley are aurors, with no particular attachment to Harry.The aurors' first priority is to catch the bad guys and protect the ministry. They are not there for just Harry's sake. There are not many other adults in Harry's world that would have been focused on his welfare in that situation. Molly doesn't seem to do field work, and I doubt anyone would be sending Arthur into battle just yet. Minerva would have focused on the children's safety, but she was "unavailable" as well. Hagrid was on the run and would only have physical force to offer in battle anyhow. >From a narrative viewpoint putting Lupin with Harry at that moment lets the reader see his reaction to Sirius's death and sets the stage for Remus taking responsibility for Harry now. From lyrade at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jan 18 07:52:47 2005 From: lyrade at blueyonder.co.uk (Lyrade) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:52:47 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122298 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Casey" wrote: I'm new here, so pardon me for butting into the conversation:) > Casey: > I never got that. I saw a Black that encouraged James' worst traits, > not one that tried to improve himself for him. Is there a scene I > missed that showed Black trying to make himself better for James? The way I read it, James didn't need any encouragement to behave badly. Even his closest friends admit that he had a 'talent for trouble' so I don't think Sirius encouraged James to be bad, I think they were merely the kind of personalitiies who feed off each other. You see it all the time in groups of young boys. > Casey: > Trivial? He tried to murder a classmate and used a friend as the > weapon of death. That doesn't sound, to me, like he knew right from > wrong. Or didn't care if he did. But it does sound like a very typical adolescent boy thing to do. I work with teenage boys, and some of the things they consider 'a bit of a laugh' would make your hair stand on end, but they don't do them through malice, it's purely lack of experience and common sense. I do believe that a recent study in a science journal proved that adolescent males have a different brain chemistry to that of males who have reached maturity, and that's why thay are often so erratic in their behaviour. Yes, of course, Sirius knew that sending Snape in their with Remus at full mooon was dangerous and stupid, and I'm sure that had it worked, he'd have been tortured with guilt afterwards, but his deep loathing of Snape overwhelmed his common sense that day. It's unfair to judge Sirius the man on the exploits of Sirius the spoilt brat teenager at school. > I'm just trying to understand why people actually like him and want > him to come back. I just don't understand the attraction. Probably because he is so complex, and he had to overcome his upbringing to make the right choices. It's a very difficult thing to do, to outgrow the prejudices that you've been indoctrinated with since birth and rise above them. The thing I don't understand is why James has become a paragon of virtue to some, and yet Sirius is reviled by the same people? Michelle From psychesunicorn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 10:26:32 2005 From: psychesunicorn at yahoo.com (psychesunicorn) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:26:32 -0000 Subject: OotP Chapter Discussion: 36, Only One He Ever Feared In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122299 Elisabeth wrote: ---Wizards don't need electricity, nor medicine; they can apparate/disapparate; portkeys carry them from one location in the world to another and yet they still have to wait for elevators. Which calls to mind this question: why in the world doesn't Bellatrix simply disapparate? DD clearly believes that the other DEs might because he immobilizes them with disapparation in mind. So .wha??? Psyche: At this point, Bellatrix still believes that Harry has the prophesy, and she knows that DD and other Order members have come to the rescue. I think she is trying to lure Harry away from his protectors, probably thinking that she can get the prophesy (and kill Harry) when Harry is on his own. Psyche From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 08:37:49 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:37:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050118083749.22627.qmail@web61204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122300 Pippin writes: >You did notice, perhaps, that Lupin didn't actually teach Harry to >produce a corporeal patronus? He stopped the lessons while >Harry was still only able to produce a silver vapor -- not enough >to drive a dementor away. Arynn replies: "I don't pretend to be an expert at fighting dementor, Harry...quite the contrary.." Lupin tells Harry on page 189 PoA. This suggests that he might not be too good himself. I don't think he stopped giving the lessons. They mention them quite a few times: 1) "This meant that with Lupin's anti-dementor classes, , Harry just had one night a week to do all his homework." PoA Pg.243 2) "To make matters even worse, Harry's anti-dementor lessons were not going nearly as well as he had hoped..." PoA pg. 245 Dementor lessons started in January. In Feb. he was still having lessons. It was after one of these that he ran into McGonagall and she gave him his firebolt. The next day the team has their first practice with the firebolt, and two days later is the Ravenclaw Match. Since they mention that Wood had them practicing five nights a week. This match must have been within four days of his last dementor lesson with Lupin. He didn't need them after that becuase it was at this match that he first produced a corporeal Patronus 1)After the game Lupin came up to him and said, "That was quite some Patronus" implying that it was impressive. 2) And at the end of the book Dumbledore says, "Prongs rode again last night... And I remembered the most unusual form your Patronus took, when it charged Mr. Malfoy down at your Quidditch match against Ravenclaw." Pg. 428 PoA. A note on the Evil!Lupin theories: This is also significant in that Dumbledore is telling Harry about how Remus has told him everything. I'm sure that that conversation involved quite a few apologies. So it would seem Lupin did "fess up" to his lies. Plus, if he were working for Voldy, Remus would have know the whole time that Sirius was innocent, so if you're of the ESE!Lupin camp, you can't use his not telling about Black to prove he was out to harm Harry, 'cos he would have known Black was not a threat to Harry in the first place. --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 vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 18 11:26:53 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:26:53 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122301 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > Everyone says that in order to learn Occlumency you must have a calm > mind but just before each lesson starts Snape never forgets to do > something to make Harry absolutely furious; a poor teaching method > for this subject to say the least. But one Harry should be able to get used to. When someone really wants to read his mind, that person won't wait until Harry is calm, but will try everything to make sure he is not. Snape apparantly does not think one should start slow and steady and take it from there. Maybe because he knows there is not really time to take the leasurely route. > Well perhaps he should apologize, right after Snape first apologizes > to Harry for violating privacy on purpose. At least when Harry found > out something embarrassing about Snape he didn't make fun of him, > unlike what Snape did when he found embarrassing things in Harry's > mind. Where exactly do you see Snape make fun of Harry? The only thing he asks is who owned the dog. As for violating his privacy, that is what the whole thing is about. Harry should try and stop this violation. He does not, and is not interested in practicing. In violating Harry's privacy, Snape is doing his job. What Harry does has nothing to do with learning Occlumency, but everything with sneaking. The only reason he is upset is because he did not like what he had seen. He has not the morality to see the wrongness of his act. Which someone at his age should be able to see and act upon. I'm really surpised you think this behaviour can in any way be justified. Imagine a scene in which McGonnagall was teaching Draco and found him looking into the pensieve. Would you also think Draco had a right to know what she put there? Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 18 11:52:46 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:52:46 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <008801c4fd52$e8cab1c0$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122302 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > > Do we know for sure that Snape was actually missing from that meeting?! The one too cowardly to return could also be Ludo Bagman. Karkaroff turned traitor and could therefore just as easily be the 'one who has left me for good. Killing traitors is a time-honoured practice after all : ). Bagman now is the head of a department, and thus in an excellent position to be usefull to LV. I'm also wondering, how did he manage to join the Ministry and rise to become head of a department? He is not that bright, he must have needed some serious help. Gerry From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 19:28:04 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:28:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122303 >>TrekkieGrrrl: >Since when has two wrongs equalled one right?< >>Eggplant: >Since they found out they were in a war. If this really is a war the good guys will do far more distasteful things than look in Snape's Pensive before they're through.< Betsy: Okay - you show me how Harry snooping into Snape's pensieve helped in the war effort, and I'll agree that Harry was right to do it. :) >>Eggplant: >...I want moral ambiguity, I want controversy not a paragon of ethics.< Betsy: Professor Snape, may I introduce Eggplant? Eggplant, this is Professor Snape. =D >>TrekkieGrrl: (I think?) >that Snape removed that memory was the very reason why Harry was *not* entitled to see it.< >>Eggplant: >Harry had memories that he didn't want Snape to see but Snape found a way to overcome Harry's defenses; Snape had memories he didn't want Harry to see, but he found a way around Snape's precautions.< Betsy: Actually, IIRC when Harry *really* didn't want Snape to see a particular memory (the Cho kiss) he was able to push Snape out of his mind. (I believe that was in the first lesson.) And Harry *did* have access to Snape's memories - and not very good ones at that. There was one memory (that we know of anyway - could have been more) that Snape held back, and as TrekkieGrrl brought up earlier, it was a memory that could and did cause Harry himself a lot of pain (no one wants to see their parents acting so very badly). What Harry did was wrong, wrong, wrong, and inexcusable. Even Harry realized it at the time - his rationalization to take a peek was fairly weak IIRC. And Harry paid a price in the revelation that his father was not perfect. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 19:36:39 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:36:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122304 Gerry: But one Harry should be able to get used to. When someone really wants to read his mind, that person won't wait until Harry is calm, but will try everything to make sure he is not. Snape apparantly does not think one should start slow and steady and take it from there. Maybe because he knows there is not really time to take the leasurely route. Alla: I suggested long time ago that Jo should publish "Occlumency for dummies 101", as her next book for charity:o). I think it will answer many questions. Like what IS the right way to teach Occlumency. For now I tend to think that Snape either was NOT doing his job correctly on purpose or did not know how to teach Harry or did not want to teach him. JMO, Alla From manawydan at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 18 19:37:08 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:37:08 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) References: <1106012727.19842.25485.m22@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002901c4fd95$1a9bf780$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 122305 Carol wrote: >Note "he will have *seen*," not he will have done. So while we're free >to speculate about what he may have done as a Death Eater, we merely >know from this passage that he *witnessed* a death or deaths. We still >don't know what he did. Given LV's penchant for putting his DEs to >their best use (Dolohov to murder cruelly, Bellatrix and her sidekicks >to Crucio people, Mulciber as an Imperius specialist), it makes sense >to me that Snape's chief use would be as a potion maker, especially >given that LV was still seeking immortality and didn't know, even >after Godric's Hollow, exactly which experiments had worked. Any >speculation as to what Snape did as a Death Eater is, at this point, >exactly that: speculation. I for one don't think that Dumbledore would >have hired him if he had actually killed anyone. But even if he did do Even witnessing a death of course wouldn't necessarily have had to have been as a DE. The two things that I wonder about are - did _all_ of Voldemort's followers have the Dark Mark or was it something reserved for his inner circle, the ones he gathered in the graveyard to mark his return? If so, what did they have to do to get it? and - what exactly was it that made Regulus Black try to back out of being a DE? If (speculation as you rightly say) Voldemort required his closest acolytes to kill as part of whatever ritual gave them the dark mark, then Snape has killed (and perhaps killing was the step too far that Regulus wouldn't take). But it doesn't seem to be in character for Snape to enjoy doing it. Some of the DEs certainly did (MacNair, Bella being two examples) but it all seems a bit too Grand Guignol for Sevvy. He was disciplined enough to do it, but not I think with any particular pleasure (possibly not with any particular shame afterwards, either, mind you). If Dumbledore had felt that Snape had been someone who took pleasure in killing, possibly then he wouldn't have been so keen to hold him close. But I don't see him as being so prissy that he would have expected Snape to have clean hands when he came over. But JKR alone knows all Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From manawydan at ntlworld.com Tue Jan 18 19:47:18 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:47:18 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (VERY long)Re: [HPforGrownups] References: <1106050295.10225.16483.m23@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003801c4fd96$a0c05ee0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 122306 Alla speculated: > In short, before Snape's big redemption thing, we will learn > something TRULY nasty about him. How about THAT bet? :o) In that context, I've always wondered about what happened to Harry's grandparents... Although JKR said that they weren't of importance to the story, as someone said before, it doesn't mean that they aren't of importance in the backstory. And if you were NewDE!Snape and wanted to hurt your worst enemies Potter and Black, what better way to do it? Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 18 20:32:19 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:32:19 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: <20050118083749.22627.qmail@web61204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122308 > Pippin writes: > > >You did notice, perhaps, that Lupin didn't actually teach Harry to produce a corporeal patronus? He stopped the lessons while Harry was still only able to produce a silver vapor -- not enough to drive a dementor away. > > Arynn replies: > "I don't pretend to be an expert at fighting dementor, Harry...quite the contrary.." Lupin tells Harry on page 189 PoA. This suggests that he might not be too good himself. Pippin: Typical Lupin doublespeak, I'm afraid. It could mean, "I don't pretend, I actually am, an expert on fighting dementors." Since he did drive away the dementor on the train, he knows what it takes to remove one. He can also, without a wand, make a light that doesn't go out around them. As Harry points out in OOP, being able to produce a patronus when you are not threatened is quite different from being able to do it when there is a dementor around. But the lessons must have stopped after the Quidditch match, or Harry would have known what form his patronus took. Arynn: > A note on the Evil!Lupin theories: > This is also significant in that Dumbledore is telling Harry about how Remus has told him everything. I'm sure that that conversation involved quite a few apologies. So it would seem Lupin did "fess up" to his lies. Pippin: Dumbledore learned about Prongs from Sirius, I'm afraid. "Last night Sirius told meall about how they became Animagi." -PoA ch 22 Arynn: > Plus, if he were working for Voldy, Remus would have know the whole time that Sirius was innocent, so if you're of the ESE!Lupin camp, you can't use his not telling about Black to prove he was out to harm Harry, 'cos he would have known Black was not a threat to Harry in the first place.< Pippin: Not necessarily. The Death Eaters do not all know one another, so it is perfectly possible that ESE!Lupin might have convinced himself that Sirius was a traitor as well. Pippin From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 20:45:43 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:45:43 -0000 Subject: OotP Chapter Discussion: 36, Only One He Ever Feared In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122309 Beth wrote: Why Lupin? Because Remus is the only one left after Sirius falls who is focused on _Harry_ rather than catching the DEs. Tonks was out by then, and Moody is injured. Even if she had left them active, Tonks, Moody, and Kingsley are aurors, with no particular attachment to Harry.The aurors' first priority is to catch the bad guys and protect the ministry. They are not there for just Harry's sake. There are not many other adults in Harry's world that would have been focused on his welfare in that situation. Molly doesn't seem to do field work, and I doubt anyone would be sending Arthur into battle just yet. Minerva would have focused on the children's safety, but she was "unavailable" as well. Hagrid was on the run and would only have physical force to offer in battle anyhow. >From a narrative viewpoint putting Lupin with Harry at that moment lets the reader see his reaction to Sirius's death and sets the stage for Remus taking responsibility for Harry now. vmonte responds: I like your post very much, and it makes sense. I liked the character of Sirius, and I felt bad when he died, but I really saw him as a danger to the Order. Sirius and Snape had/have too much old baggage to be really of any use to the Order. Their vision is too clouded by old hurts and regrets. They dwell on the past and can be easily distracted from the end goal. These are dangerous qualities IMO. In Snape's case it's bad because his hatred of James clouds everything he does. In PoA and GoF there are several instances in which Snape could have helped Harry out, but he didn't. Why? Honestly, I don't think I can read another Snape has a temper tantrum scene. And I seriously think that Snape is out of DD's inner circle often. He is always finding out about things after the fact. Why I wonder? If he is on the Order's side (and as many posters believe DD's right hand man) why is he often clueless about what is going on? Sirius was a danger because he was too reckless. He never thought before he did anything, and how helpful is that? During OOTP I was actually happy that Dumbledore decided to entrust Snape with teaching Harry the O lessons. I felt that DD was giving Snape a chance to see Harry for who he was (and vise versa). But as usual, Snape and Harry are like oil and water--and Snape cannot let go of the past. Harry at least is capable of compassion for other people. You know, Snape and Petunia are very much alike. They are jealous, spiteful, and cruel (Petunia has a hang-up regarding Lily, and Snape's hang-up is James). IMO, this is the big difference between Harry and Snape. Snape is what Harry could have become if he had let his life beat him down. Lupin on the other hand (as long as he doesn't turn into a werewolf) is emotionally mature enough to really help Harry in the next two books. Vivian From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 18 21:02:53 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:02:53 -0000 Subject: OotP Chapter Discussion: 36, Only One He Ever Feared In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122310 Elisabeth > ---Wizards don't need electricity, nor medicine; they can > apparate/disapparate; portkeys carry them from one location in the world to another and yet they still have to wait for elevators. Which calls to mind this question: why in the world doesn't Bellatrix simply disapparate? DD clearly believes that the other DEs might because he immobilizes them with disapparation in mind. So .wha???<< Pippin: She's still after the Prophecy and Harry's got it, or so Bella thinks. She planned for Harry to come after her. Pippin From trekkie at stofanet.dk Tue Jan 18 22:29:13 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:29:13 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) References: Message-ID: <005001c4fdad$23a19ca0$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122311 >>Carol wrote: >> >> And I think it *is* a given that Snape does go back to Voldemort. >> > In GoF, Voldemort lists three missing Death Eaters. We know that one >> > is Crouch, Jr., one is Karkaroff, and one is Snape. Voldemort calls >> > one his "most faithful servant [...] He is at Hogwarts, that faithful >> > servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived >> >> here tonight..." Obviously - this is Crouch, Jr. > >>TrekkieGrrrl replied: >> Do we know for sure that Snape was actually missing from that meeting?! >> > > Tammy: > > Personally I don't believe Snape was at the graveyard, but I love to > argue to point that he COULD have been there... so here's my version > of how it could have happened: > ---- > > And if you remember, when Harry and Dumbledore are trying to convince > Fudge that what Harry saw was real, Harry starts naming names. When > Harry first starts, it says this about Snape: "Snape made a sudden > movement, but as Harry looked at him, Snape's eyes flew back to > Fudge." Now it could be that reaction was simply because his "friend" > Lucius had just been named. Or it could have been that Snape was > afraid that Harry had recognized Snape in the graveyard. > > And that's my theory. I'm not fully convinced myself that it's the > right answer, but I definitely like it as a possibility. > > -Tammy, who likes to open possibilities. See, that what have been bothering me as well. I am actually quite convinced that Snape isn't one of the three DE's LV mentions. As far as we know, LV has no reason to believe that Snape SHOULDN'T be there. No, the third DE is someone else IMO. I just don't know who. But I don't think Snape's eyes moves because Lucius is mentioned. After all that can't come as a surprise. But more likely because he wasn't sure if Harry had recognized him there. But I think that IF Harry had recognised him, he would have blurted out with that as the first name. He does hate Snape after all, and to have something at that magnitude on your most hated teacher would be something you'd have to tell the world, no matter if said teacher was present. No wonder Snape doesn't drop his mask one moment in front of Harry. He can't afford it. The third DE could be a woman too. As Bellatrix so proves, not just men are Death Eaters. ~TrekkieGrrrl From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Tue Jan 18 21:48:52 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:48:52 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122312 On Wednesday, January 19, 2005, at 05:39 am, Geoff Bannister wrote: > Yes, but to extend on what I wrote above, when we become men (and > women) we still allow ourselves the leeway to behave badly on > occasions - sometimes deliberately, sometimes without thinking or > realising that we have. > > Where we learn and grow is by reflecting on the fact that we did > fail - ourselves if no one else - and try to use our experience in > future situations. > Yes! We may aim at perfection, but most of us (all of us) are nowhere near attaining it. Where we FAIL to learn and grow is if we deny that it was a failure on our own part at all - when we blame the other person for 'forcing' us to behave this way. As you can tell, I do not believe in the principle that the end justifies the means. For one thing, we ALL believe we are justified! If Iraqi insurgents were to take western troops tomorrow and pile them in naked human pyramids, they could claim that they had the right to do so, because the bad guys did it first. And they were only trying to get information for their justifiable cause out of the troops. And they deserved it for invading their homeland. Would this be a true claim? No. But it is perfectly logical under the principle of 'he did it to me first and we're trying to win a war here'. It's a slippery slope folks, and one step down it can lead to a rapid descent. Jocelyn From trekkie at stofanet.dk Tue Jan 18 22:54:25 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:54:25 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) References: Message-ID: <007601c4fdb0$a92481f0$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122313 > Pippin wrote: >> I believe in training the instructor >> often wears more protective gear >> than the student > > Eggplant: > I have never heard of that in my life, it is certainly not something > likely to engender respect for the teacher. Uhm... Ever seen a sparring partner at boxing? In almost all sorts of martial art, the instructor is padded because the student is supposed to give it all he's got while still not harming the instructor. Seems logical to me that something similar would be instated here. ~TrekkieGrrrl From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Jan 18 22:07:47 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:07:47 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122314 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Pippin writes: > > > > >You did notice, perhaps, that Lupin didn't actually teach Harry > to produce a corporeal patronus? He stopped the lessons while > Harry was still only able to produce a silver vapor -- not enough > to drive a dementor away. > > Pippin: > As Harry points out in OOP, being able to produce a patronus > when you are not threatened is quite different from being able to > do it when there is a dementor around. But the lessons must > have stopped after the Quidditch match, or Harry would have > known what form his patronus took. Renee: True enough (we know Harry didn't look at his Patronus during the Quidditch match), but that wasn't the original point. You said Lupin never taught Harry to produce a corporeal Patronus. As Harry does produce a corporeal Patronus during the match, Lupin apparently did teach him to produce one/helped him reach the point where he could produce one. Which makes your assumption incorrect. It would explain why the lessons ceased - if they did, something we still don't know for sure. We're not explicitly told they ceased, as is the case with the Occlumency lessons. > Arynn: > > A note on the Evil!Lupin theories: > > This is also significant in that Dumbledore is telling Harry > about how Remus has told him everything. I'm sure that that > conversation involved quite a few apologies. So it would seem > Lupin did "fess up" to his lies. > > Pippin: > Dumbledore learned about Prongs from Sirius, I'm afraid. "Last > night Sirius told meall about how they became Animagi." -PoA ch > 22 Renee: That only strengthens the case for Lupin's confession to DD. After Sirius told him all about the Animagi transformations, DD knew what went on right under his nose, back in the Marauders' days. So, if Lupin had kept this information from him, DD would definitely *not* have said to Harry that Remus told him everything. What's more, there would be no point in using the word "everything", because DD wouldn't know what there was to tell. Ergo, Lupin did "fess up". By the way, since when is it impossible for two different people to tell a third party the same thing independently of each other? From klevasseur at earthlink.net Tue Jan 18 22:19:04 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:19:04 -0000 Subject: Snape and Sirius related? Was: Re: Half blood prince etymology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122315 --> > > Tonks: > > > > > > [slight snip] Mr. Black marries his son off to a pureblood > within a month or 2 of the annulment/divorce and she gets PG right > away.. and you end up with two boys about the same age, from the > same father with different surnames. > > > > > > It just might work. > > > > Maddy: > > > > I love where this theory is going...but I've got something to add > that has just occured to me. (And please tell me, if I'm letting my > > imagination run away with me.) But here it is: Sirius was the last > of the Blacks. Sirius is dead. So who does Grimmauld Place fall to? > Could it be illitimate-half-brother!Snape?? Ooh...that would > certainly bring about some interesting scenes. > > > Maddy > > Tonks here: > Yes that is were we are all going with this. Except Snape is not an > illitimate child. He is the child of a muggle and Sirius' father > from his first marrage, short though it was. (of course the woman > could have been a mudblood instead of a muggle, but it would be just > as bad to the Black family.) Ms. Luna, I know I getting into this late, but wasn't Snape a pure-blood? I thought in order to get placed in Slytherin and be a DE, one must be pure-blood! I don't mean to shot down your theory because it does have some merit, especially in explaining the serious hatred between Snape and Sirius. It does seem to go deeper. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 22:25:42 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:25:42 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122316 >>Betsy replied: >Oh, I agree that Snape was setting Harry up for failure. I just think there was a reason for the behavior as I state above ["to make the correct impression on Draco Malfoy. Snape is a spy"].< >>SSSusan: >Seems kind of a dumb thing to do, though, doesn't it? Set Harry up for failure from the beginning? I mean, you're arguing that Snape is one of the Good Guys, one who never wants to see Voldy return, one who wants him eliminated if he does return? Then wouldn't he WANT Harry Potter -- the kid who vanquished Voldy the first time, the only one who apparently has a chance to beat him for good -- to learn? >Or are you thinking that at this point Snape knows nothing about Harry's likely role in any future Voldycide? Or that he doesn't believe Voldy will return? It seems to me that that *can't* be your point; otherwise, why would Snape have to maintain a cover w/ the DE kids? If he isn't in on the possibility that Voldy's still hanging round out there, trying to make a comeback, then Snape wouldn't have to maintain any cover or worry about what the DE kids thought of him, would he?< Betsy: I was using a bit of slang up there -- sorry! To "set someone up for failure," means to arrange things so they'll make a fool out of themselves. So in that first class Snape set Harry up for failure by asking him potion questions he probably didn't know the answer for and blaming Harry and Ron for Neville's potion accident (as Geoff pointed out - Snape probably would've yelled at them if they *had* helped Neville). I don't think he's not trying to teach Harry (or Neville for that matter), but I do think part of Snape's method is to choose a scapegoat in order to scare the crap out of the class and motivate them to never, ever be in the scapegoat's position (i.e. do the reading, learn the potions, etc.). For various reasons (including the Spy!Snape one) Harry was chosen for that illustrious position. So yes, I think Snape is aware of Harry's importance in the fight against Voldemort. And I have strong suspisions that he's aware of Neville's position too. >>Betsy: >I'm not trying to argue that Snape is the best teacher at Hogwarts, but he is one of the better ones.< >>SSSusan: >And I agree that Snape really knows his stuff, that he is effective in getting many of the students to really pay attention, to work hard, to work to high standards, and, likely, to achieve high marks on OWLS. But his viciousness with Harry & Neville -- the only two potential Prophecy Boys -- seems to me to be shooting The Order's mission in the foot.< Betsy: 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. However, if they both blew their exams (especially Harry - Neville really did seem hopeless in class - how many cauldrons did he end up destroying?) then I'll have to reexamine my view on the matter. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 22:50:35 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:50:35 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122317 Betsy: 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. However, if they both blew their exams (especially Harry - Neville really did seem hopeless in class - how many cauldrons did he end up destroying?) then I'll have to reexamine my view on the matter. Alla: If they performed well, they performed well, because Snape was absent in OWL class. "With Snape absent from the proceedings he found that he was much more relaxed than he usually was while making potions. Neville, who was sitting very near Harry, also looked happier than Harry had ever seen him during a Potions class" - OOP, p.716. How does it make Snape a good teacher, if his only presense terrorises the studentts so much that they are unable to reach their potential? By the way, I am pretty sure that Harry performed well at least on written OWL, because he knew Polyjuice effects well, but Snape did not teach him that. JMO, Alla From klevasseur at earthlink.net Tue Jan 18 22:51:19 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:51:19 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <005001c4fdad$23a19ca0$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122318 > >>TrekkieGrrrl replied: > >> Do we know for sure that Snape was actually missing from that meeting?! >snip >> > > > > Tammy: > > > > Personally I don't believe Snape was at the graveyard, but I love to > > argue to point that he COULD have been there... so here's my version > > of how it could have happened: > > > ---- > > > > And if you remember, when Harry and Dumbledore are trying to convince > > Fudge that what Harry saw was real, Harry starts naming names. When > > Harry first starts, it says this about Snape: "Snape made a sudden > > movement, but as Harry looked at him, Snape's eyes flew back to > > Fudge." Now it could be that reaction was simply because his "friend" > > Lucius had just been named. Or it could have been that Snape was > > afraid that Harry had recognized Snape in the graveyard. > > snip> > > > > -Tammy, who likes to open possibilities. > > See, that what have been bothering me as well. I am actually quite convinced > that Snape isn't one of the three DE's LV mentions. As far as we know, LV > has no reason to believe that Snape SHOULDN'T be there. No, the third DE is > someone else IMO. I just don't know who. > > snip>> > The third DE could be a woman too. As Bellatrix so proves, not just men are > Death Eaters. > > ~TrekkieGrrrl Ms. Luna, I agree that Snape is not one of the three DE's mentioned by LV.....and I am going out on a limb here, but I think that one of the DE's mentioned by LV could be Ludo Bagman. In GoF we see Bagman being tried for passing information...he gets off, but I sense that he gets off because of his popularity as a Quidditch player. I theorize that the *jury/ wizengamot*(sp?) couldn't imagine that Ludo was *smart or clever* enough to pull off what he was being accused of. But what if he was? JKR has led us astray before, why not in this instance? From klevasseur at earthlink.net Tue Jan 18 22:58:10 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:58:10 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122319 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Betsy: > 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. However, if they both blew their > exams (especially Harry - Neville really did seem hopeless in class - > how many cauldrons did he end up destroying?) then I'll have to > reexamine my view on the matter. > > > Alla: > > If they performed well, they performed well, because Snape was absent > in OWL class. > "With Snape absent from the proceedings he found that he was much > more relaxed than he usually was while making potions. Neville, who > was sitting very near Harry, also looked happier than Harry had ever > seen him during a Potions class" - OOP, p.716. > > How does it make Snape a good teacher, if his only presense > terrorises the studentts so much that they are unable to reach their > potential? > > By the way, I am pretty sure that Harry performed well at least on > written OWL, because he knew Polyjuice effects well, but Snape did > not teach him that. > > JMO, > > Alla Ms. Luna, I agree with Alla on this point. I don't agree that Snape is a good teacher. My definition of what qualifies as a good teacher is NOT one who belittles and bullies certain children in his class to make a point to the class as a whole. His methods, including fear, do however make the kids pay attention in class. From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 18 23:03:13 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:03:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122320 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > On Wednesday, January 19, 2005, at 05:39 am, Geoff Bannister wrote: > > > Yes, but to extend on what I wrote above, when we become men (and > > women) we still allow ourselves the leeway to behave badly on > > occasions - sometimes deliberately, sometimes without thinking or > > realising that we have. > > > > Where we learn and grow is by reflecting on the fact that we did > > fail - ourselves if no one else - and try to use our experience in > > future situations. Jocelyn: > Yes! We may aim at perfection, but most of us (all of us) are nowhere > near attaining it. Where we FAIL to learn and grow is if we deny that > it was a failure on our own part at all - when we blame the other > person for 'forcing' us to behave this way. Geoff: I think, Jocelyn, that we are saying the same thing in reality. I said that where we learn and grow is by realising that we failed.... You said that we fail to learn and grow if we deny a failure. These are two sides of the same coin. Harry has a clear realisation of what has happened... 'He had no desire at all to return to Gryffindor Tower so early, nor to tell Ron and Hermione what he had just seen. What was making Harry feel so horrified and unhappy was not being shouted at or having jars thrown at him; it was that he knew how it felt to be humiliated in the middle of a circle of onlookers, knew exactly how Snape had felt as his father had taunted him and that judging from what he had just seen, his father had been every bit as arrogant as Snape had always told him.' (OOTP "Snape's Worst Memory" p.573 UK edition) Harry is not denying a failure. He is trying to come to terms with it. He does try to justify it later... 'He felt as if the memory of it was eating him from inside. He had been so sure his parents were wonderful people that he had never had the slightest difficulty in disbelieving the aspersions Snape cast on his father's character. Hadn't people like Hagrid and Sirius told Harry how wonderful his father had been?' (OOTP "Careers Advice" p.575 UK edition) The first thing that happens in a case like this is that you don't want to believe what you have heard and a see-saw goes on in Harry's mind balancing out the different views..... '(Yeah, well, look what Sirius was like himself, said a nagging voice inside Harry's head.... he was as bad, wasn't he?)' (ibid. p.575) 'Harry tried to make a case for Snape having deserved what he had suffered at James' hands; but hadn't Lily asked "What's he done to you?" **** Harry kept reminding himself that Lily had intervened; his mother had been decent. Yet the memory of the look on her face as she had shouted at James disturbed him quite as much as anything else; she had clearly loathed James and Harry simply could not understand how they could have ended up married. **** For nearly five years, the thought of his father had been a source of comfort, of inspiration. whenever someone had told him he was like James, he had glowed with pride inside. And now... now he felt cold and miserable at the thought of him.' (ibid. p.576) Harry is an adolescent. At this age, we have heroes; we have role models and we have uncertainties about ourselves. It is a shattering experience when one of our guides proves to have feet of clay. Although canon doesn't record it, I'll lay odds on Harry going off for a quiet cry somewhere. The worst outcome of this confrontation with Snape because of his stupidity in looking in the Pensieve is the undermining of his images of James and also Sirius. How can he, as a young person finding his way in life, screw himself up to approach Snape? If Snape had any feeling for the problems faced by his classes at this age - particularly remembering his own rocky progress - he would make himself more approachable and not assume the role of a fearsome taskmaster. Harry has failed. He knows that he has failed. He feels that his father has failed. What he really needs is someone who can take him forward and show him how to learn from that failure and rise above it. Sadly, that someone is not Snape because he himself has never overcome his own probelms with the Marauders. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 18 23:04:26 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:04:26 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122321 I think we've established that Lupin did not continue to practice with Harry until Harry could produce a patronus in the presence of a boggart-dementor. Harry warns his class that they are not prepared, even though some of them can do a corporeal patronus, and says that they really need to be practicing with a boggart. Harry seems to have forgotten that he didn't get to that point with Lupin himself. So did I, until I re-read PoA. Jo is tricky! > Renee: > That only strengthens the case for Lupin's confession to DD. After Sirius told him all about the Animagi transformations, DD knew what went on right under his nose, back in the Marauders' days. So, if Lupin had kept this information from him, DD would definitely *not* have said to Harry that Remus told him everything. Pippin: Okay, now I'm confused. Where does Dumbledore say that Remus told him everything? Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 18 23:15:43 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:15:43 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122322 -- > Alla: > > If they performed well, they performed well, because Snape was absent in OWL class. > "With Snape absent from the proceedings he found that he was much more relaxed than he usually was while making potions. Neville, who was sitting very near Harry, also looked happier than Harry had ever seen him during a Potions class" - OOP, p.716. > > How does it make Snape a good teacher, if his only presense > terrorises the studentts so much that they are unable to reach their potential?< > Pippin: It depends on what you think the goal of the class is. If you think it's to give the kids fond memories of Snape, or fond feelings about potion-making, then Snape is a failure. If the goal is to make sure that nobody, ever, for the rest of their lives, goes near a cauldron unless they are 150% confident in what they are doing, then Snape is good. Considering that botched potions can kill or permanently incapacitate people, and that the differences are often subtle, I can thoroughly understand Snape's attitude. Harry can't figure out why Snape zapped his grey-colored potion in the first OOP class. After all it looked almost the same as Hermione's silver one. But Snape told them all at the beginning of class that an improperly made Draught of Peace would put the drinker in a permanent stupor. Not something to leave around, and far more deserving of a zero than a vial that no one would drink because it was obviously wrong. Pippin From drednort at alphalink.com.au Tue Jan 18 23:34:51 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:34:51 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41EE37CB.8922.7662790@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122323 On 18 Jan 2005 at 22:50, dumbledore11214 wrote: > If they performed well, they performed well, because Snape was absent > in OWL class. > "With Snape absent from the proceedings he found that he was much > more relaxed than he usually was while making potions. Neville, who > was sitting very near Harry, also looked happier than Harry had ever > seen him during a Potions class" - OOP, p.716. > > How does it make Snape a good teacher, if his only presense > terrorises the studentts so much that they are unable to reach their > potential? Well, there's a few points there: (1) Just because Neville looks happier doesn't mean he's more able to reach his potential. A lot of kids do work better in environments where they are happy, but quite a number do not. (2) There's a difference between learning something and being able to show your understanding of it. I'm fairly convinced that Neville is better able to express himself outside the presence of Snape, but if he does well on his exam, that's going to come from at least two places - the comfortable exam environment means he may be better able to show his understading, but if he hasn't learnt in Snape's classes, the ability to show his understanding would be useless, because he wouldn't have anything to show. (3) Even if Neville is one of those who generally works better in an environment where he is happy (and I think he probably is, given what we know of his performance in other classes - most notably herbology), Neville is only one student in the class. Virtually all teachers have some students they teach well, and some students they teach poorly. I've said it before, but it warrants restating. I learned well from teachers like Snape. Most people in my classes did - but certainly not all. There were other classes where I didn't learn well from the way those teachers taught - but most people in the classes were. I can certainly understand why some people cannot regard Snape as a good teacher (even though I disagree with them), but I really do think that it's a real mistake to equate 'good teacher' with '100% successful teacher'. The fact that some kids don't do well in a particular class is often more a reflection on the differing way different kids learn, rather than the ability of the teacher. It also, to an extent, I think depends on what is being studied, and the kid's interest in it. If I enjoyed a particular subject (such as science, or history), I did learn in happy classes. Where I found the subjects hard or uninteresting (Latin, Ancient Greek, and Music most notably) - that's where I learned from the Snape's. And I can tell you that I don't think there is any way I could possibly have been happy in a Greek or Music class, even if St Francis of Assisi had been my teacher (-8 Potions is a hard subject, by all accounts, not just because Snape teaches it. Neville is not the best student in the world. I see no real reason to think he'd ever have been happy in a potions class. Yes, Snape seems to make it worse for him - but happiness may simply not be a realistic emotion for Neville to have about potions. He may be happy in that exam, partly because he is aware that this is the end of his potions studies. I *know* I felt that way in my last music exam at school. (Please note - I'm not badmouthing music - I know a lot of people love it - I have a neurological issue that means I can't really understand it though in the way most people do, and that made music classes at school, an absolute purgatory for me. I actually only passed because my final music teacher came pretty close to beating the subject into me. Rather amusingly, at University level, where I've had to do music so I know how to teach it, if I ever have to, I managed to get Second Class Honours in the subject - because of that teacher.) 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 drednort at alphalink.com.au Tue Jan 18 23:40:29 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:40:29 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41EE391D.14311.76B4F22@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122324 On 18 Jan 2005 at 23:15, pippin_999 wrote: > Pippin: > > It depends on what you think the goal of the class is. If you think > it's to give the kids fond memories of Snape, or fond feelings > about potion-making, then Snape is a failure. > > If the goal is to make sure that nobody, ever, for the rest of their > lives, goes near a cauldron unless they are 150% confident in > what they are doing, then Snape is good. Considering that > botched potions can kill or permanently incapacitate people, and > that the differences are often subtle, I can thoroughly understand > Snape's attitude. I know one of my Snapish teachers still - in fact, the most Snapish of all of them. As an adult I am able to discuss matters with him without almost passing out through fear (-8 I asked him fairly recently about the way he taught. I even raised the Snape issue with him, and he found it moderately amusing and he agreed with the analogy (which had apparently been expressed to him by others). Just after I spoke to him, he sent me an e-mail where he said something that I asked for permission to quote where appropriate. Here it is: "I am the best Classics Master in this country. I am an extremely effective teacher. What I am not is warm and cuddly. I don't know how to be. But I do know how to turn obnoxious adolescent boys into people capable of appreciating the combined culture of 25 centuries. Personally I think that's worth doing. If I can't do it without making a few boys cry. Tough. They'll thank me for it as adults. Or they'll hate me. Either way, they'll be better for it." 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 02:29:23 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:29:23 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <41EE37CB.8922.7662790@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122325 Alla If they performed well, they performed well, because Snape was absent in OWL class. "With Snape absent from the proceedings he found that he was much more relaxed than he usually was while making potions. Neville, who was sitting very near Harry, also looked happier than Harry had ever seen him during a Potions class" - OOP, p.716. How does it make Snape a good teacher, if his only presense terrorises the studentts so much that they are unable to reach their potential? Shaun: Well, there's a few points there: > > (1) Just because Neville looks happier doesn't mean he's more able > to reach his potential. A lot of kids do work better in > environments where they are happy, but quite a number do not. Alla: The gist of my reply to Betsy was that IF Neville gets a good grade ( not a given, but I think it is hinted in the text), that would mean that he indeed works better in a happy environment, which TO ME would mean that Snape does not help him to reach his true potential. Shaun: (2) There's a difference between learning something and being able to show your understanding of it. I'm fairly convinced that Neville is better able to express himself outside the presence of Snape, but if he does well on his exam, that's going to come from at least two places - the comfortable exam environment means he may be better able to show his understading, but if he hasn't learnt in Snape's classes, the ability to show his understanding would be useless, because he wouldn't have anything to show. Alla: Not necessarily at all. Harry feels that he does well on written OWL, which was to describe "Polyjuice effects" right? Snape had NOTHING to do with teaching them that Potion, accordingly you can say that Harry learned it entirely on his own ( well with Hermione and Ron's help) Suppose that Snape was present at the exam. Harry KNOWS the answer, but Snape's presence could have stopped him from answering the question up to his true potential. He could not have used his ability to show understanding at all. JMO, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 19 02:56:17 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:56:17 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122326 Betsy said earlier: >>>Oh, I agree that Snape was setting Harry up for failure. I just >>> think there was a reason for the behavior as I state above ["to >>> make the correct impression on Draco Malfoy. Snape is a spy"]. SSSusan responded: > > Seems kind of a dumb thing to do, though, doesn't it? Set Harry > > up for failure from the beginning? I mean, you're arguing that > > Snape is one of the Good Guys, one who never wants to see Voldy > > return, one who wants him eliminated if he does return? Then > > wouldn't he WANT Harry Potter -- the kid who vanquished Voldy > > the first time, the only one who apparently has a chance to beat > > him for good -- to learn? Or are you thinking that at this point > > Snape knows nothing about Harry's likely role in any future > > Voldycide? Or that he doesn't believe Voldy will return? It > > seems to me that that *can't* be your point; otherwise, why > > would Snape have to maintain a cover w/ the DE kids? If he > > isn't in on the possibility that Voldy's still hanging round out > > there, trying to make a comeback, then Snape wouldn't have > > to maintain any cover or worry about what the DE kids thought of > > him, would he? > Betsy: > I was using a bit of slang up there -- sorry! To "set someone up > for failure," means to arrange things so they'll make a fool out > of themselves. SSSusan: Hmmmm. Okay. In my book setting someone up for failure doesn't necessarily have the objective of making a fool of the person but just, well, doing somethig to ensure his failure. Betsy: > So in that first class Snape set Harry up for failure by > asking him potion questions he probably didn't know the answer for > and blaming Harry and Ron for Neville's potion accident (as Geoff > pointed out - Snape probably would've yelled at them if they *had* > helped Neville). I don't think he's not trying to teach Harry (or > Neville for that matter), but I do think part of Snape's method is > to choose a scapegoat in order to scare the crap out of the class > and motivate them to never, ever be in the scapegoat's position > (i.e. do the reading, learn the potions, etc.). For various > reasons (including the Spy!Snape one) Harry was chosen for that > illustrious position. SSSusan: Snape's rationale for his actions in this scene is one of the more oft-debated and non-agreed-upon Snape issues. Was it to humiliate Harry? To bring him down a notch? To establish that Snape's in control? Because he sees James when he looks at Harry? To bring attention to *those* particular potions ingredients ["hint, hint, Harry -- they're important!"]? To set the scene so that the wee wittle DE kids will believe he's after Harry? We really don't know, do we? Betsy: > So yes, I think Snape is aware of Harry's importance in the fight > against Voldemort. And I have strong suspisions that he's aware > of Neville's position too. SSSusan: But, see, that's my main point, Betsy. If Snape is aware of their importance, then why does he not ask himself whether these two are learning? With *these two* he goes beyond being a tough, hard-nosed, extremely- non-warm-fuzzy, high-standards teacher. I have NO qualms with a teacher of that description. I have problems with a teacher who singles out students to repeatedly humiliate and beat down and insult and intimidate, **especially** if they are THE two students in whose hands the future of the WW may well rest. Betsy: > 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. SSSusan: Maybe. For me it's not just about whether they managed to pass a big Potions test in the end, in Snape's absence, though that WILL be good news if they did. For me it's also not just about whether they've learned to "handle" a smart ass teacher because Voldy will be much worse than that. For me it's about whether they've learned *everything* they could possibly learn from this man (who I suspect knows a LOT), and whether they're the best prepared they can be. Snape's humiliation, sarcasm, snideness, and etc. appear to show a man who either can't control himself very well for the sake of the greater good or who just doesn't get it that he's not helping these two, one of whom, if the prophecy is right, is The One to Watch. Siriusly Snapey Susan From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Jan 19 02:57:13 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:57:13 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: References: <41EE37CB.8922.7662790@localhost> Message-ID: <41EE6739.3720.81F7623@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122327 On 19 Jan 2005 at 2:29, dumbledore11214 wrote: > > > > Alla > > If they performed well, they performed well, because Snape was > absent in OWL class. > "With Snape absent from the proceedings he found that he was much > more relaxed than he usually was while making potions. Neville, who > was sitting very near Harry, also looked happier than Harry had ever > seen him during a Potions class" - OOP, p.716. > > How does it make Snape a good teacher, if his only presense > terrorises the studentts so much that they are unable to reach their > potential? > > > Shaun: > > Well, there's a few points there: > > > > (1) Just because Neville looks happier doesn't mean he's more able > > to reach his potential. A lot of kids do work better in > > environments where they are happy, but quite a number do not. > > > Alla: > > The gist of my reply to Betsy was that IF Neville gets a good grade > ( not a given, but I think it is hinted in the text), that would > mean that he indeed works better in a happy environment, which TO ME > would mean that Snape does not help him to reach his true potential. Except that I don't think that is necessarily how it works. All it would indicate is that Neville produces answers better in a Snape free environment. It would say nothing at all about whether Neville learns better in a Snape free environment. In fact, it he does well, it would seem to indicate that both might apply. He may learn effectively in Snape's classes, without being able to produce results well. I was a bit like that with music at school. I learned all the theory. And fell apart during the practical if I had an audience. > Shaun: > > (2) There's a difference between learning something and being able > to show your understanding of it. I'm fairly convinced that Neville > is better able to express himself outside the presence of Snape, > but if he does well on his exam, that's going to come from at least > two places - the comfortable exam environment means he may be > better able to show his understading, but if he hasn't learnt in > Snape's classes, the ability to show his understanding would be > useless, because he wouldn't have anything to show. > > Alla: > > Not necessarily at all. Harry feels that he does well on written > OWL, which was to describe "Polyjuice effects" right? Snape had > NOTHING to do with teaching them that Potion, accordingly you can > say that Harry learned it entirely on his own ( well with Hermione > and Ron's help) Only because he didn't pay attention in class (-8 >From 'Chamber of Secrets': "'No, it's not,' said Hermione. "All we'd need would be some Polyjuice Potion.' 'What's that?' said Ron and Harry together. 'Snape mentioned it in class a few weeks ago -' 'D'you think we've got nothing better to do in Potions than listen to Snape?' muttered Ron. Harry certainly knew more about Polyjuice from learning about it while making it in preparation to infiltrate the Slytherin commonroom. But it's pretty clear that it was discussed in class, and he and Ron hadn't been paying attention. It's manufacture apparently wasn't discussed in detail in class (otherwise they wouldn't have had to get its recipe from the Restricted Area) but the potion was mentioned. The question on the OWL is apparently a fairly basic one as well - and it's only one question: "Hermione's bad mood persisted for most of the weekend, though Harry and Ron found it quite easy to ignore as they spent most of Saturday and Sunday revising for Potions on Monday, the exam which Harry had been looking forward to least - and which he was sure would be the downfall of his ambitions to become an Auror. Sure enough, he found the written paper difficult, though he thought he might have got full marks on the question about Polyjuice Potion; he could describe its effects accurately, having taken it illegally in his second year." So what we are talking about his Harry thinking he *might* have got full marks on *one* specific question on a difficult paper, because he had experience outside the Potions classroom. There's no indication that this applies more broadly. And there's no indication at all that Neville has any experience with potions outside the classroom environment at all. Is it possible? Sure, it's possible. But is it likely? I doubt it. We know that to get the information they need and the ingredients they need for their 'extra-curricular' activity in potions, Harry, Ron, and Hermione have to resort to fraud and theft. I doubt it's all that common, and I really doubt that Neville goes around doing those things at all often. > Suppose that Snape was present at the exam. Harry KNOWS the answer, > but Snape's presence could have stopped him from answering the > question up to his true potential. He could not have used his > ability to show understanding at all. Why not? I don't see any reason to think that Snape's presence at the examination would have affected Harry at all. We know Polyjuice potion was at least mentioned in class in second year, and presumably examination questions are based on what students have studied, so Harry would have no reason to conceal his knowledge. 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 03:04:03 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:04:03 -0000 Subject: Book 6 - Hieroglyphics might be clue Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122328 This might be a bit OT. List elfs are down the hall having a butterbeer.. shhhhh... I looked on the Firebolt broom. The 10 symbols are not runes. They are Hieroglyphics. I can not understand them, but it might be a clue to what is coming. oops.. thought I heard an elf coming.. WB consults with JKR before authorizing any item, so there must be a reason the symbols are there. Wonder if we will see Egypt again. Must be some reason that was in the books. and on the broom.. oh, here comes the elf.. gotta go. Tonks From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 03:15:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:15:30 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <41EE6739.3720.81F7623@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122329 Alla: Suppose that Snape was present at the exam. Harry KNOWS the answer, but Snape's presence could have stopped him from answering the question up to his true potential. He could not have used his ability to show understanding at all. Shaun: Why not? I don't see any reason to think that Snape's presence at the examination would have affected Harry at all. We know Polyjuice potion was at least mentioned in class in second year, and presumably examination questions are based on what students have studied, so Harry would have no reason to conceal his knowledge. Alla: You misunderstood me. I did not mean that Harry will be afraid to write about Polyjuice potion. I meant that Snape's presence may be terrorising per se ( and fear MAY stop you from remembering the answer) or I will not put it behind him to sabotage Harry's grade on purpose , like... I don't know throw the vial with potion on the floor. JMO, Alla From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 19 03:31:44 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:31:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 6 - Hieroglyphics might be clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050119033144.92791.qmail@web52006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122330 Tonks wrote: This might be a bit OT. List elfs are down the hall having a butterbeer.. shhhhh... I looked on the Firebolt broom. The 10 symbols are not runes. They are Hieroglyphics. I can not understand them, but it might be a clue to what is coming. oops.. thought I heard an elf coming.. WB consults with JKR before authorizing any item, so there must be a reason the symbols are there. Wonder if we will see Egypt again. Must be some reason that was in the books. and on the broom.. oh, here comes the elf.. gotta go. Tonks Luckdragon: Can this site help at all? http://www.eyelid.co.uk/e-name.htm 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 juli17 at aol.com Wed Jan 19 03:33:31 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:33:31 EST Subject: Harry's anger (Re: Draco's anger) Message-ID: <15d.4878f209.2f1f2f0b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122331 Eggplant writes: > Harry had memories that he didn't want Snape to see but Snape found > a way to overcome Harry's defenses; Snape had memories he didn't > want Harry to see, but he found a way around Snape's precautions. > Turn about is fair play and I don't understand why Harry, just a > boy, should be held to a higher ethical standard than an adult like > Snape. > Julie says: No one says Harry has to have a higher ethical standard than an adult like Snape. But it will certainly be disappointing if he doesn't. Sure, one can argue that if Snape can do it (bully, torment, ridicule, etc), then why isn't turnabout fair play? Because it's Harry dropping to Snape's level. And while we know Snape is a miserable git (on the side of good or not), why would we want Harry to be one too? Personally, I want to see Harry take the high road. I want to see evidence that he has ethical and moral standards far above those Snape appears to have. And we see evidence of Harry's standards in OotP. Harry KNEW he was wrong even as he delved into the Pensieve. He was violating his own ethical standards, which just proves that he can give into temptation. Which is fine, because everyone slides sometimes, including Harry. But I'm glad he was immediately aware that his behavior was wrong, even if he is never directly called on it. Gives me confidence in Harry's quality of character. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 03:42:34 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:42:34 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <41EE391D.14311.76B4F22@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122332 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: (snip) >It also, to an extent, I think depends on what is being studied, and the kid's interest in it. If I enjoyed a particular subject (such as science, or history), I did learn in happy classes. Where I found the subjects hard or uninteresting (Latin, Ancient Greek, and Music most notably) - that's where I learned from the Snape's. And I can tell you that I don't think there is any way I could possibly have been happy in a Greek or Music class, even if St Francis of Assisi had been my teacher (-8 Potions is a hard subject, by all accounts, not just because Snape teaches it. Neville is not the best student in the world. I see no real reason to think he'd ever have been happy in a potions class. Yes, Snape seems to make it worse for him - but happiness may simply not be a realistic emotion for Neville to have about potions. Tonks here: Now I know that as an adult I have been a defender of Snape here. But if I think about myself as a child, or for that matter even now, if I didn't like a subject I think I could ONLY learn it from a St. Fransis type, certaintly not from a Snape type. So I do not understand how anyone could, but I do understand that it works for you. I would hate both the teacher and the subject and drop out or flunk!! ====================== quoit from your teacher: > "I am the best Classics Master in this country. I am an extremely > effective teacher. What I am not is warm and cuddly. I don't know > how to be. But I do know how to turn obnoxious adolescent boys into > people capable of appreciating the combined culture of 25 > centuries. Personally I think that's worth doing. If I can't do it > without making a few boys cry. Tough. They'll thank me for it as > adults. Or they'll hate me. Either way, they'll be better for > it." > Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought > Shaun Hately Tonks here: Oh a chill goes through me even now. I'll bet that man is the $#@! *&! professor I had for a college freshman writing class, 30 years ago. The professor that humiliated me in front of the whole room and I left the class that day and never went back. I knew what was due when and I just slipped the papers under his door. Got a D. Waited till my last term to take the rest of my com. classes. Had a really nice woman teacher, kind... I felt save. And I got a 4. in the class. That Jerk of a man scared me for life the b....... After that every college course that I took undergrad and grad, if a paper was due I always got an incomplete and turned it in late. Just scared to death to write anything, even if I knew the subject better than anyone and loved it. A bad teacher CAN mess up a person for life!! OK... it is all coming back now. I will agree as a teacher SNAPE IS A JERK!!! But Allen Rickman is ... ahhhh.... Tonks_op From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Jan 19 03:49:19 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:49:19 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: References: <41EE6739.3720.81F7623@localhost> Message-ID: <41EE736F.1874.84F2A3F@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122333 On 19 Jan 2005 at 3:15, dumbledore11214 wrote: > Alla: > > You misunderstood me. I did not mean that Harry will be afraid to > write about Polyjuice potion. I meant that Snape's presence may be > terrorising per se ( and fear MAY stop you from remembering the > answer) or I will not put it behind him to sabotage Harry's grade on > purpose , like... I don't know throw the vial with potion on the > floor. No, I understood. I don't really see any reason to think that Harry is likely to be affected in this way by Snape's presence. Neville, maybe. Harry - no. Yes, being afraid can potentially have an affect on a person so they can't answer a question. But I can't see that happening to Harry in this type of context. 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 dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 04:19:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:19:59 -0000 Subject: Snape and Potions OWL. Was: Re: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <41EE736F.1874.84F2A3F@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122334 Alla earlier: You misunderstood me. I did not mean that Harry will be afraid to write about Polyjuice potion. I meant that Snape's presence may be terrorising per se ( and fear MAY stop you from remembering the answer) or I will not put it behind him to sabotage Harry's grade on purpose , like... I don't know throw the vial with potion on the floor. Shaun: No, I understood. I don't really see any reason to think that Harry is likely to be affected in this way by Snape's presence. Neville, maybe. Harry - no. Yes, being afraid can potentially have an affect on a person so they can't answer a question. But I can't see that happening to Harry in this type of context. Alla: We obviously disagree. I maintain that if the only occurrence that happened between Harry and Snape was Occlumency disaster, Harry may have been very affected by Snape's presence at OWL, especially if for some reason Snape decided not to keep his mouth shut. But that is of course just my opinion, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 04:20:22 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:20:22 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122335 >>Betsy: >So in that first class Snape set Harry up for failure [or to look the fool] by asking him potion questions he probably didn't know the answer for and blaming Harry and Ron for Neville's potion accident (as Geoff pointed out - Snape probably would've yelled at them if they *had* helped Neville). I don't think he's not trying to teach Harry (or Neville for that matter), but I do think part of Snape's method is to choose a scapegoat in order to scare the crap out of the class and motivate them to never, ever be in the scapegoat's position (i.e. do the reading, learn the potions, etc.). For various reasons (including the Spy!Snape one) Harry was chosen for that illustrious position.< >>SSSusan: >Snape's rationale for his actions in this scene is one of the more oft-debated and non-agreed-upon Snape issues. Was it to humiliate Harry? To bring him down a notch? To establish that Snape's in control? Because he sees James when he looks at Harry? To bring attention to *those* particular potions ingredients ["hint, hint, Harry -- they're important!"]? To set the scene so that the wee wittle DE kids will believe he's after Harry? We really don't know, do we?< Betsy: If I didn't know before, I've certainly figured out just how huge (and emotional) the debate over Snape and his teaching methods are. :) I should have clarified that the above is how *I* think he teaches. And I do (as stated earlier) think that there are other motivating factors. But the only way we could ever find out if this is actually how Snape usually runs his classroom is if either we witness him introduce another class of first years to the wonders of potions, or Snape actually explains his teaching methods. I doubt either situation will occur, so we'll probably never know. (So this debate will go on *forever*!) >>Betsy: >So yes, I think Snape is aware of Harry's importance in the fight against Voldemort. And I have strong suspisions that he's aware of Neville's position too.< >>SSSusan: >But, see, that's my main point, Betsy. If Snape is aware of their importance, then why does he not ask himself whether these two are learning?< Betsy: Why do you think Snape *doesn't* ask himself that question? The *only* reason Neville gets Snape's full attention is because he is constantly screwing up in such fantastic ways. I've always felt that Snape's sharp tongue when it comes to Neville has to do with his frustration that the boy just never gets it. (McGonagall loses her cool with Neville too. Neville is a challenge.) Leading into Trevor the toad's brush with death, Snape said that he was trying to figure out a way to motivate Neville to pay attention. And as far as Harry, he hates Potions, yes. But I don't think he ever failed anything until OotP. (And I belive that was just one exam. Didn't he buckle down a bit more after that?) So I'm not sure where he wasn't learning there. >>SSSusan: >With *these two* he goes beyond being a tough, hard-nosed, extremely- non-warm-fuzzy, high-standards teacher. I have NO qualms with a teacher of that description. I have problems with a teacher who singles out students to repeatedly humiliate and beat down and insult and intimidate, **especially** if they are THE two students in whose hands the future of the WW may well rest.< Betsy: Harry, like I've said, is a special case. And I haven't seen anything that suggests Harry has been failing Potions. Neville is... He's a sweet boy, but man he's a screw up. And Snape gets frustrated. And he gets nasty. But I don't think Snape thinks he's no longer teaching. I think he's thinking he'll beat some Potion's knowledge into Neville's fuzzy little head if it takes a two-by- four. >> Betsy: >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.< >>SSSusan: >Maybe. For me it's not just about whether they managed to pass a big Potions test in the end, in Snape's absence, though that WILL be good news if they did. For me it's also not just about whether they've learned to "handle" a smart ass teacher because Voldy will be much worse than that. For me it's about whether they've learned *everything* they could possibly learn from this man (who I suspect knows a LOT), and whether they're the best prepared they can be.< Betsy: What else do you expect Snape to teach Neville and Harry? He's the Potions Master. He's not their father, nor their mentor. Neville has a family to fulfill those roles, and even Harry has a few folks to choose from. Snape's job, what he's been hired to do, is to give these kids a basic knowledge of Potions and to get them past their OWLs. Which, I think, he's done. Anything else, in regards to the prophecy, would be sticking his oar into Dumbledore's business. Snape has too much respect for Dumbledore to do such a thing. >>SSSusan: >Snape's humiliation, sarcasm, snideness, and etc. appear to show a man who either can't control himself very well for the sake of the greater good or who just doesn't get it that he's not helping these two, one of whom, if the prophecy is right, is The One to Watch.< Betsy: I don't see how Snape's behavior has weakened Harry. I don't even see how it's weakened Neville. Both boys did quite well in the MoM battle. I'm not sure what it is you feel Snape should do for them. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 04:31:05 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 04:31:05 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122336 Betsy: What else do you expect Snape to teach Neville and Harry? He's the Potions Master. He's not their father, nor their mentor. Neville has a family to fulfill those roles, and even Harry has a few folks to choose from. Snape's job, what he's been hired to do, is to give these kids a basic knowledge of Potions and to get them past their OWLs. Which, I think, he's done. Anything else, in regards to the prophecy, would be sticking his oar into Dumbledore's business. Snape has too much respect for Dumbledore to do such a thing. Alla: I know, I know. Pick me! ( I think I am borrowing some poster recent remark, I just don't remember who was it) I expect Snape to teach Harry Occlumency, the task in which he failed magnificently, IMO only. Sticking in Dumbledore's business? Snape is either Dumbledore trusted leutenant and then he is ALREADY quite deep in Dumbledore's business, or he is not which raises some other evil possibilities, but that is not the point now, And may I disagree about Snape ... respecting Dumbledore? He was given a task, he gave in to his emotions, old wounds, whatever and did not do such task. I called it unsubordination at best. Betsy: I don't see how Snape's behavior has weakened Harry. I don't even see how it's weakened Neville. Both boys did quite well in the MoM battle. I'm not sure what it is you feel Snape should do for them. Alla: I'd like to speculate for a second. It is a possibility that if Snape performed better as a teacher, there would be NO battle at MOM, don't you think? Too bad we'll never know. :o) JMO, Alla From kalikama1 at gmail.com Tue Jan 18 16:51:00 2005 From: kalikama1 at gmail.com (Heidi Lindner) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 10:51:00 -0600 Subject: REG: Snape and Sirius as half-brothers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122337 >What if Snape was Sirius's half brother, and the elder one? I don't know how that would exactly work as when Harry saw the memory of Snape's parents and the fight I seem to recall that the guy in the dream looks much like Snape (I guess that would be the other way around but you all know what I mean) and Sirius was supposed to be handsome, and Snape isn't supposed to be or what not. If you all understand that.... Later P.S. I thought that they were both full-blooded wizards?? -- Heidi Lindner From ladymlb777 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 19:04:39 2005 From: ladymlb777 at yahoo.com (ladymlb777) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:04:39 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122338 I know that I am new and you all don't know me, but I have been kind of interested in the Snape debate. In my mind I keep going back to the fact that Snape is suposed to be a DE. His whole job for the Order is to be a spy. If he had done anything to give Harry a fair shot in class, if he hadn't been so mean towards him, it would have sent off a bunch of red flags. I am not saying that he does not despise Harry, I think that it is fair to say he loathes him, but maybe we must take in to consideration the fact that it might be prudent for him to imbellish that fact a little. luci From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 18 19:52:58 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:52:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: o, Gerry is asking for Harry to just *think* about it, just > consider whether he should make the attempt. I agree that Snape > would probably be fairly nasty (if he even gave Harry a chance to > speak), but the fact that Harry didn't make the attempt, didn't even > *consider* making the attempt, shows that Harry still has some > growing to do himself. Does Harry even realize that he was wrong to > snoop? That's exactly what I mean, and what I miss. He is fifteen years old after all, old enough to know right from wrong apart from his feelings for the person he wronged. > > The healing between Snape and Harry may very well need to start from > Snape's end. Snape is the adult after all, and I think Snape is the > one who started their relationship off wrong in the first place. > But Harry needs to do some changing too. I don't expect anything from Snape. Bodily he's an adult, but adult behaviour is not something he seems te be good at in a lot of cases, socially he is an invalid, there's something broken there which may never heal. Harry however, is supposed to be a normal human being, who is capable of learning and growing. I would love Snape to be able to make such a huge leap in his development, but I don't really believe it. Gerry From coatiman2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 21:01:44 2005 From: coatiman2020 at yahoo.com (Jay) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:01:44 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor and Ravenclw Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122340 This may have been discussed before, if it has, feel free to ignore this post. We know that Harry (and the rest of the Gryffindors in Harry's year) have classes with the Slytherins and the Hufflepuffs, but do they have ANY classes with the Ravenclaws? Here's what I can remember about their schedule, I don't have my books here to reference. Transfiguration seems to be a one house class, no other houses are ever directly mentioned that I can recall. Charms classes are mentioned very little in the books. Charms itself seems to be mentioned as an afterthought, "Oh, I wish I hadn't missed that Charms lesson!" etc... But I seem to recall it being a one house class. Herbology we know for sure the 5th year Gryffindors have with the 5th year Hufflepuffs. We have Chamber of Secrets to thank for that bit of knowlege. Potions: I don't think I need to cite the reasons we know the 5th year Gryffindors have it with the Slytherins Care of Magical Creatures: With the Slytherins, as Buckbeak showed us... Defense Against the Dark Arts seems to be another one house class Divination: another one house class Astronomy, Muggle Studies, Arithmancy and Ancient Runes are all unknown quantaties as Harry doesn't take those courses. Where are the 5th year Ravenclaws? It is possible of course that they factor in in other classes, that we, seeing through Harry's eyes, are not aware of. And they possibly mix with Gryffindors in other years. But my question is still unanswered: where are they? Forgive my rambling, this is my first post. Jay, A hufflepuff From easimm at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 21:03:59 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:03:59 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - a bilingual interpretation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122341 I hope no one has posted this before because this subject has been covered very often. In case anyone has I making this posting short. Vol de mort could be a combination of German and French meaning full of death. "Voll" is german for "full". "Mort" is French for "death". The "Death Eater" name for followers of Voldemort would make a lot of sense if they felt they got their strength from Voldemort. -Snorky From easimm at yahoo.com Tue Jan 18 21:53:51 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:53:51 -0000 Subject: Does Snape think he is fair? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122342 I don't think Snape has any idea that he's considered to be supremely unfair and nasty by Hogwarts students not in Slytherin. In general, I think he thinks he's being fair when he puts students down because he is leveling the playing field for his much maligned Slytherins. Does anyone else agree? From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 02:47:50 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:47:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape vs Quirell Message-ID: <20050119024750.17548.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122343 While I was surfing the web and updating my blog, a thought came to my mind, I apologize if this has been discussed before but yahoomort wasn't much help. Here it goes: We all know that during PS/SS Professor Quirell had Voldemort in his body, sharing it. Voldemort was trying to get Quirell to steal the Philosopher's stone, he tried to steal it out of Gringotts and failed by only a few hours (or minutes), then as punishment he decided to "join" him in order to keep a close watch on him. During the first banquet of the year, while Harry was looking at Quirell his scar hurt for the first time and he thought it was due to Professor Snape. Over the weeks as Harry & Co start to figure things out, believing that Severus Snape was after the Stone in order to get it to his "master", Lord Voldemort. On Halloween, when a troll got into the castle, Snape got hurt, he was bitten in the leg by Fluffy, Hagrid's cute three-headed dog. Harry believes that Snape tried to get through the dog and into the chamber that contained the Stone. After one Quidditch trainning, Harry follows Snape into the forbidden forest, the conversation goes something like this: Quirell is almost crying and Snape tells him he'd better decide in who's his loyalty, then the scene is over and Harry is more convinced than ever that Snape is guilty. We all know what happens at the end, Harry realizes it's Quirell who's after the Stone, and he learns that Voldemort is hiding behind his turban, and Snape was actually trying to save the Stone -and Harry. 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 conversations, right? So how come Snape does not know that Snape has changed sides? that he is actually working for the Order and Dumbledore? Juli- always obsessing about Severus Snape __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From socal_java at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 03:45:16 2005 From: socal_java at yahoo.com (socal_java) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 03:45:16 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122344 Hi everyone, please be patient with me. I'm new, and still learning how these posts work. I've read a couple hundred of the posts on this subject. I think S dislikes HP, but I don't think he hates him. S refuses to tolerate the hero-worship of HP. He is determined to keep HP from arrogance about himself or his power against V. I agree with some who say that S is the one who won't return to V. Nothing else fits, I think. S is no coward. About other S clues: the glitter in S's eyes at certain times does seem a key hint. So does his pointed remarks to HP that knowing the right ingredients/amounts for certain potions is important. Speaking of which, remember in Book 5 JKR wrote that a certain potion could make a person act in dangerously rash ways that they normally wouldn't? Remember how rash SB was being? Could his house elf, a loyal DA servant who despised SB, have put a little something in his drink/food? How about how ridiculously rash and foolish HP was being? The house elf had opportunity, the group was there a lot. But back to S... I think AD did ask S to "return" to V (secret mission) and risk a horribley painful death, to make V believe S is still a loyal DE. But I'm very disturbed by how he treated HP in Occlumency. As inkling108 pointed out so so well on 1/17, S was very "out of character". Any ideaas out there of why S did not train HP exactly what to do, and refused to give him time to prepare himself? From department.of.mysteries at gmail.com Wed Jan 19 04:23:11 2005 From: department.of.mysteries at gmail.com (Kaesa Aurelia) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:23:11 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 6 - Hieroglyphics might be clue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122345 Tonks_op said: > I looked on the Firebolt broom. The 10 > symbols are not runes. They are Hieroglyphics. I > can not understand them, but it might be a clue to > what is coming. oops.. thought I heard an elf > coming.. WB consults with JKR before authorizing > any item, so there must be a reason the symbols > are there. > > Wonder if we will see Egypt again. Must be some > reason that was in the books. and on the broom.. I don't know that Egypt will eventually be important - it seems more like a marketing gimmick to me, to make the products "mysteeerious" - (though I suppose it might be important and I'd definitely SQUEE if Egypt came up) but I do know that historically a lot of what we consider "Western"-style magic originated in Egypt, and it's possible that JKR's magic originated there too - especially since the Egyptians were fond of spells to *control* and *bind* people - the primitive origins of Imperius? ~Kaesa From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Jan 19 05:13:44 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:13:44 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122347 > > Tammy: > > > > And if you remember, when Harry and Dumbledore are trying to > convince Fudge that what Harry saw was real, Harry starts naming > names. When Harry first starts, it says this about Snape: "Snape > made a sudden movement, but as Harry looked at him, Snape's eyes > flew back to Fudge." Now it could be that reaction was simply > because his "friend" Lucius had just been named. Or it could have > been that Snape was afraid that Harry had recognized Snape in the > graveyard. > > -Tammy. > > > Tonks here: > I think it fits. Not sure 100%, but it > is possible. I often thought that of the 3 that were not there, > Snape was not one of the list. I think that there is another one > somewhere (not Barty) that we do not know about. Gosh.. I hope it > isn't Lupin. I am sure it is not. Also Snape is still friends with > Malfoy, would he be if LV knew that he was the one who *left me > forever*. He is not the coward. And how could he spy if LV knew he > was not still one of his DE? > Valky: Oh yeah, of course Tammy, I forgot to mention in my other post to this thread, I love the Snape *was* there theory as much as I ever did. OTOH I just can't get my head around it, it's spawned all kinds of nasty ESE's, which it should do. The best one, mostly because I can personally cope with it because I don't care for these characters, is Ludo Bagman is the coward and Karkaroff is the traitor... For what ever reason whether its ESE Lupin denial or just because I really believe it, I generally just go with Snape having been the one that seemed to be a traitor. | | | | | | Book Six is a time for answers. How are we doing with the questions? Submit your _OWL_ essay to Row 97 today. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Prophecy_Orb * * * | | | | _Signum Orbis_ From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Jan 19 05:18:31 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:18:31 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape vs Quirell Message-ID: <1da.341c289f.2f1f47a7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122348 In a message dated 1/18/2005 8:43:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, jlnbtr at yahoo.com writes: 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 conversations, right? So how come Snape <*********I assume you meant Voldemort***************> does not know that Snape has changed sides? that he is actually working for the Order and Dumbledore? Juli- always obsessing about Severus Snape ************************************************************* Chancie: Great question Juli!! I too was wondering that and I asked a question like this in a post I replied to long ago, but never got an answer. I also asked why, if Voldemort is such a wonderful Legimins (sorry for spelling) does he not realize Snape's lying. It was said to me that he must use the pensive, but wouldn't that mean that he would have to remove ALL memories of Dumbledore and their conversations in order for Voldemort to know he's not hiding something? And wouldn't Voldemort become suspicious if Snape tried to block his mind from Voldemort? Although, I suppose if Snape isn't directly linked to Volde, but uses Lucius as a go between, then my previous not may not apply. But regardless of that, I can't see any why of getting around your point, and I agree 100%!!! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 05:20:16 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:20:16 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122349 >>Betsy: >What else do you expect Snape to teach Neville and Harry? >Snape's job, what he's been hired to do, is to give these kids a basic knowledge of Potions and to get them past their OWLs. Which, I think, he's done. Anything else, in regards to the prophecy, would be sticking his oar into Dumbledore's business. Snape has too much respect for Dumbledore to do such a thing.< >>Alla: >I expect Snape to teach Harry Occlumency, the task in which he failed magnificently, IMO only.< Betsy: Was this what SSSusan was talking about? Because Neville was not involved in the Occlumency lessons. So I'm confused about that. As far as the Occlumency lessons for Harry - yes those did fail, but, as I've said before, and as I *know* you'll disagree Harry held some of the blame. >>Alla: >Sticking in Dumbledore's business? Snape is either Dumbledore trusted leutenant and then he is ALREADY quite deep in Dumbledore's business, or he is not which raises some other evil possibilities, but that is not the point now,< Betsy: Let's turn this around a little. What about McGonagall? What extra stuff has she done for the prophecy boys? She's a trusted lieutenant herself, why isn't she doing special projects with Neville and Harry? As far as I can tell she has only acted in her role as Head of House and Transfiguration Professor. The prophacy stuff is Dumbledore's baby. Snape and McGonagall will do as they're told by Dumbledore, but they will not overstep their bounds -- is what I was trying to say. >>Alla: >And may I disagree about Snape ... respecting Dumbledore? He was given a task, he gave in to his emotions, old wounds, whatever and did not do such task. >I called it unsubordination at best.< Betsy: Which leads us to the Occlumency lessons, which was an assignment by Dumbledore for Snape. And yes, Snape ended the lessons prematurely. Which you're absolutely correct, is insubordination. And I wonder what the fall-out will be. I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg on this. However, I do think Snape respects Dumbledore. I think he has *huge* respect for him. He does things for Dumbledore he'd never do for anyone else. I don't think Dumbledore would hold Snape so close if there wasn't mutual respect going on there. A good barometer on that is Hagrid. Hagrid has no patience for anyone disrespecting Dumbledore, and Hagrid respects Snape, so Snape must respect Dumbledore. >>Betsy: >I don't see how Snape's behavior has weakened Harry. I don't even see how it's weakened Neville. Both boys did quite well in the MoM battle. I'm not sure what it is you feel Snape should do for them.< >>Alla: >I'd like to speculate for a second. It is a possibility that if Snape performed better as a teacher, there would be NO battle at MOM, don't you think?< Betsy: No, I think the battle would have occured. Though I know you won't like the reason I think that way. :) No matter how much Occlumency Harry learned, he wanted to see the end of the dream. So Harry would have left his mind open to Voldemort in order to see what was in the DoM, and he would have been fooled. And the MoM battle would have occured. Betsy From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Wed Jan 19 05:28:29 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:28:29 EST Subject: The Order's means of communication... Message-ID: <92.1e7ccf42.2f1f49fd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122350 OK, I was cooking dinner tonight, and a thought popped into my head. A while back there was a discussion about how the order communicates, and there were thoughts about pictures, portraits, and the like, and well anyway... JKR was said to have commented that the order uses means of communication that we've seen before, but didn't realize it. Well it struck me, that Harry seems to see LOTS of cats. And well, I'm thinking that maybe the answer to this could be kneazle's! It's something that muggles wouldn't find odd, and it wouldn't attract too much attention. I'm sorry if this has already been brought up, but I wanted to see what you all think, and please feel free to give me any and all reason's as to why I'm crazy for thinking such a thing! Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 05:33:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:33:57 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122351 Alla: I expect Snape to teach Harry Occlumency, the task in which he failed magnificently, IMO only.< Betsy: Was this what SSSusan was talking about? Because Neville was not involved in the Occlumency lessons. So I'm confused about that. As far as the Occlumency lessons for Harry - yes those did fail, but, as I've said before, and as I *know* you'll disagree Harry held some of the blame. Alla: I am not Susan, but I think she was speaking of both (Susan, correct me if I am wrong, please). And unsurprisingly, I agree with her. So far, I don't see any proof of Neville learning anything in Potions ans Harry too, frankly. Talk to me after they get their OWLS. What we do see is Neville being insanely terrified of Snape, which besides other things I speculate slowed his development as a wizard immensely. Don't you find it ironic, that Neville progressed in Harry's DADA club more during a few months than in Snape class during five years. Seems that Harry is far more gifted teacher at 15 that Snape is in mid thirties. :o) JMO, Alla From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Wed Jan 19 05:51:24 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:51:24 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2700446A-69DE-11D9-BC66-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 122352 On Wednesday, January 19, 2005, at 10:03 am, Geoff Bannister wrote: > I think, Jocelyn, that we are saying the same thing in reality. I > said that where we learn and grow is by realising that we failed.... > You said that we fail to learn and grow if we deny a failure. These > are two sides of the same coin. I agree totally. I apologise that I failed to make clear in my last post that I completely agreed with your point. I wanted to expand upon it to show explicitly that this growth depends on accepting responsibility for the failure. > Harry has a clear realisation of what has happened... > Harry has failed. He knows that he has failed. I actually thought that this was so, but when I carefully read your quotes I am now not so sure. Harry is so overwhelmed and distressed by what he has seen that I am not sure he has room to realise that he is at fault because of the way in which he learned the information. Possibly that knowledge underlies some of Harry's misery, and his quiet acceptance of Snape's violent reaction, but I don't see anywhere in your quotes where the book states that he knows this behaviour was a failure on his part. What it does state is that he is unhappy because he relates to Snape and not to his idealised father in these memories. His belief in his 'golden parents' is tarnished. I do wish that somewhere in all his misery, we were told that the thought flashed across Harry's mind "I should never have done it. I knew it was wrong." But then, that wouldn't be JKR's style, would it? Jocelyn PS: Certainly JKR would not, in this century, be able to get away the preachy tone of CS Lewis in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader when Lucy reads the 'spell to let you know what your friends think of you', hears her friend saying something nasty about her and is rebuked for her action by Aslan. "Child, I think you have been eavesdropping." "Eavesdropping?" "You listened to what your two schoolfellows were saying about you." "Oh, that? I never thought that was eavesdropping, Aslan. Wasn't it magic?" "Spying on people by magic is the same as spying on them in any other way. " From khinterberg at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 06:05:32 2005 From: khinterberg at yahoo.com (khinterberg) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:05:32 -0000 Subject: Book 6 - Hieroglyphics might be clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122353 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > This might be a bit OT. List elfs are down the hall having a > butterbeer.. shhhhh... I looked on the Firebolt broom. The 10 > symbols are not runes. They are Hieroglyphics. I can not understand > them, but it might be a clue to what is coming. oops.. thought I > heard an elf coming.. WB consults with JKR before authorizing any > item, so there must be a reason the symbols are there. > > Wonder if we will see Egypt again. Must be some reason that was in > the books. and on the broom.. > > oh, here comes the elf.. gotta go. > Tonks I have actually read a fascinating essay linking the Chamber of Secrets to the Chamber of Thoth--an ancient Egyptian legend. It is in the Mugglenet book The Plot Thickens, and is written by S.P. Sipal. It shows the many similarities between the two chambers, and also ties it to the comment that Ron thought he had heard of the Chamber before...that it "might've been Bill" who told him...Bill who works in Egypt. Get a copy of that book! khinterberg From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jan 19 06:47:20 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:47:20 EST Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) Message-ID: <12f.54d426db.2f1f5c78@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122354 Shaun wrote: > I know one of my Snapish teachers still - in fact, the most Snapish > of all of them. As an adult I am able to discuss matters with him > without almost passing out through fear (-8 > > I asked him fairly recently about the way he taught. I even raised > the Snape issue with him, and he found it moderately amusing and he > agreed with the analogy (which had apparently been expressed to him > by others). > > Just after I spoke to him, he sent me an e-mail where he said > something that I asked for permission to quote where appropriate. > Here it is: > > "I am the best Classics Master in this country. I am an extremely > effective teacher. What I am not is warm and cuddly. I don't know > how to be. But I do know how to turn obnoxious adolescent boys into > people capable of appreciating the combined culture of 25 > centuries. Personally I think that's worth doing. If I can't do it > without making a few boys cry. Tough. They'll thank me for it as > adults. Or they'll hate me. Either way, they'll be better for > it." > Julie says: This does sound very much like Snape. In fact, I'd bet this is exactly his attitude. He's there to pound knowledge into their ungrateful little brains. He's not there to coddle them, and he certainly doesn't give a damn whether they like him or hate him. But the one difference with Snape is that his personal prejudices enter into his teaching method. He allows a bit of latitude to his Slytherin students that he doesn't give to others, because they are *his* kids, i.e., Slytherin house. (Favoring your own house, dorm, fraternity, etc, is a natural tendency few can avoid--McGonagall even does it with the Gryffindors--and Snape has less control over his prejudices than most.) OTOH, he rides Harry harder than anybody because of a personal animosity toward James carried over to his son (and, truth be told, because Harry both unwittingly and wittingly reinforces Snape's beliefs about him). Those around Harry also bear the brunt of Snape's prejudice because of their closeness to him. Snape is a reasonably *effective* teacher, maybe even a good one that respect, if you aren't Harry or anyone closely involved with him. And if you aren't exactly the kind of student Snape would naturally despise--Neville. But he's not really a good teacher in the full, broadest sense, the teacher who not only drills knowledge into his students but also instills a love of learning and emboldens their confidence and self-esteem. Lupin is that kind of teacher. McGonagall may be too, despite her occasional impatience. Snape definitely is not. IMO, Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 19 07:44:40 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:44:40 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - a bilingual interpretation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122355 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "curlyhornedsnorkack" wrote: > > > I hope no one has posted this before because this subject has been > covered very often. In case anyone has I making this posting short. > > Vol de mort could be a combination of German and French meaning full > of death. "Voll" is german for "full". "Mort" is French for "death". > The "Death Eater" name for followers of Voldemort would make a lot of > sense if they felt they got their strength from Voldemort. > > -Snorky Geoff: General opinion in the past has favoured a completely French interpretation. There was a fairly lengthy thread on this about 18 months or so ago. The title was "Names" and it starts at message 75477 and might be of interest to follow through. From olivertraldi at gmail.com Wed Jan 19 05:48:10 2005 From: olivertraldi at gmail.com (Oliver Traldi) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:48:10 -0500 Subject: Snape vs Quirrell Message-ID: <262721d6050118214815d553e1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122356 Juli wrote: > We all know that during PS/SS Professor Quirrell had > Voldemort in his body, sharing it. Voldemort was > trying to get Quirrell to steal the Philosopher's > stone, then as punishment he decided to "join" > him in order to keep a close watch on him. > > > After one Quidditch training, Harry follows Snape > into the forbidden forest, the conversation goes > something like this: Quirrell is almost crying and > Snape tells him he'd better decide in who's his > loyalty, then the scene is over and Harry is more > convinced than ever that Snape is guilty. > > > So, my question is if Snape faced Quirrell 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 Quirrell's body > and soul, so he must have known and heard all their > conversations, right? So how come Snape does not know > that Snape has changed sides? That he is actually > working for the Order and Dumbledore? Juli, There's an excellent essay on Mugglenet about Snape - one of the regular columns - which offers an answer to this question. I couldn't find the essay itself but I believe there are three possibilities. 1) Voldemort knew Snape was with Dumbledore then. That's why Snape is "the one who will never return" in GOF. 2) Voldemort thought Snape wanted the Stone for himself, like any real Slytherin might. 3) Voldemort didn't think Snape knew Quirrell was with Voldemort. That is, Voldemort thought Snape thought Quirrell was with Dumbledore. (This is what Harry thought too.) The first one seems the likeliest, cool as the latter two are. But the really interesting thing is that, as there are still questions regarding Snape's character, this scene doesn't really offer any insight - there are *still* so many options, *despite* the fact that Quirrell was actually the bad guy in PS/SS. Oliver PS. I hope this works. I tried posting from the website and nothing happened... From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Jan 19 06:52:44 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:52:44 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122357 Ummn...Hi. Now that I have your attention, I just wanted to start a debate about a character that wasn't Snape, Harry, or Dumbledore. That character is OOTP!Ginny. I separate her from Ginny in the rest of the series because she bears no resemblance to book 1-4 Ginny. Am I the only person who was annoyed by her sudden prominence in OOTP? She burst onto the scene like a bad fanfic character, suddenly good at everything without a cohensive explanation and it certainly detracted from my enjoyment of the book. Was I the only who felt that way? Phoenixgod2000 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 09:48:56 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:48:56 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122358 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Tonks here: > > Ok. We know that there is a bond between Harry and LV. So LV put > part of himself into Harry. So what LV did was to come up with a > method that if anyone tries to AK him he is able to put his soul > into that person. Would explain why DD wouldn't try to AK him. Not > a total answer, but I don't know what else to add. Any helpers? > > Tonks_op bboyminn: This theory has been touched on before, but I was never drawn to it until I read your simple short explanation. Please allow me to try and expand the theory, and we'll see if we are on the same track. Basic Premise: Among his many self-protections, Voldemort enchanted himself in a way that would allow his /Essential SELF/ to take over the body of any person who killed him. This would certainly guard him from attack. Anyone who attempted to destroy Voldemort, would in fact end up destroying themselves, and in the process donate their own body to be Voldemort's new host body. That doesn't cover every possible cause of death, but for someone as hated as Voldemort, it certainly covers one really big one. The Flaw: Just one small flaw in this self-protection enchantment, it doesn't cover suicide. Well, OK, what happened wasn't exactly suicide, but Voldemort, when he attacked Harry, in essense, died by his own hand. The very Killing Curse he cast was the curse the killed him. The Problem: First, and most obvious, is that he was 'killed' by a Killing Curse that he cast himself, meaning that he couldn't enter the body of the person that killed him, because that person was him; both the killer and the killed. Second, this was a Rebounded Curse, there is no way any dark wizard could have foreseen his own curse rebounding on him. Especially, not someone like Voldemort who has hordes of minion who do most of his killing for him. The Result: Because of the /rebound/, the curse that tore Voldemort from his body came from Harry. However, it wasn't cast by Harry. That allowed for some essense of Voldemort to enter Harry, but because Harry didn't actually cast the spell nor did he consciously try to kill Voldemort, the transfer couldn't be completed. The limited and unusual circumstance only allow a small part of Voldemort to transfer. Harry had limited liability, therefore suffered limited consequences. None the less, Voldemort was killed but since the curse was cast by his own now dead body, he was forced out of his body, but had no where to go. The body that killed him was dead. That left him to live as Vapormort. The Future: Very confusing.... One could speculate that if Voldemort tries to kill Harry, he will again, in a sense, be killing himself, or at least, a part of himself. Hard to guess the result, but certainly a sticky problem. On the other hand, I'm not sure what would happen if Harry tries to kill Voldemort. Would that open the door for the /rest/ of Voldemort to enter Harry, or would we again run into the problem of 'essense of Voldemort' being both the killer and the killed? I think the idea has potential, but what it means for the rest of the series is hard to guess, and I'm usually pretty good about guessing; although, I'm frequently wrong, I'm rarely at a loss of speculation. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Jan 19 10:36:23 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:36:23 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (warning: rant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122360 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > I think we've established that Lupin did not continue to practice > with Harry until Harry could produce a patronus in the presence > of a boggart-dementor. Harry warns his class that they are not > prepared, even though some of them can do a corporeal > patronus, and says that they really need to be practicing with a > boggart. Harry seems to have forgotten that he didn't get to that > point with Lupin himself. So did I, until I re-read PoA. Jo is tricky! Renee: Alternatively, Harry wasn't forgetful and they did get to that point, only we're not being told. There was no way Jo could have done so without giving away what form Harry's Patronus took. She simply couldn't have shown Harry repelling a Boggart!Dementor, because that would have spoiled the plot. Tricky indeed. > > Renee: > > That only strengthens the case for Lupin's confession to DD. > After Sirius told him all about the Animagi transformations, DD > knew what went on right under his nose, back in the Marauders' > days. So, if Lupin had kept this information from him, DD would > definitely *not* have said to Harry that Remus told him > everything. > > Pippin: > Okay, now I'm confused. Where does Dumbledore say that > Remus told him everything? Renee: Sorry, I was quoting Arryn, not the book. I have to admit I didn't check it, because it seems so extremely unlikely to me that Remus would't also have told the entire story to Dumbledore. Harry indicates to DD that Lupin can confirm it. It would have been very strange if DD, knowing what he knew now, hadn't asked Lupin a few pointed questions after he returned from the Forest, and if this wouldn't have led to Lupin owning up to his past transgressions with the Animagi. Actually, Lupin not telling DD in the end would make him too stupid to be ESE. Lupin must realise that DD knows now he has betrayed his trust in the past, and that confessing everything is his only chance to regain it. Making himself suspicious by keeping silent wouldn't be a very clever move. It would fit moral coward Lupin, but not clever ESE!Lupin, who has nothing to lose and everything to win by confessing. At this point, I have to say that one of the (many) problems I have with the ESE!Lupin theory is that it casts aspersions on everything Lupin does or omits, to the point where even innocent Boggarts become his victims. Before I knew the theory in its entirety, I thought that plotwise, it was at least remotely possible, as I said in one of my earlier post, though I had other reasons for believing JKR wouldn't go there. But by leaving him no good impulses whatsoever and ascribing him about every atrocity we've seen so far, you're turning an interesting character with a dual nature of ferocious, murderous monster and kind, helpful, compassionate human being with flaws into a caricature of pure evil that could give Voldemort a run for his money, in order to make a redundant point about trust and deceiving appearances. To me, it's the contrast and the constant tension between the monster and the man that makes Lupin such a fascinating character. Moreover, making him evil would undermine another point JKR is trying to make, about love making all the difference. The difference between Harry and Voldemort is that Harry has known, and knows love while Voldemort does not and never has. Lupin was loved by his parents (or they wouldn't have gone to such lenghts to find a cure), by his friends at Hogwarts and by Dumbledore and he does show love, in his way - don't make the mistake to think that being introvert and somewhat detached instead of cuddly and "Mollyish" denotes a lack of love. A Lupin who starts his evil career at Hogwarts despite having (had?) loving parents, a kind Headmaster who does something unheard of by admitting him to the school and three supportive, close friends, effectively tells the reader that no, love apparently doesn't make much difference. I really don't think that's what JKR can't wait to tell us. Renee From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Jan 19 10:54:06 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:54:06 -0000 Subject: REG: Snape and Sirius as half-brothers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122361 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Heidi Lindner wrote: > > >What if Snape was Sirius's half brother, and the elder one? > > I don't know how that would exactly work as when Harry saw the > memory of Snape's parents and the fight I seem to recall that the > guy in the dream looks much like Snape (I guess that would be the > other way around but you all know what I mean) and Sirius was > supposed to be handsome, and Snape isn't supposed to be or what > not. If you all understand that.... > Renee: It could work if Sirius didn't resemble his father. Maybe his mother was beautiful when she was young. Or he resembles a good-looking grandparent. It would be ironic if the only thing Snape inherited from his Black fater was his bad looks. > Later > > P.S. I thought that they were both full-blooded wizards?? > > -- > Heidi Lindner Renee: Sirius certainly is. We don't know yet about Snape; all JKR said was that he wasn't Muggleborn, IIRC. And while Slytherin may be the pureblood House, we know it does take half-bloods. From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 11:24:54 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:24:54 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <41EE6739.3720.81F7623@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122362 >Shaun wrote: Harry certainly knew more about Polyjuice from learning about it while making it in preparation to infiltrate the Slytherin commonroom. But it's pretty clear that it was discussed in class, and he and Ron hadn't been paying attention. It's manufacture apparently wasn't discussed in detail in class (otherwise they wouldn't have had to get its recipe from the Restricted Area) but the potion was mentioned. vmonte responds: It's manufacture was not discussed in class? Yet, it's a question the children were suppose to know for their OWLS? I guess the only people who got this question right were Harry, Hermione, and Ron. Shaun wrote: I doubt it. We know that to get the information they need and the ingredients they need for their 'extra-curricular' activity in potions, Harry, Ron, and Hermione have to resort to fraud and theft. I doubt it's all that common, and I really doubt that Neville goes around doing those things at all often. vmonte responds: They would have never gotten the answer right if they hadn't. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 11:30:38 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:30:38 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122363 Betsy wrote: I don't see how Snape's behavior has weakened Harry. I don't even see how it's weakened Neville. Both boys did quite well in the MoM battle. I'm not sure what it is you feel Snape should do for them. vmonte responds: They weren't fighting with potions though were they. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Wed Jan 19 11:35:28 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:35:28 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: References: <41EE6739.3720.81F7623@localhost> Message-ID: <41EEE0B0.10624.9FA0228@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122364 On 19 Jan 2005 at 11:24, vmonte wrote: > > > >Shaun wrote: > It's manufacture apparently wasn't discussed in detail in class > (otherwise they wouldn't have had to get its recipe from the > Restricted Area) but the potion was mentioned. > > vmonte responds: > It's manufacture was not discussed in class? Yet, it's a question the > children were suppose to know for their OWLS? I guess the only people > who got this question right were Harry, Hermione, and Ron. Shaun: I should have been clearer - it's manufacture apparently wasn't discussed in class in *Second Year*. There's nothing to suggest it's manufacture hasn't been discussed since then. Secondly, the question on the examination may not have discussed manufacture at all: "Sure enough, he found the written paper difficult, though he thought he might have got full marks on the question about Polyjuice Potion; he could describe its effects accurately, having taken it illegally in his second year." This suggests strongly that the question asked was about the effects of Polyjuice Potion - not necessarily about its manufacture at all. > Shaun wrote: > I doubt it. We know that to get the information they need and the > ingredients they need for their 'extra-curricular' activity in > potions, Harry, Ron, and Hermione have to resort to fraud and > theft. I doubt it's all that common, and I really doubt that > Neville goes around doing those things at all often. > > vmonte responds: > They would have never gotten the answer right if they hadn't. There's no reason to suppose that at all. They may have studied it's manufacture since second year - and the manufacture may not have been asked about anyway - the question may well have only considered the effects, from what is written in Order of the Phoenix. 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 11:47:53 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:47:53 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Potions Class Prediction) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122365 Betsy wrote: I don't see how Snape's behavior has weakened Harry. I don't even see how it's weakened Neville. Both boys did quite well in the MoM battle. I'm not sure what it is you feel Snape should do for them. vmonte responds: They weren't fighting with potions though were they. vmonte again: This is what I want to happen in book 6. The Owl results come back and someone unexpected will do wonderfully in their Potions Owl. And like Harry with his DADA classes, begins to teach the children this subject on the sly. I would love for one of the students to be even better at Potions than Snape, as well as a wonderful teacher. Oh won't Snape be mad! HEEEEE From trekkie at stofanet.dk Wed Jan 19 13:08:14 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:08:14 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) References: Message-ID: <005c01c4fe27$ef6db2e0$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122366 > Alla: > > Suppose that Snape was present at the exam. Harry KNOWS the answer, > but Snape's presence could have stopped him from answering the > question up to his true potential. He could not have used his > ability to show understanding at all. > > > Shaun: > > Why not? > > I don't see any reason to think that Snape's presence at the > examination would have affected Harry at all. We know Polyjuice > potion was at least mentioned in class in second year, and > presumably examination questions are based on what students have > studied, so Harry would have no reason to conceal his knowledge. > > > Alla: > > You misunderstood me. I did not mean that Harry will be afraid to > write about Polyjuice potion. I meant that Snape's presence may be > terrorising per se ( and fear MAY stop you from remembering the > answer) or I will not put it behind him to sabotage Harry's grade on > purpose , like... I don't know throw the vial with potion on the > floor. Oh I don't think Snape would sabotage an exam. Not even Harry's. After all, teachers are generally interested in their students getting as high grades as possible, because that shows the outside world how good the *teacher* is too. If all Snape's pupils were generally getting lousy grades, I doubt he would have stayed on Hogwarts as a potions *master* We all sometimes seem to forget that Harry's class isn't the only class Snape teaches. And if he was a generally bad teacher, surely he wouldn't have been able to uphold his position for years. So we have to assume that he was at least slightly worse than usual towards Harry - and Neville. Harry, IMO because of him being his father's son (hey, teachers are humans too, and humans ARE sometimes irrational) and Nevill for being a klutz. Some people just can't stand clumsy people. It's not a nice trait, but a lot of people feel that way. Some people cope better than other at being around "stupid" people. Again, not a nice trait, but also, as it's been repeated ad nauseam, Snape is not a "nice" person. He's irrational, holds grudges, hates clumsy fools and has a volatile temper. Sounds just like me actually... :o) But being nice has nothing to do with doing the morally right thing in the big perspective, as in being on DD's side and against LV. As unpleasant as you may be on a personal level, as "good" can you be overall. And Vice Versa. Again, the "but he was always so nice" serial killer springs to mind. Or someone like Hermann Gring, who was very fond of his family and a good father, yet schemed the annihilation of millions. In regards to the Ployjuice potion, yes they had been taught about it earlier, and we must assume that there are repetitive courses before an exam, even in the WW. So both Harry and Neville ought to be able to answer - IF they have been paying attention. ~TrekkieGrrrl From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 12:14:16 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:14:16 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Quirell In-Reply-To: <20050119024750.17548.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122367 Juli wrote: After one Quidditch trainning, Harry follows Snape into the forbidden forest, the conversation goes something like this: Quirell is almost crying and Snape tells him he'd better decide in who's his loyalty, then the scene is over and Harry is more convinced than ever that Snape is guilty. We all know what happens at the end, Harry realizes it's Quirell who's after the Stone, and he learns that Voldemort is hiding behind his turban, and Snape was actually trying to save the Stone -and Harry. 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 conversations, right? So how come Snape does not know that Snape has changed sides? that he is actually working for the Order and Dumbledore? vmonte responds: There is also another scene where Harry hears Quirrell Crying in a classroom at school. Later, Quirrell tells Harry that he sometimes has trouble doing what Voldemort asks of him. This is also a strange scene in my opinion. If you're highly suspicious like me, you can read these scenes another way. Snape knows from the beginning that Voldemort is inside of Quirrell, and he is helping Voldemort. Quirrell is trying to fight off Voldemort, and Voldemort has enlisted Snape to keep an eye on him- -and keep him sedated/drugged, and quiet until Voldemort is strong enough to take over Q's body completely. Quirrell crying in the classroom is a time when Quirrell was trying to fight off Voldemort, but he realizes it's a losing battle. And Snape in the forest with Q is another time that Snape is suspicious of Q's loyalty to Voldemort. Granted, it makes no sense what so ever why Q would tell Harry at the end of SS/PS that Snape is a good guy. What does seem stranger to me is that it is obvious that Snape really suspected Quirrell. I think that Snape even suspected that Harry suspected Quirrell. Remember the first time Harry sees Snape at the beginning of SS/PS? Harry's head begins to burn when he looks towards Snape. And Snape immediately looks at the back of Quirrell's head. Or am I thinking of the movie? Vivian From trekkie at stofanet.dk Wed Jan 19 13:21:10 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:21:10 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Halfblood versus Mudblood (Was:Snape and Sirius as half-brothers) References: Message-ID: <006e01c4fe29$be175190$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122368 >>What if Snape was Sirius's half brother, and the elder one? > Heidi Lindner: > I don't know how that would exactly work as when Harry saw the > memory of Snape's parents and the fight I seem to recall that the > guy in the dream looks much like Snape (I guess that would be the > other way around but you all know what I mean) and Sirius was > supposed to be handsome, and Snape isn't supposed to be or what > not. If you all understand that.... > > Later > > P.S. I thought that they were both full-blooded wizards?? Perhaps we're all reading the "halfblood" wrong? Because I've been thinking it over and I thibnk Snape is a pureblood *wizard* - but not necessarily a pureblood *Snape* I really like the "Snape as Sirius' halfbrother" theory, so starting from that, what if he's a Halfblood *BLACK*? Again, since the Blacks are such an ancient and renowned house, they may have a somewhat royal, or at least noble status. So a decendant from them could technically be viewed upon as a prince. But a Black that is part Snape? Surely he would be a halfblood (which in this case would be something quite different from a *mudblood*) So Snape's parents may very well be wizards, both of them, but he and Sirius could still have the same father. OR mother. Just because the woman in Snape's memory was cowering doesn't mean she couldn't have evolved into nasty Mrs Black (though I personally do not think so, just keeping that possibility open too) And just because Snape is "ugly" and Sirius is handsome... well, they're not twins and you do inherit traits from both your parents. I assure you my two children look very different and they even have the same mother AND father) Besides, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some may find Sirius ugly and Snape handsome... ~TrekkieGrrrl From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 19 12:36:10 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:36:10 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122369 SSusan: >> But, see, that's my main point, Betsy. If Snape is aware of >> their importance, then why does he not ask himself whether these >> two are learning? Betsy: > Why do you think Snape *doesn't* ask himself that question? SSSusan: Because he's never changed his methods as far as we can ascertain. He's certainly never changed his presentation. If Harry bristles and "shuts down" in defiance, and if Neville falls apart [more than with other teachers, no? Snape could ask them about that, couldn't he?], then I don't think he's asking himself what he could do to change any of that. Betsy: > The *only* reason Neville gets Snape's full attention is because > he is constantly screwing up in such fantastic ways. I've always > felt that Snape's sharp tongue when it comes to Neville has to do > with his frustration that the boy just never gets it. (McGonagall > loses her cool with Neville too. Neville is a challenge.) SSSusan: As a former teacher myself, I know about challenges. But I believe you go too far when you say "the *only* reason." How do you know this? Neville does screw up -- he's klutzy in other places, too, and McGonagall is livid with him when he leaves the passwords out, yes. But ask yourself whether Neville has ANY chance of relaxing or feeling confident in his abilities -- something he seems to question by nature -- with the way Snape treats him? As Alla asked: > Don't you find it ironic, that Neville progressed in Harry's DADA > club more during a few months than in Snape class during five > years. SSSusan earlier: >> With *these two* he goes beyond being a tough, hard-nosed, >> extremely-non-warm-fuzzy, high-standards teacher. I have NO >> qualms with a teacher of that description. I have problems with >> a teacher who singles out students to repeatedly humiliate and >> beat down and insult and intimidate, **especially** if they are >> THE two students in whose hands the future of the WW may well >> rest. Betsy: > Harry, like I've said, is a special case. And I haven't seen > anything that suggests Harry has been failing Potions. Neville > is... He's a sweet boy, but man he's a screw up. And Snape gets > frustrated. And he gets nasty. But I don't think Snape thinks > he's no longer teaching. I think he's thinking he'll beat some > Potion's knowledge into Neville's fuzzy little head if it takes a > two-by- four. SSSusan: Precisely. Is a good teacher one who can't assess his own methodology to determine if beating a student with a (psychological) 2x4 is working or not? It's NOT WORKING with Neville. When I say "not working" with these two, I don't mean that they're learning nothing. I mean, "Are they learning ALL they are capable of learning?" If a different teacher were teaching them, would they learn more? That's the key, for me. SSSusan earlier: >> Maybe. For me it's not just about whether they managed to pass a >> big Potions test in the end, in Snape's absence, though that WILL >> be good news if they did. For me it's also not just about >> whether they've learned to "handle" a smart ass teacher because >> Voldy will be much worse than that. For me it's about whether >> they've learned *everything* they could possibly learn from this >> man (who I suspect knows a LOT), and whether they're the best >> prepared they can be. Betsy: > What else do you expect Snape to teach Neville and Harry? He's > the Potions Master. He's not their father, nor their mentor. > Neville has a family to fulfill those roles, and even Harry has a > few folks to choose from. Snape's job, what he's been hired to > do, is to give these kids a basic knowledge of Potions and to get > them past their OWLs. SSSusan: I've said nothing about mentoring or parenting. That's not what I mean. You think Snape's job is to give the kids a basic knowledge of Potions & get them to pass their OWLs. I think that's his *basic* job description. However, my argument is that with Harry -- and possibly Neville, too, since the prophecy could've been about both and DD believes in the prophecy -- that Snape, as DD's trusted staff member and, later, Order member, should go BEYOND that regular job description. Why? Because the stakes are so high. If Harry is the ONE who has the only chance to defeat Voldy, then it would behoove anyone who wants to live in a Voldy-free world to help the kid along in every way possible, make sure that they way you've been teaching him is effective. Betsy, continuing above comments: > Which, I think, he's done. Anything else, in regards to the > prophecy, would be sticking his oar into Dumbledore's business. > Snape has too much respect for Dumbledore to do such a thing. SSSusan: No. DD asked Snape to teach Harry Occlumency. Harry fouled that up, too, but Snape failed some as well, imo. Betsy: > I don't see how Snape's behavior has weakened Harry. I don't even > see how it's weakened Neville. Both boys did quite well in the > MoM battle. I'm not sure what it is you feel Snape should do for > them. SSSusan: Nowhere did I use the word "weakened." That's not a part of my argument, though it is for those who believe he was sabotaging Occlumency [I don't]. What I feel he should do for them is -- BECAUSE they're special cases, BECAUSE they're the Prophecy Boys -- do everything in his power to ensure that they learn as *much* Potions as they can, that Harry learns Occlumency, and maybe even, once Year 5 is here and we know VWII has begun, go above & beyond even more by ensuring Harry knows whatever he can tell him about how Voldy operates. He *was* a DE once, after all. Siriusly Snapey Susan, apologizing if this is disjointed or poorly explained -- I'm rushing out the door to a school board function. > Betsy From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 19 13:16:53 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:16:53 -0000 Subject: Halfblood versus Mudblood (Was:Snape and Sirius as half-brothers) In-Reply-To: <006e01c4fe29$be175190$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122370 >>>"TrekkieGrrrl" wrote snip So Snape's parents may very well be wizards, both of them, but he and Sirius could still have the same father. OR mother. Just because the woman in Snape's memory was cowering doesn't mean she couldn't have evolved into nasty Mrs Black (though I personally do not think so, just keeping that possibility open too) Potioncat: Here is a quote from JKR, taken from her official site: "Q. Apart from Harry, Snape is my favourite character because he is so complex and I just love him. Can he see the Thestrals, and if so, why? Also, is he a pure blood wizard? Snape's ancestry is hinted at. He was a Death Eater, so clearly he is no Muggle born, because Muggle borns are not allowed to be Death Eaters, except in rare circumstances. You have some information about his ancestry there." snipping Thestral portion Potioncat: It seems to me that she is hinting that he is not Pureblood. Although he couldn't be Muggle born. So, either one of his parents is a Muggle (unlikely) or one of his parents is a Half-blood. Which would make him a Half-blood like Harry. (IRRC, a wizard is half- blood if one parent is a Muggle or if two grandparents are Muggles) I also think Severus and Sirius are closely related. When I first read PoA I thought they sounded very much alike in appearance and in behavior. Although Sirius was a little more impulsive. It would be unlikely that they would have the same mother. It would be pretty hard to have 2 children born so closely with different fathers and to happen in a way that would fit this series. Some of the "same father" story lines that have been mentioned could work. It would also work for one of Snape's parents to have been disowned by the Blacks. And that would fit if Sirius' house would have been Severus' if his parent had inherited. Of course, we could all have bats in our belfreys as we bark up the wrong tree. Potioncat From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 13:20:54 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:20:54 -0000 Subject: Harry and Boggarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122372 vmonte: Just a thought here. Do you think that by the end of the series Harry will conquer all his fears and actually see what a boggart really looks like? Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 13:27:18 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:27:18 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <005c01c4fe27$ef6db2e0$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122373 TrekkieGrrrl wrote: Some people just can't stand clumsy people. It's not a nice trait, but a lot of people feel that way. Some people cope better than other at being around "stupid" people. Again, not a nice trait, but also, as it's been repeated ad nauseam, Snape is not a "nice" person. He's irrational, holds grudges, hates clumsy fools and has a volatile temper. vmonte responds: This is not the reason why Snape treats Neville badly. Or else Goyle and that other dunderhead would have been put out of their misery long ago. Vivian From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Jan 19 13:28:41 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:28:41 -0000 Subject: Snape at Godric's Hollow Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122374 I've been wondering about JKR's comment that she couldn't answer the question about Snape's Patronus and Boggart as it would give too much away. Despite thinking about it a great deal, I cannot see how his Patronus would further the plot. It's going to be an animal, and the only thing I can think of is some kind of insect, which might help him spy (if he were an animagi). The only other possibility is an owl (which he does share the physical characteristics of!). However, these possibilities don't give us any further info about Snape as a character. Therefore, it must be his Boggart that is important. The feeling that I have never been able to shift, is that Snape WAS there at Godric's Hollow. If he was there, then I do not see how he could have been a spy at this point (Why wouldn't he have warned the OOTP about the impending attack - or previously about Peter's switch!). I think that Snape's Boggart would somehow illustrate what happened at Godric's Hollow and how it caused Snape's switch of allegiance. I also believe that this is actually Snape's Worst Memory. We never saw the last memory of Snape's in the Pensieve!! Finally, I believe that DD completely trusted Snape's story, but had to lie about Snape's previous work as a spy. No-one would beieve that Snape happened to change on the day that Voldemort was defeated. (I can't remember if there is any reference to Snape's presence in the Order other than from DD). Brothergib (Endlessly fascinated by Prof. SS) From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Jan 19 13:55:15 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:55:15 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122375 SSSusan, previously: >> But, see, that's my main point, Betsy. If Snape is aware of >> their importance, then why does he not ask himself whether these >> two are learning? Betsy replied: > Why do you think Snape *doesn't* ask himself that question? SSSusan again: Because he's never changed his methods as far as we can ascertain. He's certainly never changed his presentation. If Harry bristles and "shuts down" in defiance, and if Neville falls apart [more than with other teachers, no? Snape could ask them about that, couldn't he?], then I don't think he's asking himself what he could do to change any of that. Dungrollin interrupts: Snape was never taught how to be a teacher. Even in the RW, learning to be a teacher is a relatively recent phenomenon. I would think that Snape *does* wonder why Neville's not learning ? or rather, he marks another essay that's not too bad and mutters rhetorically "Why can't he do it in practice?!" Snape's got a good helping of that other endearing virtue, arrogance. He is the teacher, they are the students. He teaches, they learn. He's been teaching for, what, 14 years now? He's always got decent OWL grades out of his students. If they're not learning, they're doing something wrong. There's another factor that I think comes into play here, and there's probably a technical term for it, but I don't know what it is, so I'll call it amplifying. If, like me, you're a relatively talkative person, and you meet somebody who is terribly quiet and shy, you start to feel uncomfortable. You look around for some way to get out of the conversation, but there is none, and you feel obliged to continue talking to this person until your bus comes. In an attempt to put this shy person at ease, and encourage them to speak up a bit, you talk a bit louder and a bit longer, so that their one-word answers to your lengthy questions don't get too uncomfortable. Unfortunately this has the opposite effect to that you intend. Instead of finding it easier to talk they find it more difficult, with this awful brash idiot who won't let them get a word in edgeways. So they become quieter and more monosyllabic. You compensate again, by stepping up the speed of your speech, putting in more jokes, talking in longer paragraphs, and so on and so forth, and the other person shrinks into themselves until they are practically silent. This works not only for quiet/noisy types, but other things as well. I suggest that Snape thinks that Neville doesn't care enough about potions to do it right. Snape gets angry with him to make him realise that it's important. Neville gets scared and panicky, which has the opposite effect to the one Snape intended. Snape compensates again ? he thinks Neville's still not trying hard enough to get it right, what can he do to make him take this seriously? Being Snape, the obvious thing is to put the frighteners on him. And it continues like that. If Snape were introspective *at all* he might consider his actions to be part of the reason why this approach doesn't work for Neville ? but he's not remotely introspective. If something goes wrong he apportions the blame elsewhere. It's got nothing to do with intelligence, it's an entirely emotion-driven reaction - but he'd never admit that. People in general (not just Snapes) are very good at pursuing a particular course because they are driven by emotional instinct, and then rationalising it logically afterwards. Come on SSSusan, if he wasn't like that, he wouldn't be Snape... I know you love him really! Dungrollin From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 19 14:14:12 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:14:12 -0000 Subject: Snape at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122376 "esmith222002" wrote: > > I've been wondering about JKR's comment that she couldn't answer the question about Snape's Patronus and Boggart as it would give too much away. Despite thinking about it a great deal, I cannot see how his Patronus would further the plot. It's going to be an animal, and the only thing I can think of is some kind of insect, which might help him spy (if he were an animagi). The only other possibility is an owl (which he does share the physical characteristics of!). However, these possibilities don't give us any further info about Snape as a character. Potioncat: But remember, a Patronus is not the same thing as an Animagus. I think the Patronus would take the form of that Patron/FatherFigure in your life. While an Animagus reflects your own characteristics. Knowing what Snape's are, outside of the storyline, could very well tell us something important or give something else away. But he would not be able to use his Patronus in spying. As far as I know, JKR hasn't said anything about Snape being an animagus. (Although I wouldn't be surprised.) If for example, if JKR had said, Snape's Patronus is a bumblebee, we would know for sure that Snape is loyal to DD. If we knew his Boggart was LV or was himself in a DE hood, we would know he is loyal to DD. We may never see his Patronus or his Boggart at all, but the knowing would be spoilers. >>Brothergib snipping too much Finally, I believe that DD completely trusted Snape's story, but had to lie about Snape's previous work as a spy. No-one would beieve that Snape happened to change on the day that Voldemort was defeated. (I can't remember if there is any reference to Snape's presence in the Order other than from DD). Potioncat: Well, I can't imagine a story that Snape could tell that would allow him to change sides after LV's fall. So I believe DD is telling the truth about Snape coming over before hand. From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 14:19:16 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (Rebecca) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:19:16 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122377 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > Ummn...Hi. > > Now that I have your attention, I just wanted to start a debate about > a character that wasn't Snape, Harry, or Dumbledore. That character > is OOTP!Ginny. I separate her from Ginny in the rest of the series > because she bears no resemblance to book 1-4 Ginny. Am I the only > person who was annoyed by her sudden prominence in OOTP? She burst > onto the scene like a bad fanfic character, suddenly good at > everything without a cohensive explanation and it certainly detracted > from my enjoyment of the book. Was I the only who felt that way? > > Phoenixgod2000 It didn't annoy me. I was glad to see more of her. She has clearly been deeply involved in previous plots without appearing to until the end (CoS). She has never appeared to be bad at everything, so why would JKR need to show why she's good? With that many brothers to learn from, she's bound to have had some sort of head start. We never had an explanation as to why Bill and Charlie were good enough to be head boys. I'm guessing they just had the brains and aptitude. I think it's possible that Ginny needed to be brought more to the front because I think that she's going to be seen to be far more actively involved in future books. We already see her determined to do something positive in joining DA. JKR already said that some things in CoS foreshadow some things which will happen in HBP. Seems to stand to reason that Ginny will be involved. Just my opinion of course! Becky From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 19 11:52:36 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:52:36 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122378 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > vmonte responds: > They would have never gotten the answer right if they hadn't. I don't agree. They made the potion because they (well Hermione, who paid attention) knew what the effects were because they discussed it in class. That's the reason they chose it in the first place. Well, on second thought I agree. After all, they did not pay attention, so presumably did not make notes either and so presumably would not have been able to learn them, and thus failed the question by their own fault. After all, if you have better things to do in class than listen to the teacher you are supposed to fail the exam. Gerry From spaebrun at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 11:22:25 2005 From: spaebrun at yahoo.com (spaebrun) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:22:25 -0000 Subject: Voldemort - a bilingual interpretation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122379 Snorky wrote: > Vol de mort could be a combination of German and French meaning full > of death. "Voll" is german for "full". "Mort" is French for "death". > The "Death Eater" name for followers of Voldemort would make a lot of > sense if they felt they got their strength from Voldemort. Reed: Well, I've never read a *German* interpretation of the name yet! If you want to go that way, you could add that 'mort' resembles the German 'Mord' which means 'murder' and argue that it is a contraction of "voll des Mordes" - "full of murder". Mind that this is very strange German, just at the border of grammatical correctness I'd say. However, German 'voll' is pronounced 'foll', so it doesn't match JKR's pronounciation of 'Voldemort'. And though being a German native speaker myself, I automatically pronounced the name correctly and never had the association of 'voll'. (I did think of 'Mord' though.) On the whole I definitely favour the French interpretation of the name - but it was sure nice to have some German mentioned here ;-) Reed From quigonginger at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 14:25:49 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:25:49 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122380 phoenixgod2000 wrote: > > Ummn...Hi. > > Now that I have your attention, I just wanted to start a debate about > a character that wasn't Snape, Harry, or Dumbledore. That character > is OOTP!Ginny. I separate her from Ginny in the rest of the series > because she bears no resemblance to book 1-4 Ginny. Am I the only > person who was annoyed by her sudden prominence in OOTP? She burst > onto the scene like a bad fanfic character, suddenly good at > everything without a cohensive explanation and it certainly detracted > from my enjoyment of the book. Was I the only who felt that way? > > Phoenixgod2000 Ginger: Oh, no, you're not the only one who felt that way. Right after the release of OoP, there was a whole herd of Anti-change-in-OoP Ginny posts. Funnily enough, there were a bunch of us who weren't surprised at all. So, to defend my girl (one of my faves, right up there with Snape, Sirius and Lupin): When we meet her, she's a kid. A bit sheltered as the youngest child. She's about 10 years old. She has the typical "star crush" on Harry. Had you caught me at that age around Chad Everett, I'd have been the same way. Heck, I'm still like that about Barry Manilow and Ozzy Ozbourne. Just being in the same building...but I digress. Quite a few on the list saw this as a weakness on her part. But, really, she's a home-schooled (per JKR) 10 year old, and she acts like one. In CoS, she's 11. Away from home for the first time. Sure, she's got brothers, but she's a girl starting to come of age. She writes in a diary. Now we get to the heart of things. It may be really easy to get sucked into a magical diary, but what does it take to get out? She throws the thing away! And when Harry finds it, she breaks into his stuff and gets it back! Not the shy timid child we've seen through Harry's eyes. We don't know what the heck made her start writing again, of even if she did. Just having the diary back may have been enough for Tom's power over her to hook her in again. Her earlier courage in throwing the diary away is overshadowed by her reaction after the rescue. If anyone has ever been in a situation where death was a very real and probable outcome, you know that after the shock wears off, you get a bit hysterical. You cry. Some people saw this as a weakness in her too, but I remember vividly being pulled out of a wrecked car, thinking that my dad had to be dead too, and finding out that we were both alive, and bawling like a baby. I'd been a right trooper up to then, due to shock. So Ginny cries, and we see the little girl we have come to know. She's only 11, and she's been through hell, but all we see is the crying in the end. In PoA, she's pretty much silent, but a lot has been going on in the background. She's had a full year of growing experiences; we just don't know what they are. By the time we get to the Yule Ball, signs are showing of her increasing maturity. She accepts a date from Neville, and keeps it, even though she receives the offer of her dreams. Pretty mature. I remember girls in High School who waffled on what to do in a situation like that. Not our girl Ginny! As OoP rolls around, she's been out of our sight for over two years, barring the Quidditch Cup and the Yule Ball, where she was a bit player at best. She's now 14. She's been possessed and fought it. She's been morally tested and came out showing her maturity. At 14, she's coming into her own. Was it jarring to us? Mostly. Was it jarring to Harry? Oh, yeah! Was Hermione shocked? Nope, not at all. Why? Because she knew her better than Harry or we did. She even trusted her with the big Victor secret. Even Ron commented once to Harry that when Ginny was crushing on him (Harry) that she wasn't her usual self. "Usually she never shuts up" he said. I'd be willing to bet that had we followed Ginny around for the "silent years" that we'd have seen her go from little girl to awakening young woman. (Now you see why I'm not a writer; that was SAPPY!) Me? I saw it in her. I was waiting for it. I admit a lot of that had to do with the fact that I didn't think JKR would make such a big deal out of her just to leave her on the back burner. She's being developed for something. What that is remains to be seen. I bet in book 6, she transfigures the giant squid into a Muggle for eating her new broomstick, falls in love with it (the squid), and begets the halfblood prince, who timeturns back to the founding where he possesses Salazar Slytherin, who leaves the basilik, who, unbeknownst to us, had fallen in love with Ginny during her possession, and left her a secret present in the chamber, which turns out to be a new broomstick. (Now you see why I don't write fanfic.) I'd love to hear others' thoughts on Ginny. Ginger (yeah, it's a coincidence) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Jan 19 14:34:35 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:34:35 -0000 Subject: Snape at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122381 > Potioncat: > But remember, a Patronus is not the same thing as an Animagus. I > think the Patronus would take the form of that Patron/FatherFigure > in your life. While an Animagus reflects your own characteristics. > Knowing what Snape's are, outside of the storyline, could very well > tell us something important or give something else away. But he > would not be able to use his Patronus in spying. As far as I know, > JKR hasn't said anything about Snape being an animagus. (Although I > wouldn't be surprised.) Brothergib: I was making the assumption that if SS patronus was important, then it would have to be because it indicated that he was indeed an Animagus. Certainly, SS discovering that the MArauder's had managed it would be powerful motivation for SS to have tried himself! There is also still the possibility that one can seperate from their Patronus. Is this what LV managed at Godric's Hollow thus allowing a part of him to survive? (Certainly draws on elements from both Tolkien and Philip Pullman) > > Potioncat: > Well, I can't imagine a story that Snape could tell that would allow him to change sides after LV's fall. So I believe DD is telling the truth about Snape coming over before hand. Brothergib: Remember that DD is a very accomplished Legilimens and if we can assume that he is the most powerful wizard around, then there is every chance that DD could glean enough info from SS to trust that he had made a last minute defection. Convincing everyone else would have been a major problem though!! From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 19 14:41:22 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:41:22 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122382 > > SSSusan: > As a former teacher myself, I know about challenges. But I believe you go too far when you say "the *only* reason." How do you know this? Neville does screw up -- he's klutzy in other places, too, and McGonagall is livid with him when he leaves the passwords out, yes. But ask yourself whether Neville has ANY chance of relaxing or feeling confident in his abilities -- something he seems to question by nature -- with the way Snape treats him? < > > As Alla asked: > > Don't you find it ironic, that Neville progressed in Harry's DADA club more during a few months than in Snape class during five years.<< Pippin: Trouble is, Neville had Lupin for DADA, just as Harry did, so whatever made the difference for Neville in the DA, it wasn't finally having a competent, non-scary teacher. Also, if I am not mistaken, Neville *has* made progress in potions class. IIRC, no cauldrons were injured in the making of OOP . Not one. Could it be that in subjects where he isn't naturally motivated, Neville actually needs to be scared to try his best? That Snape's methods actually did break through that thick skull of his? Not PC, I know, but I'm just wondering. >From what you are saying, it seems more important that a teacher pass on an appreciation of the subject than actual competence. But if you needed an operation, which surgeon would you rather have, the one who just loves surgery, or the one with the higher than average success rate? Pippin From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 14:51:23 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:51:23 -0000 Subject: I like Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122383 phoenixgod2000 wrote: Now that I have your attention, I just wanted to start a debate about a character that wasn't Snape, Harry, or Dumbledore. That character is OOTP!Ginny. I separate her from Ginny in the rest of the series because she bears no resemblance to book 1-4 Ginny. Am I the only person who was annoyed by her sudden prominence in OOTP? She burst onto the scene like a bad fanfic character, suddenly good at everything without a cohensive explanation and it certainly detracted from my enjoyment of the book. Was I the only who felt that way? vmonte responds: I like Ginny. I think she is being set-up as Harry's love interest. I think there are clues in the SS/PS about the roles that Harry, Hermione, Ron, and believe it or not Ginny will play in future books. (Repost) 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. Is she a metamorphmagus or an animagus? "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?) There is also an interesting piece on Ginny on the Lexicon: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-harry-ginny.html Vivian From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Jan 19 14:53:26 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:53:26 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122384 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > It depends on what you think the goal of the class is. If you think > it's to give the kids fond memories of Snape, or fond feelings > about potion-making, then Snape is a failure. > > If the goal is to make sure that nobody, ever, for the rest of their > lives, goes near a cauldron unless they are 150% confident in > what they are doing, then Snape is good. Considering that > botched potions can kill or permanently incapacitate people, and > that the differences are often subtle, I can thoroughly understand > Snape's attitude. Sorry, Pippin, but - "nobody"?! If this was true, Snape would have been impartially horrible to everybody in the class. Which of course, he isn't. He is meaner to the Gryffindors than the Slytherins, and meaner by several degrees to Harry and his friends. Also, other types of magics can be just as dangerous as potions (think of Apparition or Animagus transformations). Riding a broom seems to me the most dangerous magical activity - yet Hooch doesn't find it necessary to flay her students' skin with sarcasm or mistreat them in other ways. Somebody should list the various excuses made for Snape. His nastiness is so over-determined he must be the nicest guy in the world underneath it all.. Naama, starting to get amused From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Jan 19 15:24:11 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:24:11 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122385 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Naama: > . Phineas Nigellus is obviously in the habit of behaving in the > > annoying way he has - Sirius isn't. > > Pippin: > Except with Kreacher, who was "a living reminder of the home he > hated." You remember what Sirius's mum was like, don't you? > That's what Sirius grew up with, and IMO, it comes out when he > has to deal with people he dislikes, like Kreacher and Snape. > > The culture of insult doesn't mean that Slytherins never insult > each other for other reasons, but it does mean that any Slytherin > could come up with insults without feeling deep-rooted hostility. > Snape doesn't have to hate Hermione to come up with the tooth > remark, and he and Sirius don't have to be mortal enemies to > get into that silly almost-duel. If there was indeed a Slytherin culture of insults, then the Slytherins ought to be far less sensitive to insults levered at them. But, if when Draco insults Ron's family, he is doing it in a casual way, "without feeling deep-rooted hostility", why does he get so offended when Harry retaliates by insulting Draco's mother? The Slytherins may be quicker to insult but they are just as quick as others to take offense. This means that it's not a matter of different codes of behavior but of different personality traits - the Slytherins are simply more unpleasant, they are less considerate of the other's feelings, etc. More importantly, when you say "culture of insult", it elevates what is simply unpleasantness into something else. It brings a kind of post-modern, relative flavor to the understanding of the Potterverse. Since the Slytherins have their own culture, we can't judge them according to our criteria. It's an interesting point of view, but I think that it completely contradicts JKR's point of view. There is also no indication that each house has a culture, or sub- culture of its own. Neither in the interaction of the Gryffindors within themselves or with other house members do we get a sense of seperate ways of understanding the world or of internal codes of behavior. > > Naama: > > > > Lily, at that point, did dislike James. Sirius and Lupin say as > much. Sirius certainly disliked Kreacher. " > > > > It leads to the same sort of arbitrariness in interpretation as > playacting!Snape. You apply it in order to undermine the straight > meaning of the text in one place, while leaveing other places > undisturbed. What's the criteria? < > > Pippin: > You mean, there should be some kind of 'tell' that Snape is > acting? But it's the mark of a good actor that there aren't any! Did > you know that Quirrell was acting? Riddle? Fake!Moody? But > maybe we can find one... I mean that to postulate that a characters's most characteristic behavior is not authentic (to some degree), calls for textual proof. > > Harry *does* have trouble telling the difference between dislike > and hatred, it's one of those subtle distinctions he's not good at. > Hagrid tells him that Snape doesn't hate him, Sirius tells him > that Lily didn't hate James, and Dumbledore tells him that Sirius > didn't hate Kreacher, though in each case there's obviously > dislike. JKR is clearly making some kind of a point here. If she is, I don't know what it is - that people's negative feelings for each other have many and varied shades? It still doesn't undermine the fact that Harry perceives people's basic emotions fairly accurately - even if he is not very sophisticated in analyzing their exact nature. > We do know that at least one of Snape's sneers is not prompted > by hatred. The sneer in Umbridge's office, which Harry > characterizes as 'usual' is only pretence. So, according to your > premise, that would make Snape's usual sneers pretence, > right? I'm not sure what you mean by my "premise", but I'll try to answer anyway. My argument isn't on the plot level (in which it makes some sense that a double spy would be acting a lot of the time), but about methodology of interpretation - when is it valid to interpret a character's behavior as inauthentic? In Umbridge's office, Snape is acting - he is actually against Umbridge and wants to help Harry and certainly save Neville, but he has to achieve this end without giving himself away. However, the *reader* is fully aware of this - at this point, the reader knows where Snape's allegiance lies, knows that Snape is loyal to DD and part of the OoP. Snape has a hidden agenda - but it is hidden from Umbrige, not from us. In this case, there is no need for the text to signal us that Snape is being inauthentic - we know it. But these are special circumstances. When it comes to ordinary, daily behavior - we have to take it as indicative of a character's true personality, or admit that we have absolutely no way of telling what a character's true personality is. Snape comes off as nasty - this is his normal mode, this is how he behaves *all the time.* To interpret his behavior as acting means, if we are to be consistent, that he is opaque to us. That his true personality might be anything - he might be actually the sweetest guy in the world, or even more horrible than Voldemort. That is - unless the text signals us authenticiy vs. acting - which, the "glitter" experiment notwithstanding, it doesn't. > > We get the glints and glitters when Snape accuses Harry of > being like his father, and when Snape is in the Shrieking Shack, > but *not* when he accuses Harry of helping Sirius escape. They > appear when Snape accuses Harry of invading his office but > *not* when he reads the Witch Weekly article, and interestingly, > not when Snape finds Harry in the pensieve . There's anger > there, definitely, but not hate, not if you believe the glitter clue. > Nope. Sorry. I don't. It's far too arcane. Naama From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 19 16:41:17 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:41:17 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (warning: rant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122386 Pippin: > > I think we've established that Lupin did not continue to practice with Harry until Harry could produce a patronus in the presence of a boggart-dementor. Harry warns his class that they are not prepared, even though some of them can do a corporeal patronus, and says that they really need to be practicing with a boggart. Harry seems to have forgotten that he didn't get to that point with Lupin himself. So did I, until I re-read PoA. Jo is tricky! > Renee: > Alternatively, Harry wasn't forgetful and they did get to that > point, only we're not being told. There was no way Jo could have done so without giving away what form Harry's Patronus took.< Pippin: Huh? There's no way Lupin could have continued the lessons to that point without Harry knowing what form his patronus took. And he doesn't know: He screwed up his eyes, trying to see what it was. I looked like a horse.[...]It wasn't a horse. It wasn't a unicorn, either. It was a stag. --PoA ch 21 Somehow refuting ESE!Lupin theories always seems to require the creation of new and gigantic plot holes. > Renee: > Sorry, I was quoting Arryn, not the book. I have to admit I didn't > check it, because it seems so extremely unlikely to me that Remus would't also have told the entire story to Dumbledore. < Pippin: Lupin says that from what Dumbledore told him Harry saved a lot of lives the night before. Then he ask Harry to tell him about his patronus, and when "distracted" Harry asks how he knew, Lupin asks what else could have driven all those dementors away. That's all we know about the Lupin and Dumbledore conversation. We can also conclude that Dumbledore accepted Lupin's resignation. There must have been more to that than the prospect of letters from angry parents. As Dumbledore says in GoF: "Not a week has passed since I became Headmaster of this school, when I haven't received at least one owl complaining about the way I run it.[...]I refuse to accept your resignation, Hagrid, and I expect you back at work on Monday," --GoF ch 24 Given Dumbledore's passion for second chances, did Lupin not get a second chance because he confessed everything? or because he didn't? I agree, it would be stupid for Lupin not to confess if he believed that by doing so he could win Dumbledore's forgiveness. But ESE!Lupin's great tragedy is that he doesn't believe this at all. Of course Lupin was admitted to the Order, but again, we don't know how much Dumbledore trusts him. Dumbledore did not decide which Order members would go to the MoM. Renee: > At this point, I have to say that one of the (many) problems I have with the ESE!Lupin theory is that it casts aspersions on everything Lupin does or omits, to the point where even innocent Boggarts become his victims. Before I knew the theory in its entirety, I thought that plotwise, it was at least remotely possible, as I said in one of my earlier post, though I had other reasons for believing JKR wouldn't go there. But by leaving him no good impulses whatsoever and ascribing him about every atrocity we've seen so far, you're turning an interesting character with a dual nature of ferocious, murderous monster and kind, helpful, compassionate human being with flaws into a caricature of pure evil that could give Voldemort a run for his money, in order to make a redundant point about trust and deceiving appearances. To me, it's the contrast and the constant tension between the monster and the man that makes Lupin such a fascinating character. Pippin: Whew! It's true I do underplay Lupin's good impulses in my posts. After all there are plenty of fans to post about how wonderful he is. At one point I did posit that he was some kind of psychopath. I agree that would be redundant. Voldemort tells us all we need to know about that kind of evil. But if only psychopaths had evil intent, there'd be a lot less of it. There is another kind of evil that is done by people who realize, in their better moments, that they have given in to the darker part of their own natures but can't find the courage to change. These people have no evil ambitions on a grand scale to begin with, but when their moral cowardice is married to the evil ambitions of a Voldemort, watch out! The point is made for Voldemort that he is nothing, mere shadow, without his followers. It takes a Riddle to conceive of carrying out Salazar's noble plan. But it only takes a Ginny, too frightened of the consequences to ask for help, to do the dirty work. The way I read the books, Snape is someone who found his courage, who came back to the light knowing he would always be seen as a deeply horrible person (and so he is, though he may be improving), but was willing to bear that, rather than see all that he still loved and cared for submitted to Voldemort. ESE!Lupin, meanwhile, is being sucked further and further into Voldemort's designs, and unless he can find the courage to escape, he is doomed to destroy everything he still loves. Though you see all the crimes I've ascribed to Lupin as equally atrocious I see them as progressively more repugnant, starting with mere rule-breaking, proceeding step by step to the murder of his friend Sirius, and ending hypothetically with the attempted destruction of Harry, the savior of his world. I don't think this will contradict anything Jo has to say about love. Love is necessary, without it we'd all be Voldemorts. But no matter how much you love someone, you can't make him choose to be good.That, I think , is the message behind Jo's warnings to the Snape and Draco worshippers, the lesson that it took her thirty-five years to learn. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Jan 19 17:21:19 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:21:19 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003401c4fe4b$4abae0a0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 122387 Ummn...Hi. Now that I have your attention, I just wanted to start a debate about a character that wasn't Snape, Harry, or Dumbledore. That character is OOTP!Ginny. I separate her from Ginny in the rest of the series because she bears no resemblance to book 1-4 Ginny. Am I the only person who was annoyed by her sudden prominence in OOTP? She burst onto the scene like a bad fanfic character, suddenly good at everything without a cohensive explanation and it certainly detracted from my enjoyment of the book. Was I the only who felt that way? Phoenixgod2000 Sherry now I actually enjoyed Ginny in OOTP. I liked her spirit. I also didn't find it odd that she suddenly burst on the scene. she's always been there, even though she's been in the background. she's always made her mark. however, I think that she's at an age now, where she will become a more interesting person than the little girl she was in the first book. I found her very natural. She is one person who wasn't intimidated by Harry's bad moods and anger. I would expect her to be good at things, because she's had so many big brothers to learn from. I think she would have had to learn to hold her own to be her own person with that gang. She seems to be a good mix of the twins and Ron and her mom, too. I'm very interested to see who she becomes as she matures. Sherry From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 17:21:12 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:21:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122388 "festuco" wrote > Snape apparantly does not think one > should start slow and steady and > take it from there. You want me to teach you to fly an airplane but you have never even seen one before, I say "to get you started I want you to fly this small single engine plane through the eye of a category 5 hurricane." What is wrong with this picture? Whatever Snape's initial theory was about the best way to teach Occlumency it should have very soon been obvious to him that it is not working and changed his methods accordingly. He didn't. > Where exactly do you see Snape make fun > of Harry? The only thing > he asks is who owned the dog. There is no reason in the world Snape would care who owned the dog, but Harry knew why he asked the question, he wanted Harry to know he had seen it, and that's why Harry hated him. > In violating Harry's privacy, > Snape is doing his job. And in violating Snape's privacy Harry is doing his job, fighting back. > What Harry does has nothing to do with learning Occlumency Occlumency is quite literally a mind game, you fight with what you have and capitalize on any mistake your opponent makes. Snape was stupid to let Harry know that he put very special memories in the pensive that he didn't want him to see. Snape was stupid to leave Harry alone with the very same pensive. Snape was REALLY stupid to expect he would do nothing about it right after he had stolen memories from Harry's mind and humiliated him. Perhaps next time Snape will be more careful because after mistakes like if Harry were a Death Eater Snape would be dead. I think Snape learned more from Harry than Harry learned from Snape. > Imagine a scene in which McGonnagall > was teaching Draco and found him looking > into the pensieve. Would you also think > Draco had a right to know what she put there? If McGonnagall had just looked into Draco's mind for his most embarrassing memories and then laughed at them and then if she had made the same series of colossal blunders that Snape had then yes, I'd tell Draco to go for it. However McGonnagall is not likely to do either of those things. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 17:29:08 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:29:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122389 "horridporrid03" Wrote: > show me how Harry snooping into > Snape's pensieve helped in the > war effort, and I'll agree that > Harry was right to do it. If your enemy has papers marked "Top Secret" and is foolish enough to turn his back then you take out your little spy camera and photograph the documents. You worry about finding a use for them later. Eggplant From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 16:59:39 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:59:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: Snape vs Quirell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050119165940.93387.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122390 Juli wrote: > > 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 conversations, right? So how come Snape does not know that Snape has changed sides? that he is actually working for the Order and Dumbledore? vmonte responds: > > If you're highly suspicious like me, you can read these scenes another way. Snape knows from the beginning that Voldemort is inside of Quirrell, and he is helping Voldemort. Quirrell is trying to fight off Voldemort, and Voldemort has enlisted Snape to keep an eye on him- -and keep him sedated/drugged, and quiet until Voldemort is strong enough to take over Q's body completely. Juli again: That's quite interesting, but if Snape is truly helping Voldemort get back his power, then how come it is Quirell who dies at the end and DD and Hagrid tell Harry that Snape is the good guy. I don't believe Snape is evil or helping Voldemort in any way. > What does seem stranger to me is that it is obvious that Snape really suspected Quirrell. I think that Snape even suspected that Harry suspected Quirrell. But Harry does NOT suspect Quirrell, from day one he was convinved that Snape was the bad guy, he even encourage other students to treat him better and he smiled to him every time they met. >Remember the first time Harry sees Snape at the beginning of SS/PS? Harry's head begins to burn when he looks towards Snape. And Snape immediately looks at the back of Quirrell's head. Or am I thinking of the movie? Professor Quirrell, in his absurd turban, was talking to a teacher with greasy black hair, a hooked nose, and sallow skin. It happened very suddenly. The hook-nosed teacher looked past Quirrell's turban straight into Harry's eyes -- and a sharp, hot pain shot across the scar on Harry's forehead. (PS/SS Ch7 The Sorting Hat) I guess you mean the movie, but Snape looks at Harry through Quirrell's turban, it's pretty much the same. Juli From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 17:24:35 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:24:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Harry and Boggarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050119172435.43347.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122391 > vmonte: > > Just a thought here. Do you think that by the end of > the series Harry > will conquer all his fears and actually see what a > real boggart looks > like? > Juli: That would be nice, but is it possible? I've always thought of fear as a human emotion, necessary to life, if there's no fear you become reckless. JMO Juli From trekkie at stofanet.dk Wed Jan 19 18:53:35 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:53:35 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) References: Message-ID: <00d701c4fe58$49f42250$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122392 > TrekkieGrrrl wrote: > > Some people just can't stand clumsy people. It's not a nice trait, > but a lot of people feel that way. Some people cope better than other > at being around "stupid" people. Again, not a nice trait, but also, > as it's been repeated ad nauseam, Snape is not a "nice" person. He's > irrational, holds grudges, hates clumsy fools and has a volatile > temper. > > vmonte responds: > > This is not the reason why Snape treats Neville badly. Or else Goyle > and that other dunderhead would have been put out of their misery > long ago. > You're forgettinthat Crabbe and Goyle are Slytherins. AND that their fathers are death Eaters. So naturally Snape will have to put up with them. Probably by ignoring them. ~Trekkie From trekkie at stofanet.dk Wed Jan 19 18:59:06 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:59:06 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape at Godric's Hollow References: Message-ID: <00dd01c4fe58$f39f3150$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122393 > Brothergib: > I've been wondering about JKR's comment that she couldn't answer the > question about Snape's Patronus and Boggart as it would give too much > away. Despite thinking about it a great deal, I cannot see how his > Patronus would further the plot. It's going to be an animal, and the > only thing I can think of is some kind of insect, which might help > him spy (if he were an animagi). The only other possibility is an owl > (which he does share the physical characteristics of!). However, > these possibilities don't give us any further info about Snape as a > character. > > Therefore, it must be his Boggart that is important. The feeling that > I have never been able to shift, is that Snape WAS there at Godric's > Hollow. If he was there, then I do not see how he could have been a > spy at this point (Why wouldn't he have warned the OOTP about the > impending attack - or previously about Peter's switch!). > > I think that Snape's Boggart would somehow illustrate what happened > at Godric's Hollow and how it caused Snape's switch of allegiance. I > also believe that this is actually Snape's Worst Memory. We never saw > the last memory of Snape's in the Pensieve!! > > Finally, I believe that DD completely trusted Snape's story, but had > to lie about Snape's previous work as a spy. No-one would beieve that > Snape happened to change on the day that Voldemort was defeated. (I > can't remember if there is any reference to Snape's presence in the > Order other than from DD). IF Snape is an animagus, he's more likely to turn into a bat. That would also give nourishment to the Vampire!Snape stories *G* He's described as "batlike" but I do not at any time think of him as "owl-like". At this moment I have no idea of what his Boggart would look like. Could be the rising sun? (but that's only if you believe in Vampire!Snape I guess, which I don't.) ~TrekkieGrrrl .:Snapefan & Owl-collector:. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 18:07:56 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:07:56 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122394 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: BIG Snip> > The Future: > Very confusing.... One could speculate that if Voldemort tries to kill Harry, he will again, in a sense, be killing himself, or at least, a part of himself. Hard to guess the result, but certainly a sticky problem. > > On the other hand, I'm not sure what would happen if Harry tries to > kill Voldemort. Would that open the door for the /rest/ of Voldemort to enter Harry, or would we again run into the problem of 'essense of Voldemort' being both the killer and the killed? > > I think the idea has potential, but what it means for the rest of the series is hard to guess, and I'm usually pretty good about guessing; although, I'm frequently wrong, I'm rarely at a loss of speculation. > > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) Tonks here: WOW!!! What a great post. I am very impressed. I like what you have said, it does make sense. Now how are we going to destroy LV? Harry can not use an AK curse because that would make him a killer and JKR is not going there. She will not have Harry kill; Harry is too full of love to do that. Your theory makes sense in the possession scene in the MoM, when LV wanted DD to kill Harry. When LV possessed Harry his separated parts were together again and then when Harry was dead LV would have been able to put himself into DD. LV has a body now, but having a body must not be enough. Whatever it is that is in Harry LV needs back. Hummm... Is it his power that went into Harry? (I don't like the sound of that, because I never liked the ideas that Harry would have to give up his powers and live as a Muggle in order to defeat LV.) SO it seems that LV can't be killed. It will have to be some ancient magic that LV has forgotten about. He does have a bad memory at times! And I don't think that Harry can commit suicide, because JKR would not do that with a world full of impressionable teenagers watching. No, not good role modeling. Where does that leave us? How can LV be destroyed? Is killing and destroying the same thing? Since I tend to look for the theology in JKR's work let me point out something here. In RL if a person kills someone that person has taken a part of the force of evil into themselves. I have written about this, in great detail, elsewhere in the past. So from a theological perspective this does fit with what I think JKR is trying to do in the books. I will say more about this later. (Are you listening Hans?) Tonks_op PS. you are not the Lexicon Steve? All this time I thought that you were. From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 18:25:42 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:25:42 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122395 Phoenixgod2000 writes: >Am I the only person who was annoyed by her sudden prominence in OOTP? She burst >onto the scene like a bad fanfic character, suddenly good at >everything without a cohensive explanation and it certainly detracted >from my enjoyment of the book. Was I the only who felt that way? Thank you, Phoenixgod!!! I am no longer alone in my Ginny-loathing! She always annoyed me, but I definitely agree with your OoTP analysis. Except for the damsel in distress routine in CoS, she was pretty much a non-character. Now she rivals Hermione for Super Girl status - what the heck happened to break her out of her little mousy shell? It's almost like JKR wrote a different character in OoTP and decided at the last minute to make her Ginny instead. Some development hints in PoA or GoF would have been nice. Nicky Joe From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 19 18:26:48 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:26:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122396 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > If your enemy has papers marked "Top Secret" and is foolish enough to turn his back then you take out your little spy camera and photograph the documents. You worry about finding a use for them later.< Pippin: Um, yes, and if you are caught doing it, you'll be shot. And where I come from, even if you aren't the enemy reading top secret papers without permission is a good way to get rent-free lodgings in Leavenworth, KA. Harry got caught. He got thrown on the floor and Snape hurt his poor wee arm. Pass the Kleenex. Considering that people who stick their noses where they don't belong at Hogwarts have been : whomped by a willow ambushed by a werewolf torn up by a giant three-headed dog bashed unconscious by a giant animated chess piece carried off by centaurs (I could go on but I think I've made my point) I'd say Harry got off rather lightly with a bruised arm, myself. Pippin From trekkie at stofanet.dk Wed Jan 19 19:24:48 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:24:48 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) References: Message-ID: <010101c4fe5c$8aa43480$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122397 Dungrollin interrupts: Snape was never taught how to be a teacher. Even in the RW, learning to be a teacher is a relatively recent phenomenon. I would think that Snape *does* wonder why Neville's not learning - or rather, he marks another essay that's not too bad and mutters rhetorically "Why can't he do it in practice?!" Snape's got a good helping of that other endearing virtue, arrogance. He is the teacher, they are the students. He teaches, they learn. He's been teaching for, what, 14 years now? He's always got decent OWL grades out of his students. If they're not learning, they're doing something wrong. I think you're onto something interesting here: The lack of formal education for ANY of the teachers. TrekkieGrrrl agrees: You're right. Snape has never been taught how to teach. And neither has any of the other teachers. Look at how nervous Hagrid is, for instance. Some teachers may have a natural grasp on teaching - I know I'm personally a horrible teacher if I'm asked to explain something to a colleague. Among other things because I can't stand people who needs to have something teold multiple times. I'm impatient. Snapish if you will. But then again, I do not teach either. (a fact a lot of people probably are very happy for *L*) And I honestly don't think Snape understands WHY his methods doesn't work on Neville. Yes, that's stupid of Snape, but again, in character for him, because he lacks the ability to see into himself. ~TrekkieGrrrl From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Wed Jan 19 18:29:50 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:29:50 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122398 Michelle: Yes, of course, Sirius knew that sending Snape in their with Remus at full moon was dangerous and stupid, and I'm sure that had it worked, he'd have been tortured with guilt afterwards, but his deep loathing of Snape overwhelmed his common sense that day. It's unfair to judge Sirius the man on the exploits of Sirius the spoilt brat teenager at school. Casey: I look at what Sirius did as the same as forcing Lupin to play Russian Roulette, only pointing the gun at Snape. Yes there was a chance that he would be rescued, but chances are he wouldn't. Lot's of laughs, right? And the fact that he never, ever showed remorse over what he did makes me like him even less. Michelle: Probably because he is so complex, and he had to overcome his upbringing to make the right choices. It's a very difficult thing to do, to outgrow the prejudices that you've been indoctrinated with since birth and rise above them. Casey: Only to attach himself to a whole new set of prejudices. Because Snape was Slytherine he was to be hated, or because he was ugly he was to be picked on. Michelle: The thing I don't understand is why James has become a paragon of virtue to some, and yet Sirius is reviled by the same people? Casey: Well, first of all James saved Snape's life, even though he didn't like him. Perhaps it was more for Remus' sake but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I also think that many believe that since Lilly, a girl that showed she would put up with none of James' nonsense, ended up marrying him, it proved that James had changed greatly. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 19 18:38:54 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:38:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122399 > "festuco" wrote > > Where exactly do you see Snape make fun > > of Harry? The only thing > > he asks is who owned the dog. > Eggplant replied: > There is no reason in the world Snape would care who owned the dog, but Harry knew why he asked the question, he wanted Harry to know he had seen it, and that's why Harry hated him. Potioncat: quoting from OoP chpt 24 It is during the first Occlumency lesson. Harry had seen: Dudley's bike, the Digger incident, the Sorting Hat, Hermione as a cat, dementors and he was just starting to see Cho and the kiss: "Did you see everything I saw?" Harry asked, unsure whether he wanted to hear the answer. "Flashes of it," said Snape, his lip curling. "To whom did the dog belong? "My Aunt Marge," Harry muttered,hating Snape. "Well, for a first attempt that was not as poor as it might have been'" said Snape..." Harry asks and Snape answers, choosing one episode to ask about. But not dwelling on it. It is one of the first memories. And if you get down to it, not one of the more dangerous ones or Snape related ones. Snape actually goes to one that is far from the private one about Cho. Was he trying to put Harry at ease or at least, not embarrass him too much? Or did he want to know about the dog? Later on, IRRC, Snape will ask about important DE/MoM scenes that he sees in Harry's thoughts. Is there something about that episode or something about Digger that Snape thinks is important? Keep in mind the dog happens to belong to Marge. Marge who has had wine glasses break in her hand. We think Harry did it at Privet Lane. But how did it happen before? To get to my point, I'm not so sure Snape was trying to embarrass Harry. Keep in mind, Occlumency is the act of looking into a person's mind, and later Harry will look into Snape's mind. When he does, Snape does not become angry. >Eggplant says: > Occlumency is quite literally a mind game, you fight with what you > have and capitalize on any mistake your opponent makes. Snape was > stupid to let Harry know that he put very special memories in the > pensive that he didn't want him to see. Snape was stupid to leave > Harry alone with the very same pensive. Snape was REALLY stupid to > expect he would do nothing about it right after he had stolen > memories from Harry's mind and humiliated him. Perhaps next time > Snape will be more careful because after mistakes like if Harry were a Death Eater Snape would be dead. I think Snape learned more from Harry than Harry learned from Snape. Potioncat: Chapter 28 of OoP not quoting, but giving a summary: Harry shows up for class. Snape asks if he has practiced. Harry lies. Snape says they'll see. Draco bursts in with news that Montague has been found, wedged in a toilet. Snape rushes out. Harry looks into the Pensieve. Snape had not just "stolen memories and humiliated him" he had simply asked if Harry had practiced. Snape was foolish to leave the Pensieve unattended. Stupid? No. Understandable,I think, given the circumstance. He didn't just go out for a cup of tea, you know. He and Harry are on the same side in this war. Snape is actually demonstrating some trust here. Eggplant: > If McGonnagall had just looked into Draco's mind for his most > embarrassing memories and then laughed at them and then if she had > made the same series of colossal blunders that Snape had then yes, > I'd tell Draco to go for it. However McGonnagall is not likely to do either of those things. Potioncat: As my summary shows, Snape had not just looked into Harry's mind, nor laughed at him. And I don't think Snape goes looking for embarrassing moments. I am willing to allow that Snape was pre-occupied and should not have left Harry alone with the Pensieve. And I think Harry should not have gone into the Pensieve, but I can understand why he did. Yeah, I know Professor Snape can be difficult, but I don't think he was being a jerk in these two episodes. Eggplant, I have one request, not sure if others have the same problem. Could you attribute each section? When I'm trying to reply to your posts, I have trouble telling which poster is responsible for which section. Thanks, Potioncat From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 18:41:40 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:41:40 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Quirell In-Reply-To: <20050119165940.93387.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122400 Juli wrote: ...how come it is Quirell who dies at the end and DD and Hagrid tell Harry that Snape is the good guy. I don't believe Snape is evil or helping Voldemort in any way. vmonte responds: I know. I even said this in my post. I was just trying to read the events in another way. I admit the story doesn't flow right if Snape is the bad guy in SS/PS. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 18:43:46 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:43:46 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122401 "pippin_999" wrote: > if you are caught doing it, you'll be shot. True. > Harry got caught. He got thrown on the > floor and Snape hurt his poor wee arm. > Pass the Kleenex. In my list of complaints against Snape throwing Harry across the floor on that day would not be at the top, more like number 972, however being tossed around like that is unlikely to increase Harry's love of Snape. And I sure won't be crying for Snape because Harry found out something embarrassing about him. > I'd say Harry got off rather lightly with > a bruised arm, myself. A fair point. Eggplant From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 18:45:05 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:45:05 -0000 Subject: Harry and Boggarts In-Reply-To: <20050119172435.43347.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122402 > vmonte: Just a thought here. Do you think that by the end of the series Harry will conquer all his fears and actually see what a real boggart looks like? Juli: That would be nice, but is it possible? I've always thought of fear as a human emotion, necessary to life, if there's no fear you become reckless. vmonte responds: You think? Sirius was pretty reckless and I wouldn't say he had no fears. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 18:48:40 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:48:40 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <00d701c4fe58$49f42250$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122403 >TrekkieGrrrl wrote: Some people just can't stand clumsy people. It's not a nice trait, but a lot of people feel that way. Some people cope better than other at being around "stupid" people. Again, not a nice trait, but also, as it's been repeated ad nauseam, Snape is not a "nice" person. He's irrational, holds grudges, hates clumsy fools and has a volatile temper. >vmonte responds: This is not the reason why Snape treats Neville badly. Or else Goyle and that other dunderhead would have been put out of their misery long ago. >TrekkieGrrrl: You're forgettinthat Crabbe and Goyle are Slytherins. AND that their fathers are death Eaters. So naturally Snape will have to put up with them. Probably by ignoring them. vmonte responds: I'm not forgetting, I just don't buy it as the reason. Vivian From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 18:48:56 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:48:56 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122404 Michelle writes: >Probably because he is so complex, and he had to overcome his >upbringing to make the right choices. It's a very difficult thing to >do, to outgrow the prejudices that you've been indoctrinated with >since birth and rise above them. We also have to look at the fact that the four of them were extremely good at getting away with things - they had to feel nearly invincible at times. They had pulled off becoming Animagi under the very noses of all the teachers at Hogwarts, including Dumbledore. Sirius had a nasty upbringing, he joined a club of rulebreaking pranksters, and they rarely got in trouble - I'm surprised his ego didn't explode. Nothing bad ever happened to them - the deaths of Lilly and James shattered his whole world. >The thing I don't understand is why James has become a paragon of >virtue to some, and yet Sirius is reviled by the same people? I think most people view James through Harry's eyes. Harry has idealized his father and even seeing his father through the dark vision of Snape didn't really shake his faith in James. No matter what James did as a boy, he still DIED for Harry. And like it or not, Sirius did, too. Nicky Joe From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 19:04:28 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:04:28 -0000 Subject: Ginny Weasley!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122405 Nicky Joe wrote: Thank you, Phoenixgod!!! I am no longer alone in my Ginny-loathing! She always annoyed me, but I definitely agree with your OoTP analysis. Except for the damsel in distress routine in CoS, she was pretty much a non-character. Now she rivals Hermione for Super Girl status - what the heck happened to break her out of her little mousy shell? It's almost like JKR wrote a different character in OoTP and decided at the last minute to make her Ginny instead. Some development hints in PoA or GoF would have been nice. vmonte responds: There is a good essay about Ginny on the Lexicon: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-harry-ginny.html Vivian From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 19:44:46 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:44:46 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection - Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122406 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" > wrote: > BIG Snip> > > The Future: > > Very confusing.... One could speculate that if Voldemort tries to > > kill Harry, he will again, in a sense, be killing himself, or at > > least, a part of himself. Hard to guess the result, but certainly > > a sticky problem. > > > > On the other hand, I'm not sure what would happen if Harry tries > > to kill Voldemort. Would that open the door for ... 'essense of > > Voldemort' being both the killer and the killed? > > > > I think the idea has potential, but what it means for the rest of > the series is hard to guess, ... > > > > Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) > Tonks here: > > WOW!!! What a great post. I am very impressed. I like what you have > said, it does make sense. bboyminn: Thanks, I owe it all to your inspiration. > Tonks continues: > > Now how are we going to destroy LV? bboyminn: Isn't that the ultimate question; the great mystery of the series? > Tonks continues: > > Harry can not use an AK curse ... Harry is too full of love to do > that. > > ...edited... > > And I don't think that Harry can commit suicide, because JKR would > not do that with a world full of impressionable teenagers watching. > No, not good role modeling. Where does that leave us? How can LV be > destroyed? Is killing and destroying the same thing? > > ...edited... > > Tonks_op > PS. you are not the Lexicon Steve? All this time I thought that you > were. bboyminn: How can Harry destroy Voldemort, that is truly the big question? I also have trouble seeing Harry casting the AK against Voldemort and killing him. Harry's too young and too nice, and too many impressionable people are watching. Although, a certain anger at Voldemort in me says, 'kill him Harry, kill him', the other part of me that loves Harry really doesn't want to wish that misery onto a boy who has already had too much misery in his life. As to suicide, well I don't think you truly mean suicide, but instead mean some scenerio in which Harry willingly sacrifices himself in order to destroy Voldemort. I don't like that idea because it is one that is emotionally painful for me. I love poor Harry, and don't want to see him go. Side note: I have predicted an unprecedented in magnitude worldwide period of mourning if Harry Potter dies. A period of mourning of a magnitude beyond belove Kings and Presidents. However, I do have two speculative endings that are consistent with this new 'Protection Charm' theory. First, I must bring your attention to the Veiled Archway in the Chamber of Death, the one Sirius fell through. I can't possibly imagine that that was the last time we will ever see or have to deal with the Veil. A plot device of that magnitude positively screams for more page time. So, once upon a midnight dreary as I pondered weak and weary, this scenerio came to mind. Through some set of cicumstances that I have yet to imagine, the final showdown occurs in the Chamber of Death. In a heated battle from which Harry realizes there can be no winners, Harry makes the ultimate sacrifice. In a moment of distraction Harry siezes (or perhaps, possesses) Voldemort and pulls him behind the Veil. Behind the Veil awaits Voldemort's many victims who pull him down to the depths of hell where he belongs. Harry on the otherhand is reunited with his Parents and Sirius in a tearful heartwrenching scene. After many hugs and tears, Harry's parents tell him that it is not his time and that he must go back. So, dead Harry returns to life, and goes on to live that life in peace, love, and prosperity. This 'return from the dead' is not that unrealistic. The same thing happens in real-life all the time. People have near-death experiences. They die by some definition, then travel down a long tunnel towards a light. Just before they reach the light, they are met by a dead loved one, or perhaps a guardian angel, who tells them it is not there time and they must go back. Any chance this sounds familiar? The /savior/ who sacrifices himself and returns from the dead? In the second version, we know we have TWO Prophecy Boys, perhaps some combination of the two will destroy Voldemort. In Version 'A' of this option, Harry must die by some techincal definition of death, for a brief period of time after Harry's death, Voldemort is at his peak of vulnerability. During this window of Vulnerability, Neville, in an fit of rage intent on avenging Harry's death, kills Voldemort (AK or whatever). While Harry is dead, he hasn't quite 'given up the ghost', and Dumbledore or Snape(!?!) revives him. Let's remember Snape's Draught of the Living Dead from the first book, and the Elixer of Life which comes from the Sorcerer's Stone. There are hints in the book that someone can be protected from death, and while someone who is truly dead can not be revived, there is some precedence for a gray area between life and death, as in ghosts, Voldemort, and real-world near-death experiences. Side note: while the Stone has been destroy, that does NOT mean that every last drop of the Elixer of Life has been destroyed. We know Flamel has enough to get his affairs in order. But the man is 600 years old, in his life perspective, ten years is less that one year to a normal person. Flamel might have enough Elixer to last him and his wife a decade or two. In Version 'B', through undertermined circumstances, Harry and Neville cast the AK curse together. We already have a precedence for multiple combined curses being more powerful than a single curse; it takes the Stunners of six wizards to bring down a dragon. Because of who they are, because of what fate and destiny have forced on Neville and Harry through the Prophecy, they are uniquely able to curse and kill Voldemort. After all, neither of them (Harry & Neville) can live while the other (Voldemort) survives. And, because of the combined power of their curses, Voldemort is not just vaporized, but is truly killed. Also, note that it's unlikely that Voldemort's 'Protection Enchantment' allowed for the possibility of being simultaniously killed by two wizards. Because he was killed by two people, where does is /Essential SELF/ go? Does it split? Is it so confused that it doesn't know where to go, and therefore goes nowhere? A variation of Version 'A' and 'B', is that Hermione, Ron, and Neville (add other characters as necessary and stir) all curse together, and the combined power compounded by the transfer of /Essential Self/ confusion, does Voldemort in for good. Finally, a lesser alternative, perhaps Voldemort isn't truly killed this last time, maybe he is just vaporized again. But this time people know what happened to him, and can be much more on guard against his return. So, Voldemort gets his wish, he lives forever in vapor form, vanquished but not truly dead. Doomed to his miserable, isolated existance in the 'acursed' mountains of Albania. In this last case, the moral of the story would be 'Constant Vigilance', evil is never truly gone from this earth, and good men must alway be on guard lest evil again gain a foothold. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn (often confused with but never truly duplicating the real Lexicon Steve) From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 19 20:09:13 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:09:13 -0000 Subject: Snape at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122407 > Brothergib: > I was making the assumption that if SS patronus was important, then it would have to be because it indicated that he was indeed an > Animagus. Certainly, SS discovering that the MArauder's had managed it would be powerful motivation for SS to have tried himself! There is also still the possibility that one can seperate from their Patronus. Is this what LV managed at Godric's Hollow thus allowing a part of him to survive? (Certainly draws on elements from both Tolkien and Philip Pullman) Potioncat: I don't follow your theory about separating from the Patronus. Could you elaborate, and provide the canon? I think JKR has said that the trio will not become animagi, so being able to summon a Patronus does not mean a wizard can become an animagi. Also, Snape did not learn about the Marauders' Animagi until PoA, so that would not have been a motivating factor in his younger days (I once came up with that motivation too.) > Brothergib: > Remember that DD is a very accomplished Legilimens and if we can > assume that he is the most powerful wizard around, then there is > every chance that DD could glean enough info from SS to trust that he had made a last minute defection. Convincing everyone else would have been a major problem though!! Potioncat: I have no strong opinion at all whether Snape was at GH. But what do you base your idea on that it was that night that Snape changed sides? It's an interesting idea, I'm just not convinced canon supports it. Potioncat who is a real canon thumper, and hopes her requests for canon haven't insulted anyone. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 20:34:39 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:34:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122408 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Eggplant: > > Harry had memories that he didn't want Snape to see but Snape found > a way to overcome Harry's defenses; Snape had memories he didn't > want Harry to see, but he found a way around Snape's precautions. > Turn about is fair play and I don't understand why Harry, just a > boy, should be held to a higher ethical standard than an adult like > Snape. > Alla: > > I do not hold Harry's to higher ethical standard than Snape in their > interactions, far from it, in fact the contrary is true, but I am > afraid Jo Rowling will. :o) > > > JMO, > > Alla bboyminn: I don't think the key is so much that they each found away around the other's defences. It is vitally important to note the Snape was given the option to hide certain well-chosen and potential embarassing memories in the Penseive. Harry on the otherhand was not afforded this luxury, all his most intimate and personal memories where there for Snape to see. Maybe Harry didn't want to reveal the memory of Hermione breaking into Snape's personal potions stores. Maybe Harry didn't want to reveal his feelings for Cho. Maybe Harry didn't want Snape seeing those very personal, intimate, and private things that randy teen boys do late at night when the curtains are drawn. True, one can claim this was more incentive to learn Occlumency. If Harry didn't want them seen, then he should learn to shut them off. But, Snape is suppose to be the great expert here, he's suppose to be the superb Occlumenst. Wouldn't it have been fair to force Snape to have to personally guard his own intimate and personal memories? That doesn't justify what Harry did, even Harry new it was a dangerous and reckless thing to do, but one can understand the intense curiosity to find out what Snape was hiding. I very sure that he, Harry, now regrets both what he did and what he saw. I further feel, that the sharing of memories between Snape and Harry will lead to a softening in their relationship. Snape will never be nice, but I think he will be better, and once Harry gets over his grief and realizes he can't blame Snape for Sirius's death, Harry too will soften his attitude toward Snape. It's completely wrong to assume black and white, they hate each other or they love each other. You will never see Snape and Harry quaffing an ale and having a laugh together. Anyone who has ever had a job or went to school knows that there are people in this world you aren't going to like, but you suck it up and get along. Snape doesn't have to be nice, I do suspect though that he will be nicer. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 19 20:40:10 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:40:10 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122409 SSSusan, previously: > >> But, see, that's my main point, Betsy. If Snape is aware of > >> their importance, then why does he not ask himself whether these > >> two are learning? Betsy replied: > > Why do you think Snape *doesn't* ask himself that question? > SSSusan again: > Because he's never changed his methods as far as we can ascertain. > He's certainly never changed his presentation. If Harry bristles > and "shuts down" in defiance, and if Neville falls apart [more than > with other teachers, no? Snape could ask them about that, couldn't > he?], then I don't think he's asking himself what he could do to > change any of that. Dungrollin interrupts: > Snape was never taught how to be a teacher. Even in the RW, > learning to be a teacher is a relatively recent phenomenon. SSSusan: I'm sure you are right about this, Dungrollin. And when combined with this -- > Snape's got a good helping of that other endearing virtue, > arrogance. -- it means he's not especially inclined to self-assessment or introspection. Dungrollin: > There's another factor that I think comes into play here, and > there's probably a technical term for it, but I don't know > what it is, so I'll call it amplifying. If, like me, you're a > relatively talkative person, and you meet somebody who is terribly > quiet and shy, you start to feel uncomfortable. You look around > for some way to get out of the conversation, but there is none, > and you feel obliged to continue talking to this person until your > bus comes. In an attempt to put this shy person at ease, and > encourage them to speak up a bit, you talk a bit louder and a bit > longer, so that their one-word answers to your lengthy questions > don't get too uncomfortable. Unfortunately this has the opposite > effect to that you intend. This works not only for > quiet/noisy types, but other things as well. I suggest that Snape > thinks that Neville doesn't care enough about potions to do it > right. Snape gets angry with him to make him realise that it's > important. Neville gets scared and panicky, which has the > opposite effect to the one Snape intended. Snape compensates > again ? he thinks Neville's still not trying hard enough to get it > right, what can he do to make him take this seriously? Being > Snape, the obvious thing is to put the frighteners on him. And it > continues like that. SSSusan: The verbose/shy person example of "amplifying" is an enjoyable one to consider :-) and you may be correct -- it may account for some of Snape's treatment of Neville. But how would you explain what he did in insulting Neville in front of Lupin & the whole class, in telling Lupin he wasn't trustworthy before his DADA class? Still a carryover of frustration? It *felt* more flat-out nasty to me. Dungrollin: > If Snape were introspective *at all* he might consider his actions > to be part of the reason why this approach doesn't work for > Neville ? but he's not remotely introspective. If something > goes wrong he apportions the blame elsewhere. It's got nothing > to do with intelligence, it's an entirely emotion-driven reaction - > but he'd never admit that. SSSusan: I totally agree. I think some people think Snape is totally cold & calculating, always in control, and only appears to be out of control when he's playacting. I think you've got the correct take, though: he's emotion-driven but would never admit it. Think of the Occlumency speech about people who wear their emotions on their sleeves. Perhaps as close as he'd ever come to admitting such a think about himself? Dungrollin: > Come on SSSusan, if he wasn't like that, he wouldn't be > Snape... I know you love him really! SSSusan: Okay, okay. You're right. He is what he is, and he's darn fascinating! I do love to think & wonder about Snape. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 20:42:55 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:42:55 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122410 Bboyminn: I don't think the key is so much that they each found away around the other's defences. It is vitally important to note the Snape was given the option to hide certain well-chosen and potential embarassing memories in the Penseive. Harry on the otherhand was not afforded this luxury, all his most intimate and personal memories where there for Snape to see. Maybe Harry didn't want to reveal the memory of Hermione breaking into Snape's personal potions stores. Maybe Harry didn't want to reveal his feelings for Cho. Maybe Harry didn't want Snape seeing those very personal, intimate, and private things that randy teen boys do late at night when the curtains are drawn. True, one can claim this was more incentive to learn Occlumency. If Harry didn't want them seen, then he should learn to shut them off. But, Snape is suppose to be the great expert here, he's suppose to be the superb Occlumenst. Wouldn't it have been fair to force Snape to have to personally guard his own intimate and personal memories? Alla: VERY good point, Steve. I don't have a problem with Snape hiding his memories in the Pensieve, IF that was done in good faithy, because indeed who knows what kind of secrets he hides including Order's secrets, which Harry is not supposed to know. Suppose, I agree with that. But yes, I do think that Harry should have been allowed the option to hide some of his potentially embarrasing moments in the Pensieve. If nothing else, it would made him trust Snape more... maybe. He would have seen that Snape is not "out to get him" (as I pretty much feel he was), but "out to teach him" and that they are indeed on the same side. Steve: That doesn't justify what Harry did, even Harry new it was a dangerous and reckless thing to do, but one can understand the intense curiosity to find out what Snape was hiding. I very sure that he, Harry, now regrets both what he did and what he saw. Alla: Yes, absolutely. Steve: I further feel, that the sharing of memories between Snape and Harry will lead to a softening in their relationship. Snape will never be nice, but I think he will be better, and once Harry gets over his grief and realizes he can't blame Snape for Sirius's death, Harry too will soften his attitude toward Snape. Alla: I HOPE you are right, I do, and it seems logical enough plot-wise, because otherwise why would Jo bother with the whole set up, BUT even though Harry felt sorry for Snape, I did not see any hints that Snape was softening tiny bit towards Harry. JMO, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 19 20:55:08 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:55:08 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122411 SSSusan: > > As a former teacher myself, I know about challenges. But I > believe you go too far when you say "the *only* reason." How do > you know this? Neville does screw up -- he's klutzy in other > places, too, and McGonagall is livid with him when he leaves the > passwords out, yes. But ask yourself whether Neville has ANY > chance of relaxing or feeling confident in his abilities -- > something he seems to question by nature -- with the way > Snape treats him? < > > As Alla asked: > >>Don't you find it ironic, that Neville progressed in Harry's > DADA club more during a few months than in Snape class > during five years.<< Pippin: > Trouble is, Neville had Lupin for DADA, just as Harry did, so > whatever made the difference for Neville in the DA, it wasn't > finally having a competent, non-scary teacher. Also, if I am not > mistaken, Neville *has* made progress in potions class. IIRC, > no cauldrons were injured in the making of OOP . Not one. SSSusan: Ah. A fair point, Pippin. Maybe this says something about Neville's comfort level in learning from peers over learning from teachers? Or maybe it takes a long time for his confidence to develop & manifest itself? Did increased confidence in the DA lead to increased confidence all around, including in Snape's potions class? Pippin: > Could it be that in subjects where he isn't naturally motivated, > Neville actually needs to be scared to try his best? That Snape's > methods actually did break through that thick skull of his? Not > PC, I know, but I'm just wondering. SSSusan: Oh, I'm not trying to be PC, even if that's how people are reading my comments. I'm NOT about being PC just for the sake of being PC. I'm just not sure that we really saw evidence that scaring Neville *helped* him. I wonder if, instead, things like Lupin showing him he could face down a boggart and Harry's DA giving him a chance to practice DADA skills w/o being watched by a teacher or being yelled at like he routinely is in Potions, finally built up a level of confidence which is helping him overcome those tough subjects? I'm not sure, I'm just wondering, too. Pippin: > From what you are saying, it seems more important that a > teacher pass on an appreciation of the subject than actual > competence. But if you needed an operation, which surgeon > would you rather have, the one who just loves surgery, or the one > with the higher than average success rate? SSSusan: Ack. Actually, this shows me that I'm not doing a very good job of expressing myself if I've given the impression that I feel an appreciation of potions is more important than competence in it. It's competence that I want! And it's a student's FULL POTENTIAL, not just adequacy, that I want. Does that make sense? I want the students to reach their full potential, to be as competent w/ potions as they can be, and an appreciation for potions would be a bonus at the end, but not essential. For some kids, Snape's scare tactics & nastiness may very well do the trick in getting them to buckle down, pay attention and work hard. For Harry & Neville it doesn't seem to. Now, lots of people keep saying that Neville & Harry are special cases. Many of the people who say this seem to be saying that, by that, they mean Snape can be tougher with them because of his history with them or their families or because they just annoy him more. I, too, am arguing that Harry & Neville are special cases, but I mean it in a different way. I mean that they are special because one or the other of them is THE ONE who's supposed to have the power to vanquish Voldy, and because of that specialness, I think the teachers who're "in the know" about Voldy & the prophecy [and I *am* making a big assumption that Snape is one of them] should go the extra mile with them to make sure they're really meeting their full potential. And I would argue that Snape has never done that with these two. YES, Harry has been defiant and Neville has been The Klutz King, but Snape bears much of the blame for how he set the stage with the two of them in the first year and how he's shown no interest in altering his treatment of them *even as* he's seen them continue to fail and as he's come to KNOW Voldy's back. Dung's right -- he wouldn't be Snape if he weren't this way. For him to be introspective & self-assessing would strike most of us as OOC. I'm just pointing out where I think he has failed The Order's cause. A human failing, a decidedly Snape failing I suppose, but one I wish he would make strides to correct. Have I done any better explaining my position, I wonder? Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 19 21:02:18 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:02:18 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122412 > > Alla: > > VERY good point, Steve. I don't have a problem with Snape hiding his > memories in the Pensieve, IF that was done in good faithy, because > indeed who knows what kind of secrets he hides including Order's > secrets, which Harry is not supposed to know. Suppose, I agree with that. > > But yes, I do think that Harry should have been allowed the option to hide some of his potentially embarrasing moments in the Pensieve. If nothing else, it would made him trust Snape more... maybe. He would have seen that Snape is not "out to get him" (as I pretty much feel he was), but "out to teach him" and that they are indeed on the same side. Potioncat: In an earlier discussion about the Pensieve, I think we came to the conclusion that this is indeed, DD's Pensieve. If there is only one, I doubt that it can be shared. And I would think Snape's need outweighed Harry's. From antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 21:03:50 2005 From: antoshachekhonte at yahoo.com (antoshachekhonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:03:50 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122413 "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > I separate her from Ginny in the rest of the > series > > because she bears no resemblance to book 1-4 Ginny. Am I the only > > person who was annoyed by her sudden prominence in OOTP? She > burst > > onto the scene like a bad fanfic character, suddenly good at > > everything without a cohensive explanation and it certainly > detracted > > from my enjoyment of the book. Was I the only who felt that way? > > > > Phoenixgod2000 > > It didn't annoy me. I was glad to see more of her. She has clearly > been deeply involved in previous plots without appearing to until > the end (CoS). She has never appeared to be bad at everything, so > why would JKR need to show why she's good? With that many brothers > to learn from, she's bound to have had some sort of head start. We > never had an explanation as to why Bill and Charlie were good enough > to be head boys. I'm guessing they just had the brains and aptitude. > > I think it's possible that Ginny needed to be brought more to the > front because I think that she's going to be seen to be far more > actively involved in future books. We already see her determined to > do something positive in joining DA. JKR already said that some > things in CoS foreshadow some things which will happen in HBP. Seems > to stand to reason that Ginny will be involved. > > Just my opinion of course! > > Becky Antosha: Starting with the admission that I am rather fond of Ginny, I'd like to address the interesting question of whether Ginny has crossed the line into Mary-Sue-dom.... Unlike phoenixgod, and like Becky, I _welcomed_ Ginny's blossoming in OotP. And I disagree that the character has gone through a sudden change. Rather Harry's PRECEPTION of her goes through a transformation. In PS/SS, we barely see Ginny--though the brief glimpse is very sweet. Running after the train? Come on... In CoS, of course, we get to see much more of her. Of course, she barely talks, but Ron tells us early on that this isn't the normal Ginny. Lunkhead that he is (emotional range of a tea spoon, and all), he can't figure out why, but we get it quickly enough. Her interactions with Harry (and therefore, her appearances in the book) are limited to reminders of her crush--the squeaking, the humiliating valentine.... We do see one brief glimpse of the true Ginny early on though: she tells Malfoy to back off of Harry at Flourish and Blotts in a manner that shows some real spunk. And she goes through one of the more horrific experiences endured by any character not named Potter in the books... and is still able to tease her brother Percy with a smile.... In PoA, Ginny returns to the shadows a bit. The crush continues, and so Harry's perception of her--and ours--is limited to glimpses. When Ron blows her off at the beginning of the train ride up to Hogwarts, she at least has the spirit to be properly offended. (It's interesting--and not surprising--that aside from Harry, Ginny seems to be the one most affected by the Dementors.) We get another sweet humiliation--the get-well card. In GoF, the crush--we later learn--has started to wane. She's still blushing when Harry shows up at the Burrow that summer, but we also see her laughing with her siblings, flirting with her oldest brother, hanging around with Hermione. She's almost sympathetic to Ron after he asks Fleur to the Yule Ball... Until Harry mentions that he's just been turned down by Cho. From that point on, (well, actually, from the point that she is forced to tell Ron that _she_ can't go with Harry either), she no longer blushes around Harry--of course, we barely see her through the rest of story, which is tightly focused on the Tri-Wizard Tournament--Harry hardly talks to anyone not directly involved with the tournament aside from Ron and Hermione. It isn't until OotP that the opportunity for Harry truly to get to know Ginny appears. It's not that _she's_ gone through a transformation: we've been told before that she's talkative, good with hexes, etc. It's that, for the first time, she isn't tongue-tied around the point- of-view character, and, for the first time, they have the opportunity to spend time together, first at Grimmauld Place, then in the DA--remember, Harry and Ginny never had any classes together before this year. I could enumerate her behavior in book five ('lucky you', her participation in Fred and George's pranks, her central role in recruiting and forming the DA, the easter egg-in-the-library scene, her participation in both break-ins into Umbridge's office and her unwillingness to be left behind on the way to the Dept. of Mysteries, to name the most salient) but that's not the point of phoenixgod's objection, I think. Rather s/he doesn't like the fact that all this pluck/spunk/ whatever has come from nowhere. But I don't think it did, as I've pointed out above. I think there are two things going on, one coming from the character, the other from the needs of the plot. Ginny herself is growing up. She's not the eleven-year-old victim from CoS. She's trying things on. She's pushing the rules. At the same time, she's doing things normal fourteen-year-olds do: dating. And she's also finally learned to open up to the one person whose experiences most nearly match her own: Harry. That she's finally able to stand up to him in a way that none of his other friends can comes out of the fact that she has been forced to come to some kind of self-knowledge, both by the passage of years and by her experience with Tom Riddle. Too, she knows _Harry_. She has watched him, both as the object of her affections and as her brother and Hermione's best friend for _years_. At the same time, the plot demands that someone slap some sense into Harry--he spends the first half of OotP wallowing in self-pity, doubt and anger. Whether that's because he's got a direct line to LV's subconscious or because he's a fifteen year old boy is a topic for another day. But Harry needs someone to wake him up, to be the voice of reason, and Ron's ill-suited, as are Hagrid and Sirius, Lupin's too distant, Dumbledore's actively non- presnt, Hermione herself tends to panic when really scary stuff raises its head... So who else should JKR turn to remind Harry that the sun doesn't rise and fall on his navel? Ginny. But I don't think she's become the sort of Uber-Sue that phoenixgod mentions. Harry isn't suddenly mesmerized by her flashing eyes or her glistening hair. Her spells are good, but she doesn't whip the DEs single-handedly. (Trust me, I've read those fics, they're dreadful.) At the DoM, it's _Neville_ who's the last one standing at Harry's side--Ginny's broken her ankle. And it isn't Ginny who salves Harry's grief after Sirius's death: it's Luna. And on the train ride back, it's all six of them riding together: the trio, Ginny, Luna and Neville. I think that we will continue to see growth in Ginny's character (Neville's and Luna's too, for that matter). I think it's likely that, at some point, Harry will suddenly become at the least attracted to Ginny. Whether that becomes an actual romantic relationship, or whether they end up settling for a friendship, I don't know. I think it would be unusually wasteful to have spent all of that effort to build up a one-sided romantic relationship in the first four books... just to throw it away. Though I could be wrong. But I am sure we'll see more of her--and I am comfortable that what we see has been set up by what has come before. From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Wed Jan 19 21:07:58 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:07:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ginny Weasley!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501191608836.SM00788@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 122414 > Nicky Joe wrote: > > Thank you, Phoenixgod!!! I am no longer alone in my Ginny-loathing! > She always annoyed me, but I definitely agree with your OoTP > analysis. Except for the damsel in distress routine in CoS, > she was pretty much a non-character. Now she rivals Hermione > for Super Girl status - what the heck happened to break her > out of her little mousy shell? It's almost like JKR wrote a > different character in OoTP and decided at the last minute to > make her Ginny instead. Some development hints in PoA or GoF > would have been nice. > > vmonte responds: > There is a good essay about Ginny on the Lexicon: > > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-harry-ginny.html > > Vivian Vivamus: That really is a *very* good essay. Despite all the other excellent comments here in defense of Ginny, I have to toss two bits in. I posted to one of the Harry Potter lists (not this one; I hadn't discovered HP4GU then) my theory of Ginny Weasley a few years back. It was about the time GoF was due to be finished, and there was much shipping speculation, of course. I posted that I was pretty sure that JKR had planned from the beginning to bring Harry and Ginny together, because of the way Ginny was brought into the story. I also speculated, however, that if she was planning to do that, we would see Ginny detach from Harry and show interest in other boys -- probably Neville. That would be so that Ginny could develop more as a character in her own right and stand as an equal with Harry. She would have to get away from the little girl crush before she could possibly be a real love interest for either her or Harry. GoF was delayed, and it took another nine months of waiting before it was finished, but sure enough, Ginny showed some detachment from Harry, and began to appear more as a real character, interacting with him, and going to the ball with (!) Neville. In OOtP, of course, you finally see Ginny as an equal character to the Trio, but it is still only an extension of her growth up until that point. All that is to say that not only were there development hints in the earlier books, they were so clear that at least one reader posted predictions about precisely this development long before GoF came out. I'm sure there were similar posts in this list; I just wasn't here yet. I still think the signs are there from the very first scene on the train platform in PS/SS. As always, JKR is in charge of her world, and she alone can decide how things will go, and stories do take on a life of their own, so anything really is possible. Still, I think the wild heart of Ginny was clear in PS/SS from her laughing and crying while chasing the train, and her persistent enthusiasm in wanting to see Harry. Every book since has quietly reinforced her character, just as they have reinforced Neville's. Both have major roles to play before the end of the series that are foreshadowed in the first book. Neither have been in the forefront -- yet. Ginny, burst on the scene? I was delighted to finally see the Ginny that has clearly been there all along -- just not noticed by Harry. Vivamus, whose can Snickersqueak claims to have learned the cat-bogey hex from Ginny Weasley dum vivimus, vivamus From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 21:14:30 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:14:30 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection - Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122415 Tonks Responding to Steve. I like the Veil idea. Good one I might add. I think there has to be something where the trio do something together, because JKR says that the wands of each are different for a reason. However, I am not sure that LV did not make plans for being AK'ed by more than one wizard. To AK is wrong, for whatever reason. We will not see the trio do that. I do think, and have said all along, that Harry is going to make a sacrifice like Christ. This would go along with the veil scene. How else can we get LV into the veil without someone AKing him. And we need to get both his current body and what is in HP into the veil at the same time, otherwise he will escape again. I also like the idea that somehow he is Vapormort again and we all need to be careful what we choice because the wrong choices give him power. And enough wrong choices by enough people and he is back. Tonks_op From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Jan 19 21:13:57 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:13:57 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122416 > > As Alla asked: > > >>Don't you find it ironic, that Neville progressed in Harry's > > DADA club more during a few months than in Snape class > > during five years.<< > > Pippin: > > Trouble is, Neville had Lupin for DADA, just as Harry did, so > > whatever made the difference for Neville in the DA, it wasn't > > finally having a competent, non-scary teacher. Also, if I am not > > mistaken, Neville *has* made progress in potions class. IIRC, > > no cauldrons were injured in the making of OOP . Not one. > > SSSusan: > Ah. A fair point, Pippin. Maybe this says something about > Neville's comfort level in learning from peers over learning from > teachers? Or maybe it takes a long time for his confidence to > develop & manifest itself? Did increased confidence in the DA > lead to increased confidence all around, including in Snape's > potions class? > > > Pippin: > > Could it be that in subjects where he isn't naturally motivated, > > Neville actually needs to be scared to try his best? That > > Snape's methods actually did break through that thick skull of > > his? Not PC, I know, but I'm just wondering. > > SSSusan: > Oh, I'm not trying to be PC, even if that's how people are reading > my comments. I'm NOT about being PC just for the sake of being > PC. > I'm just not sure that we really saw evidence that scaring Neville > *helped* him. I wonder if, instead, things like Lupin showing him > he could face down a boggart and Harry's DA giving him a chance to > practice DADA skills w/o being watched by a teacher or being > yelled at like he routinely is in Potions, finally built up a > level of confidence which is helping him overcome those tough > subjects? I'm not sure, I'm just wondering, too. Dungrollin: I've found some canon to suggest that fear is actually a good motivator, and particularly for Neville: OotP, chapter 25 The Beetle at Bay: "Harry was pleased to see that all of them, even Zacharias Smith, had been spurred on to work harder than ever by the news that ten more Death Eaters were now on the loose, but in nobody was this improvement more pronounced than in Neville. The news of his parents' attackers' escape had wrought a strange and even slightly alarming change in him. He had not once mentioned his meeting with Harry, Ron and Hermione on the close ward in St. Mungo's and, taking their lead from him, they had kept quiet about it too. Nor had he said anything on the subject of Bellatrix and her fellow torturers' escape. In fact, Neville barely spoke during the DA meetings any more, but worked relentlessly on every new jinx and counter-curse Harry taught them, his plump face screwed up in concentration, apparently indifferent to injuries or accidents and working harder than anyone else in the room. He was improving so fast it was quite unnerving and when Harry taught them the Shield Charm - a means of deflecting minor jinxes so that they rebounded upon the attacker - only Hermione mastered the charm faster than Neville." (Sorry - it's all one paragraph in the book, too...) Make of it what you will. Dungrollin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 21:30:55 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:30:55 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122417 Alla earlier: snip. But yes, I do think that Harry should have been allowed the option to hide some of his potentially embarrasing moments in the Pensieve. If nothing else, it would made him trust Snape more... maybe. He would have seen that Snape is not "out to get him" (as I pretty much feel he was), but "out to teach him" and that they are indeed on the same side. Potioncat: In an earlier discussion about the Pensieve, I think we came to the conclusion that this is indeed, DD's Pensieve. If there is only one, I doubt that it can be shared. And I would think Snape's need outweighed Harry's. Alla: Do you mind if I disagree with such conclusion? :o) Not even that it is DD's Pensieve,it may very well be, but that there is only one of those in whole WW. I for some reason doubt it, but I can be wrong of course. So, Harry could be given his own, OR if it is expensieve, Harry can be told to buy his own, since he is not poor. I am pretty sure he would have made this purchase very willingly. JMO, Alla From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 21:34:56 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:34:56 -0000 Subject: When do Snape's eyes glitter? (was: In Defense of Snape (long)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122418 > Pippin had an intriguing speculation: > > Now, that doesn't mean that Snape *never* hates Harry. He > does, IMO, especially when Harry is being egregiously > James-like. But we should have a 'tell' for that, and I think we do. > Harry notes in his first potions class that Snape's eyes look like > cold, empty tunnels. But when he goes to confront whatever at > the end of GoF, they glitter. Suppose the empty look is > occlumency at work; Snape hiding whatever thoughts and > feelings would contradict the lie. The glitter is honest emotion. > So let's see: > > Snape sneering at Harry's fame in Book One? No glitter. Potion > making ability? A random check of passages reveals no glitter, > just smirks and sneers, though it would be rash to say it never > happens without checking them all. > > We get the glints and glitters when Snape accuses Harry of > being like his father, and when Snape is in the Shrieking Shack, > but *not* when he accuses Harry of helping Sirius escape. They > appear when Snape accuses Harry of invading his office but > *not* when he reads the Witch Weekly article, and interestingly, > not when Snape finds Harry in the pensieve . There's anger > there, definitely, but not hate, not if you believe the glitter clue. > > Thoughts? Neri: ************************* PoA Ch. 6: "Everyone gather `round," said Snape, his black eyes glittering, "and watch what happens to Longbottom's toad. If he has managed to produce a Shrinking Solution, it will shrink to a tadpole. If, as I don't doubt, he has done it wrong, his toad is likely to be poisoned." *************************** Does your theory imply that Snape's attempt to exterminate Trevor here was out of "sincere emotion"? If so, it seems Neville was right to be afraid of Snape. **************************** GoF, Ch. 18: "Antidotes!" said Snape, looking around at them all, his cold black eyes glittering unpleasantly. "You should all have prepared your recipes now. I want you to brew them carefully, and then, we will be selecting someone on whom to test one " ************************** Yep, definitely scary. The man seems sincere. *************************** GoF, Ch. 28 "I need to see Professor Dumbledore!" said Harry, running back up the corridor and skidding to a standstill in front of Snape instead. "It's Mr. Crouch he's just turned up he's in the forest he's asking -" "What is this rubbish?" said Snape, his black eyes glittering. "What are you talking about?" *************************** Does this mean that Snape prevents Harry from getting DD's help out of sincere emotion? Yes, I think I agree with this part of the theory. It would be more useful, however, to have a "tell" when Snape is in secret agent mode. Neri From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 19 21:44:19 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:44:19 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122419 Dungrollin: > I've found some canon to suggest that fear is actually a > good motivator, and particularly for Neville: > > OotP, chapter 25 The Beetle at Bay: > "Harry was pleased to see that all of them, even Zacharias Smith, > had been spurred on to work harder than ever by the news that ten > more Death Eaters were now on the loose, but in nobody was this > improvement more pronounced than in Neville. The news of his > parents' attackers' escape had wrought a strange and even slightly > alarming change in him. He had not once mentioned his meeting > with Harry, Ron and Hermione on the close ward in St. Mungo's and, > taking their lead from him, they had kept quiet about it too. Nor > had he said anything on the subject of Bellatrix and her fellow > torturers' escape. In fact, Neville barely spoke during the DA > meetings any more, but worked relentlessly on every new jinx and > counter-curse Harry taught them, his plump face screwed up in > concentration, apparently indifferent to injuries or accidents and > working harder than anyone else in the room. He was improving so > fast it was quite unnerving and when Harry taught them the Shield > Charm - a means of deflecting minor jinxes so that they rebounded > upon the attacker - > only Hermione mastered the charm faster than Neville." > Make of it what you will. SSSusan: Motivated by fear or by revenge, do you think? Siriusly Snapey Susan From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Jan 19 21:46:40 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:46:40 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (warning: rant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122420 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Renee: > > Alternatively, Harry wasn't forgetful and they did get to that > > point, only we're not being told. There was no way Jo could > have done so without giving away what form Harry's Patronus > took.< > > Pippin: > Huh? There's no way Lupin could have continued the lessons to > that point without Harry knowing what form his patronus took. > And he doesn't know: > > He screwed up his eyes, trying to see what it was. I looked like a > horse.[...]It wasn't a horse. It wasn't a unicorn, either. It was a > stag. --PoA ch 21 > Somehow refuting ESE!Lupin theories always seems to require > the creation of new and gigantic plot holes. Renee: Okay, I forgot about this quote, I'll grant you that. Apparently my memory's not as good as I thought it was :( In that case, this simply means there were no more lessons because the plot required that neither Harry nor the readers knew in advance what form Harry's Patronus took. So it seems to me that without a alternative showing what Lupin ought to have done instead, this can't be used to support the ESE!theory; without a choice, Lupin couln't have done the right thing, now could he? Pippin: > We can also conclude that Dumbledore accepted Lupin's > resignation. There must have been more to that than the > prospect of letters from angry parents. As Dumbledore says in > GoF: "Not a week has passed since I became Headmaster of > this school, when I haven't received at least one owl complaining > about the way I run it.[...]I refuse to accept your resignation, > Hagrid, and I expect you back at work on Monday," --GoF ch 24 Renee: Of course DD accepted Lupin's resignation. Lupin's transgressions in PoA are worse than Hagrid's have been until now (and will be in the future, I bet). Lupin endangered the lives of three students and failed to tell Dumbledore Sirius was an Animagus. DD was right not to make light of this, and you won't hear me say Lupin didn't deserve to lose his job. He got his comeuppance and has to live with the consequences. And no, I don't think DD was daunted by the prospect of letters from angry parents, and I agree there was more to it. What I think is, that Lupin was daunted by the prospect of getting any more Ron-like reactions from students who liked him well enough when they didn't know he was a werewolf. It's apparent that Ron's reaction - and Ron often represents the reaction of the average wizard - hurt Lupin. I can't blame him for not wanting to expose himself to any more of such reactions, and DD knows they'd be inevitable if Lupin stayed. And as it doesn't work very well to fight prejudice with decrees and rules, he also knows Lupin would become totally ineffective as a teacher when faced with the students of Slytherin House (and contrary to popular opinion I don't think DD has given up on the Slytherins). So if he wants a functional teacher for one of the most important subjects on the Hogwarts curriculum, Lupin can't stay. Pippin: > Given Dumbledore's passion for second chances, did Lupin not > get a second chance because he confessed everything? or > because he didn't? I agree, it would be stupid for Lupin not to > confess if he believed that by doing so he could win > Dumbledore's forgiveness. But ESE!Lupin's great tragedy is that > he doesn't believe this at all. Renee: If you believe Dumbledore gave Snape a second chance because he repented, you have to believe this of Lupin, too. Giving second chances to people who don't show any awareness of the fact they're getting one, are meaningless. Without a confession or at least an an admission from Lupin that he saw the error of his ways, DD would be a mindless idiot to give him a second chance, and DD is much, but not a mindless idiot. And for Lupin, even if he didn't believe in DD's forgiveness, it would still be stupid not to pretend he was sorry, just in case it might work. You've got a no, you might get a yes, as we say where I come from. So if he didn't confess, we'd have two stupid characters. Maybe attempts to refute the ESE!Lupin theory can lead to the creation of plotholes, but the theory as such seems to lend it self to the dumbing down of the characters involved. :) > Of course Lupin was admitted to the Order, but again, we don't > know how much Dumbledore trusts him. Dumbledore did not > decide which Order members would go to the MoM. Renee: Again, DD would be an idiot to allow someone in the order who is obviously clever, has shown himself capable to go behind DD's back but who has never expressed any kind of remorse. Last time there was a black hat in the order DD didn't know his identity (and I do hope he takes the probability into account that something similar may happen again). But precisely because he has to allow for unforeseen circumstances he can't take the risk of allowing an unrepentant, suspicious character in his ranks. Or not without at least informing someone else who has the authority to take decisions when he isn't there. And who might that be? > Pippin: > Whew! It's true I do underplay Lupin's good impulses in my > posts. After all there are plenty of fans to post about how > wonderful he is. At one point I did posit that he was some kind of > psychopath. I agree that would be redundant. Voldemort tells us > all we need to know about that kind of evil. > > But if only psychopaths had evil intent, there'd be a lot less of it. > There is another kind of evil that is done by people who realize, > in their better moments, that they have given in to the darker part > of their own natures but can't find the courage to change. Renee: I don't see much difference between your ESE!Lupin and a psychopath. Could anyone commit the impressive number of murders and other atrocities, starting at the age of 16 - hating himself for what he's done, as you imply - and be the kind and caring person we see in the books? Harry can't properly use a Crucio because there isn't enough hatred in his heart. Likewise, I can't see Lupin repeatedly using AK or knowingly (= under the influence of Wolfsbane) tearing up someone without killing his own conscience and his heart, not the way JKR deals with these things. And the Lupin I see in the books has both a conscience and a heart. This is not the morally depraved person he would be if he'd done everything you accuse him of. Pippin: > These people have no evil ambitions on a grand scale to begin > with, but when their moral cowardice is married to the evil > ambitions of a Voldemort, watch out! The point is made for > Voldemort that he is nothing, mere shadow, without his > followers. It takes a Riddle to conceive of carrying out Salazar's > noble plan. But it only takes a Ginny, too frightened of the > consequences to ask for help, to do the dirty work. > The way I read the books, Snape is someone who found his > courage, who came back to the light knowing he would always > be seen as a deeply horrible person (and so he is, though > he may be improving), but was willing to bear that, rather than > see all that he still loved and cared for submitted to Voldemort. > > ESE!Lupin, meanwhile, is being sucked further and further into > Voldemort's designs, and unless he can find the courage to > escape, he is doomed to destroy everything he still loves. > Though you see all the crimes I've ascribed to Lupin as equally > atrocious I see them as progressively more repugnant, starting > with mere rule-breaking, proceeding step by step to the murder > of his friend Sirius, and ending hypothetically with the attempted > destruction of Harry, the savior of his world. Renee: Addressing the last thing first, and using the list you approved - you see betraying a baby to Voldemort so he kan kill him as less repugnant than framing Sirius? Killing a dozen Muggles as less repugnant than being ready to kill Peter? Having the Lestranges torture the Longbottoms into insanity as less repugnant than turning someone else into a werewolf? If that's the case, I don't think I can follow you. (I also wonder what you mean by Salazar's "noble plan" but that's a different discussion.) What I don't understand either, is why you take a form of moral cowardice that is clearly related to the fear of losing your friends and the good opinion of your employer and then proceed to turn it into a general breeding ground for the evil influence of someone who wants all these people dead. No kind of behaviour or attitude is unrelated to the situation in which it occurs. Was Lupin afraid to lose Voldemort's friendship or his good opinion? And the Snape analogy doesn't work here, because we know for certain Snape was a Death Eater once, whereas ESE!Lupin is just a theory, even though you present it as canon. Pippin: > I don't think this will contradict anything Jo has to say about love. > Love is necessary, without it we'd all be Voldemorts. But no > matter how much you love someone, you can't make him > choose to be good.That, I think , is the message behind Jo's > warnings to the Snape and Draco worshippers, the lesson that it > took her thirty-five years to learn. Renee: I wasn't talking about the kind of love that makes blind, also known as infatuation, but about the love commonly called charity in a Christian context. And yes, I do think that JKR's message is that true charity will greatly enhance what goodness there is in people, and lack of it will diminish their chances of turning away from evil, with Tom Riddle and young Snape as the prime examples. From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 18:54:19 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (Rebecca) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:54:19 -0000 Subject: The Prediction (again) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122421 Sorry to post on such a similar subject again, but Trelawney's 1st prediction is bugging me (like a lot of people here I guess). I already asked about who overheard it (which I did have some thoughts on), but the other thing really getting to me is the choice of wording (which I can't come up with any thoughts on). When Trelawney is speaking, she calls LV 'the Dark Lord'. Why? I'm sure that most people call him 'he who must not be named' and a very very tiny number use his name. Only death eaters call him 'the Dark Lord'. JKR said that the wording is important and maybe she isn't refering to this in particular, but I can't figure why Trelawney would call him by this name. Any ideas? Becky From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 19 22:03:27 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:03:27 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122423 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve/bboyminn: > Maybe Harry didn't want to reveal the memory of Hermione breaking into > Snape's personal potions stores. Maybe Harry didn't want to reveal his > feelings for Cho. Maybe Harry didn't want Snape seeing those very > personal, intimate, and private things that randy teen boys do late at > night when the curtains are drawn. > > True, one can claim this was more incentive to learn Occlumency. If > Harry didn't want them seen, then he should learn to shut them off. Geoff: Yes, but hang on a minute..... '"You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me or defend yourself in any other way that you can think of," said Snape. "And what are you going to do?" Harry asked, eyeing Snape's wand apprehensively. "I am about to attempt to break into your mind," said Snape soflty. "We are going to see how well you resist. I have been told that you already have shown aptitude at resisting the Imperius curse. You will find that similar powers are needed for this... brace yourself, now. Legilimens!" Snape had struck before Harry was ready, before he had even begun to summon any force of resistance. The office swam in front of his eyes and vanished; image after image was racing through his mind like a flickering film so vivid it blinded him to his surroundings..... ...Cho Chang was drawing nearer to him under the mistletoe... No, said a voice inside Harry's head as the memory of Cho drew nearer, you're not watching that, you're not watching it, it's private - ..."did you mean to produce a Stinging Hex?" asked Snape coolly. "No," said Harry bitterly, getting up from the floor. "I thought not," said Snape, watching him closely. "You let me get in too far. You lost control."' (OOTP "Occlumency" pp.471/72 UK edition) Come on, Steve, you wrote: "If Harry didn't want them seen, then he should learn to shut them off." For crying out loud, the boy is having his first (his FIRST) Occlumency lesson. Snape hits him with the spell having told him little else than the power to resist is similar to rejecting the Imperius Curse and Harry has five or six memories at least pulled from his before he can summon up the powers to stop things - a bit like stopping a runaway horse for the first time; it's an acquired art and Snape hasn't given him advice about this. OK, he might be suddenly attacked at a later time by a Death eater (or even Voldemort) with powers of Legilmency but this is not the way to /start/ training him. You don't chuck a non-swimmer in the deep end and walk away.... What does Snape do then? Tells Harry he must remina focussed; he shouldn't waste time and energy shouting. Did he know he had been shouting? Canon doesn't reveal this until Snape chooses to. He really doesn't advise Harry how to clear his mind but just moves in a second and third time and unearths another batch of memories. He has used his greater knowledge to wrong foot Harry again. No wonder there is little love lost between them. From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 22:08:55 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:08:55 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122424 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: I too, am arguing that Harry & Neville are special cases, but I mean it in a different way. I mean that they are special because one or the other of them is THE ONE who's supposed to have the power to vanquish Voldy, and because of that specialness, I think the teachers who're "in the know" about Voldy & the prophecy [and I *am* making a big assumption that Snape is one of them] should go the extra mile with them to make sure they're really meeting their full potential. And I would argue that Snape has never done that with these two. YES, Harry has been defiant and Neville has been The Klutz King, but Snape bears much of the blame for how he set the stage with the two of them in the first year and how he's shown no interest in altering his treatment of them *even as* he's seen them continue to fail and as he's come to KNOW Voldy's back. Dung's right -- he wouldn't be Snape if he weren't this way. For him to be introspective & self-assessing would strike most of us as OOC. I'm just pointing out where I think he has failed The Order's cause. A human failing, a decidedly Snape failing I suppose, but one I wish he would make strides to correct. Have I done any better explaining my position, I wonder? vmonte responds: Yes, you have. I agree with you SSSusan. I think that Snape's strategy with Harry and Neville is completely wrong. I wonder however, at how he will react if Neville or Harry actually do well in their potions test. Will he feel proud, like he did a good job as a teacher? Or will he accuse Harry of passing because of his "fame." He'll also probably accuse Neville's test giver as being incompetent. From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 22:19:32 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:19:32 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122425 Dungrollin wrote: I've found some canon to suggest that fear is actually a good motivator, and particularly for Neville: OotP, chapter 25 The Beetle at Bay: "Harry was pleased to see that all of them, even Zacharias Smith, had been spurred on to work harder than ever by the news that ten more Death Eaters were now on the loose, but in nobody was this improvement more pronounced than in Neville. The news of his parents' attackers' escape had wrought a strange and even slightly alarming change in him. He had not once mentioned his meeting with Harry, Ron and Hermione on the close ward in St. Mungo's and, taking their lead from him, they had kept quiet about it too. Nor had he said anything on the subject of Bellatrix and her fellow torturers' escape. In fact, Neville barely spoke during the DA meetings any more, but worked relentlessly on every new jinx and counter-curse Harry taught them, his plump face screwed up in concentration, apparently indifferent to injuries or accidents and working harder than anyone else in the room. He was improving so fast it was quite unnerving and when Harry taught them the Shield Charm - a means of deflecting minor jinxes so that they rebounded upon the attacker - only Hermione mastered the charm faster than Neville." vmonte responds: This quote is not about fear, it's more about revenge. Neville has just learned that Bellatrix has just escaped. He now has a reason (a mission) to learn all that he can in order to avenge their attack. Vivian From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Jan 19 22:24:15 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:24:15 -0000 Subject: The Prediction (again) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca" wrote: > > > Sorry to post on such a similar subject again, but Trelawney's 1st > prediction is bugging me (like a lot of people here I guess). I > already asked about who overheard it (which I did have some thoughts > on), but the other thing really getting to me is the choice of > wording (which I can't come up with any thoughts on). > > When Trelawney is speaking, she calls LV 'the Dark Lord'. Why? I'm > sure that most people call him 'he who must not be named' and a very > very tiny number use his name. Only death eaters call him 'the Dark > Lord'. JKR said that the wording is important and maybe she isn't > refering to this in particular, but I can't figure why Trelawney > would call him by this name. > > Any ideas? > > Becky Hickengruendler: Mainly because it wasn't Trelawney, but some power that took possesion of her. We don't know who or what was speaking through her, it can very well turn out to be an evil force. Seeing that JKR doesn't like Divination very much, I wouldn't be surprised. But I don't think that this is a hint that Sybill is evil. She really doesn't seem to know what she's saying while making the prophecies. From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Jan 19 22:28:00 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:28:00 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122427 > Alla: > > Do you mind if I disagree with such conclusion? :o) > > Not even that it is DD's Pensieve,it may very well be, but that > there is only one of those in whole WW. > > I for some reason doubt it, but I can be wrong of course. > > So, Harry could be given his own, OR if it is expensieve, Harry can > be told to buy his own, since he is not poor. > > I am pretty sure he would have made this purchase very willingly. Potioncat: Well, we don't know how common the Pensieve is. I'll admit that. So how about this, either there is a reason DD did not offer such a choice to Harry OR there is a reason JKR did not offer such a choice. From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 22:29:35 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:29:35 -0000 Subject: Runes, and Theories In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122428 >vmonte wrote: "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." >Valky wrote: Ahh now you are REALLY talking my language, isn't Hermione gonna be mad when Luna outshines her in that prestigious subject. ;P I absolutely agree there will be a revelation from Luna that will eventually bring Hermione to respect and and dignify her much more than she imagines she can. This may be it. Actually I am sure this is it. Oooh Hermione is gonna be mad at first. lol Valky also noting that there is more than similarity between Firenze's lecture and the above statement. It's almost word for word! Fact is Runes are definitely going to show up something, no doubt about it. vmonte again: I just noticed something Valky. 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." Dumbledore stated that he uses the penseive as a place to hold his memories and to make connections. I think that the penseive sorts the memories for you, and helps you make those connections. So, like the quote I have above regarding rune casting, it gives "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." Dumbledore seems to be using the penseive in a strategic way. Does he use it to weigh the pros and cons of a situation, etc. How dangerous would it be if someone else got a hold of it? We know that Snape put several memories into the penseive during the Occlumency lessons. Is it possible that the penseive chose the one Harry saw because it analyzed the memory and thought that there was something there that Harry needed to see? Is it possible that there is something there, besides the obvious, that Harry has not yet registered? Also, how do we really know that this penseive belongs to Dumbledore? Harry always assumes incorrectly. Maybe Snape has one too. It's obvious that Snape had no idea that Harry would know how to use one. You would think that if Dumbledore had lent Snape the penseive he would have warned him that Harry might try to sneak a peak into it. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Jan 19 22:39:49 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:39:49 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122429 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Alla: > > > > Do you mind if I disagree with such conclusion? :o) > > > > Not even that it is DD's Pensieve,it may very well be, but that > > there is only one of those in whole WW. > > > > I for some reason doubt it, but I can be wrong of course. > > > > So, Harry could be given his own, OR if it is expensieve, Harry > can > > be told to buy his own, since he is not poor. > > > > I am pretty sure he would have made this purchase very willingly. > > > Potioncat: > Well, we don't know how common the Pensieve is. I'll admit that. So > how about this, either there is a reason DD did not offer such a > choice to Harry OR there is a reason JKR did not offer such a choice. Renee: I can think of a reason why DD didn't offer Harry the choice: if Harry could remove the memories he doesn't want Snape to see, his motivation to learn Occlumency would be even less than it is. That's also the reason IMO, why complaints that the situation isn't fair (Snape can remove his memories but Harry can't) are beside the point. Wanting to throw Snape out of his memories ought to be an incentive to Harry to take learning Occlumency serious. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 19 22:40:29 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:40:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Harry (12) Message-ID: <20050119224029.20606.qmail@web25108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122430 One of the most powerful effects of Harry Potter is that many readers identify strongly with Harry. Yours truly certainly felt that immediately after reading just the first few pages of book 2. I know from this group that many adults really love Harry almost as much as a living person. And press reports from all over the world tell us that millions of children identify intensely with Harry. To me that's a sign that the Masters of Compassion are engaged in etching the essence of the teachings of liberation deeply into the blood and the subconscious of many millions of people. From there it is a small step for people to realise that Harry can actually be born in them. Every seeker carries Lily in his heart. The realisation that she can give birth to Harry, the true and eternal child of God, is just around the corner. All of us seekers have the potential for a new soul to be born out of the divine thought-spark, which I call the little Tao, in the heart. That new soul will take us on a journey from the vale of suffering, sorrow and death to a new life that is intensely happy, totally unselfish, imbued with all embracing Love for all creatures and for all of creation, and has no end, but is an eternal growth from one state of ineffable refulgence to the next, which is even more radiant, more fulfilling, with even greater power to bestow goodness on others. The price is small. All we have to do is give up our self-centred consciousness, as we will be shown in book 7. The journey of the new soul to attain liberation has seven stages, and we have discussed two. Book 3 shows clearly and unequivocally how we can be liberated from the astral plane of this universe. This book has two main climaxes and therefore two lessons: the defeat of the dementors and saving Buckbeak and Sirius. When I start my series on the symbols used in Harry Potter I'll discuss the dementors in more depth. Let me just say at this stage that dementors are not totally symbolic. They really do exist, and, as the book says, are invisible to us muggles. I have mentioned the Gnostic gospel "Pistis Sophia" several times. The activities of the dementors are described very clearly there. This gospel calls them "the rulers of the aeons". Pistis Sophia, the main character, is the Harry Potter of the ancient Gnostics. She is constantly weakened by the rulers of the aeons, who "take away her light-power" (Chapter 31). This is exactly the same as when the dementors suck "happiness" from Harry. What does this mean in practical terms for you and me? In my theory of liberation I have so far not told you very much about the powers that fight human liberation with all their strength. It is in the interest of many "principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (i.e. the astral plane) that people definitely NOT be liberated. This in itself would need a couple of chapters to explain, but to keep a long story short, let me remind you of my remarks at the beginning of this series that a microcosm and a cosmos have the same structure. Just as our microcosm has a higher self surrounding our aura, so does the cosmos, i.e. the earth. I have called the microcosmic higher self "Voldemort". In Harry Potter, Voldemort personifies both the microcosmic higher self AND the cosmic higher self. Just as our personal Voldemort tries to kill Harry at any cost, so the cosmic Voldemort is the deadly enemy of all seekers who want to go the path of liberation. Just as Harry is bound to defeat Voldemort, so the collective group of seekers who have a new soul will one day defeat the cosmic Voldemort. This all described in "The Revelation of John." The cosmic Voldemort, more commonly known as Lucifer, is a collective astral force which rules life on earth in the same way as our own higher self does. And just as our higher self has twelve main power centres in the auric ring which surrounds the microcosm, so the earth has twelve immense power centres surrounding it. We call their collective influence the zodiac. "Pistis Sophia" calls these the twelve aeons. Each aeon consists of numerous sub-powers which work for them, and these are called the rulers of the aeons in "Pistis Sophia", and dementors in Harry Potter. When a seeker has received the incomparable blessing of the birth of the immortal and precious new soul, he immediately becomes an object of great interest to the rulers of the aeons. The new soul radiates "light-power". This is astral energy of an extremely high potency. The rulers or dementors prey around the seeker with the new soul and try, whenever possible, to "suck out" this energy with two aims: firstly to absorb the energy themselves, which makes them more powerful, and secondly to weaken and, if possible, suck out the new soul completely. Jo isn't fantasising, friends, she is talking facts! However the new soul has a mighty weapon: the Patronus! Essentially the seeker is totally safe. Although he may have moments of weakness when his focus on the path of liberation diminishes, for example through being absorbed by the problems of life, or by lapsing into negative emotions, he has a weapon against which not even 100 dementors have the slightest chance of winning. As you know, we are discussing the astral plane, the plane of desires and emotions. Every desire results in the attraction of astral forces of a certain vibration. We as creatures of the universe of Lucifer can attract only the forces from this universe. However as soon as Harry is born, there is a living being within us who is not from this universe. Tao has become Teh. Jesus is born in the heart. The Prince of Peace has arrived to reclaim his kingdom. This means that in the astral body of the seeker there is a new soul which can desire something that is not obtainable anywhere in this universe: the living water. This is a symbol for the life-force of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is the astral substance of the sixth cosmic plane. Invoking the Patronus means concentrating oneself on the longing of the soul for "the blood of Christ", the elixir of life, for Tao, for God. This longing is best described by Psalm 42: "As a hart longs for flowing streams, so longs my soul for thee, O God. My soul thirst for God, for the living God. When shall I come and behold the face of God?" Among those who read this there will be those who know this experience and those who don't. Those who know this experience will not be able to explain or describe it to those who don't. When Harry is born in your heart you have a new sense organ. You are no longer a muggle and a new world opens up to you. Trying to explain this deep yearning, this hankering for manna, is like trying to explain the view of a mountain range to a blind person or a symphony to a deaf one. The nearest we can get to describing this longing is to compare it to the intense craving for air one feels when one's head is being held under water for a few minutes. Imagine suffocating and then suddenly being able to breathe fresh, fragrant, oxygen-rich air. Only the relief isn't felt by the lungs but by the heart. As I said recently, when the little Tao in the heart meets the big universal Tao there is an intense joy, like a spiritual orgasm. Perhaps the best way to describe it is to compare it to the joy of being reunited with a person, whom we love with utter intensity, and who we thought was dead. When a person focuses himself on this supernal longing, he is invoking the Patronus. Patronus comes from Pater, father. Invoking the Patronus is in fact a cry from the soul for its Father. God loves his creatures with an intensity far beyond our understanding, and when one of them cries out to him he reacts immediately with an abundance of Holy Light. This Holy Light, as I've said, has a vibration rate far above anything possible in this universe. When a seeker invokes the Patronus, when his soul, Harry, calls for the Light, there is an answer from heaven. The soul is immediately linked to a ray of light from another universe. In the Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross this is symbolised by a cord being let down into a deep pit. Christian Rosycross is able to grab the rope and he is liberated from the pit. Harry invokes the Patronus and the light appears out of his wand. He is linked to his father at that moment. If all the hordes of demons and devils in hell, and all the rulers of the aeons, and Lucifer himself all were to try to attack us in one united thrust, they could do nothing to us if we invoke the Patronus. The Celestial Light of the Father would protect us and drive them all away. That is the victory promised to us in Harry Potter. Friends, let me assert with all my strength: There is nothing in the whole universe more beautiful than the story of liberation. And Harry Potter tells that story. That's why it's the world's most beautiful book! (Along with the other books which tell this story) I can't resist reproducing here the part of the book I'm talking about. Please read it again with the above comments in mind. Hans And then Harry saw them. Dementors, at least a hundred of them, gliding in a black mass around the lake toward them. He spun around, the familiar, icy cold penetrating his insides, fog starting to obscure his vision; more were appearing out of the darkness on every side; they were encircling them.... "Hermione, think of something happy!" Harry yelled, raising his wand, blinking furiously to try and clear his vision, shaking his head to rid it of the faint screaming that had started inside it -- I'm going to live with my godfather. I'm leaving the Dursleys. He forced himself to think of Black, and only Black, and began to chant: "Expecto patronum! Expecto patronum!" Black gave a shudder, rolled over, and lay motionless on the ground, pale as death. He'll be all right. I'm going to go and live with him. "Expecto patronum! Hermione, help me! Expecto patronum!" "Expecto --" Hermione whispered, "expecto -- expecto --" But she couldn't do it. The dementors were closing in, barely ten feet from them. They formed a solid wall around Harry and Hermione, and were getting closer.... "EXPECTO PATRONUM!" Harry yelled, trying to blot the screaming from his ears. "EXPECTO PATRONUM!" A thin wisp of silver escaped his wand and hovered like mist before him. At the same moment, Harry felt Hermione collapse next to him. He was alone... completely alone.... "Expecto -- expecto patronum --" Harry felt his knees hit the cold grass. Fog was clouding his eyes. With a huge effort, he fought to remember -- Sirius was innocent -- innocent -- We'll be okay -- I'm going to live with him -- "Expecto patronum!" he gasped. By the feeble light of his formless Patronus, He saw a dementor halt, very close to him. It couldn't walk through the cloud of silver mist Harry had conjured. A dead, slimy hand slid out from under the cloak. It made a gesture as though to sweep the Patronus aside. "No -- no --" Harry gasped. "He's innocent... expecto expecto patronum --" He could feel them watching him, hear their rattling breath like an evil wind around him. 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, gray scabbed skin, stretched blankly over empty sockets. But there was a mouth... a gaping, shapeless hole, sucking the air with the sound of a death rattle. A paralyzing 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 his arm... they weren't going to take him.... But a pair of strong, clammy hands suddenly attached themselves around Harry's neck. They were forcing his face upward.... 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 -- And then, through the fog that was drowning him, he thought he saw a silvery light growing brighter and brighter... He felt himself fall forward onto the grass.... Facedown, too weak to move, sick and shaking, Harry opened his eyes. The dementor must have released him. The blinding light was illuminating the grass around him.... The screaming had stopped, the cold was ebbing away... Something was driving the dementors back.... It was circling around him and Black and Hermione.... They were leaving.... The air was warm again.... With every ounce of strength he could muster, Harry raised his head a few inches and saw an animal amid the light, galloping away across the lake.... Eyes blurred with sweat, Harry tried to make out what it was.... It was as bright as a unicorn.... Fighting to stay conscious, Harry watched it canter to a halt as it reached the opposite shore. For a moment, Harry saw, by its brightness, somebody welcoming it back... raising his hand to pat it... someone who looked strangely familiar ... but it couldn't be... [...] (Later, after time travelling back three hours sees the scene again from across the lake - HR) There was a bush at the very edge of the water. Harry threw himself behind it, peering desperately through the leaves. On the opposite bank, the glimmers of silver were suddenly extinguished. A terrified excitement shot through him -- any moment now -- "Come on!" he muttered, staring about. "Where are you? Dad, come on --" But no one came. Harry raised his head to look at the circle of dementors across the lake. One of them was lowering its hood. It was time for the rescuer to appear -- but no one was coming to help this time -- And then it hit him -- he understood. He hadn't seen his father -- he had seen himself -- Harry flung himself out from behind the bush and pulled out his wand. "EXPECTO PATRONUM! "he yelled. And out of the end of his wand burst, not a shapeless cloud of mist, but a blinding, dazzling, silver animal. He screwed up his eyes, trying to see what it was. It looked like a horse. It was galloping silently away from him, across the black surface of the lake. He saw it lower its head and charge at the swarming dementors.... Now it was galloping around and around the black shapes on the ground, and the dementors were falling back, scattering, retreating into the darkness.... They were gone. The Patronus turned. It was cantering back toward Harry across the still surface of the water. It wasn't a horse. It wasn't a unicorn, either. It was a stag. It was shining brightly as the moon above ... it was coming back to him.... It stopped on the bank. Its hooves made no mark on the soft ground as it stared at Harry with its large, silver eyes. Slowly, it bowed its antlered head. And Harry realized... "Prongs, "he whispered. But as his trembling fingertips stretched toward the creature, it vanished. Jo ===== 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 hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Jan 19 22:52:14 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:52:14 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122431 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "antoshachekhonte" wrote: > Antosha: > > Starting with the admission that I am rather fond of Ginny, I'd like to address the > interesting question of whether Ginny has crossed the line into Mary-Sue-dom.... Hickengruendler: I don't hate Ginny. But she's also not one of my favourite characters. She is, so far, one of those who are just there and who don't really interest me. That said, I dislike the term *Mary-Sue*. I think fandom uses the term way too often, describing every female character, that dares to be likeable. > > In CoS, of course, we get to see much more of her. Of course, she barely talks, but Ron > tells us early on that this isn't the normal Ginny. Lunkhead that he is (emotional range of a > tea spoon, and all), he can't figure out why, but we get it quickly enough. Hickengruendler: Really, I thought Ron got it pretty quickly. Much sooner than Harry. ;-) Anyway, the problem I have with this statement is, that saying Ginny talks a lot has nothing really to do with her development in OotP. IMO, of course. It's often used as foreshadowing, but I don't understand why, especially because OotP Ginny *doesn't talk very often*. Yes, she lost her crush behind and was more talkative than earlier, but that wasn't difficult. But I have seen nothing that confirms Ron's statement, that she never shuts up. Both, Hermione and Luna, talked much more when they were around. I think the real change in Ginny was in her attitude, instead of the blushing girl from the earlier books, she was a kick-ass and sporty girlpower!girl. And I know that she was shyer in front of Harry than usual. And I also know that she's at an age where people change, but still I, too, found her change to sudden, and was for example dissatisfied with Jo's explanation about Ginny's Quidditch skills. It's really impossible, that she's flying secretly around the Burrow, without anyone noticing. Add to this, that we never really saw her in action (quite in contrast to Neville), but were only told about her greatness by either Hermione or the twins, and I can see why people don't like her development very much. It might not have been impossible to happen, but it was clumsily done, IMO. > > It isn't until OotP that the opportunity for Harry truly to get to know Ginny appears. It's not > that _she's_ gone through a transformation: we've been told before that she's talkative, > good with hexes, etc. Hickengruendler: When have we been told before that she's good with hexes? Anyway, the hexes don't really bother me, I have no problems to suppose that she learnt them in course of the years in Hogwarts. She surely should have more knowledge than at the end of book 2. However, again, did we ever see Ginny actually doing a Hex? I don't think so. We only were told about it by Hermione, Ron and the twins, and this is not helpful to develop a character properly. > Too, she knows _Harry_. She has watched him, both as the > object of her affections and as her brother and Hermione's best friend for _years_. At the > same time, the plot demands that someone slap some sense into Harry- -he spends the > first half of OotP wallowing in self-pity, doubt and anger. Whether that's because he's got > a direct line to LV's subconscious or because he's a fifteen year old boy is a topic for > another day. But Harry needs someone to wake him up, to be the voice of reason, and > Ron's ill-suited, as are Hagrid and Sirius, Lupin's too distant, Dumbledore's actively non- > presnt, Hermione herself tends to panic when really scary stuff raises its head... So who > else should JKR turn to remind Harry that the sun doesn't rise and fall on his navel? > > Ginny. Hickengruendler: Nope. If you mean the scene in Grimmauld Place, it were Ginny, Hermione and Ron together. All three of them were offering a part to reassure harry, that he isn't possesed by Voldemort. Ginny in talking about her own experiences, Ron in telling him that he never left the dorm and Hermione in reminding him (again) that you can't apparate into Hogwarts. It were all three of them together, and not just one person. You could say that it was Ginny who reminded him, that she, too, had made bad experiences, but on the other hand it was Hermione who was able to make him leave the room and I think Ron was the one who begged Hermione to come. Therefore I stand by my opinion that all of them helped. > > And on the train ride back, it's all six of them riding together: the trio, Ginny, Luna and > Neville. Hickengruendler: If it only were so. But sadly, Luna isn't there. I hope, that this isn't a bad omen for her role in the next two books. Hickengruendler: Who wants to like Ginny, but so far had only two scenes, where he found her interesting: the pre Yule-Ball and the "Lucky You" scene. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 22:53:41 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:53:41 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122432 Renee: I can think of a reason why DD didn't offer Harry the choice: if Harry could remove the memories he doesn't want Snape to see, his motivation to learn Occlumency would be even less than it is. That's also the reason IMO, why complaints that the situation isn't fair (Snape can remove his memories but Harry can't) are beside the point. Wanting to throw Snape out of his memories ought to be an incentive to Harry to take learning Occlumency serious. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Alla: I am not sure I agree. Shouldn't Harry's motivation to learn Occlumency be to throw Voldemort out? ( But of course it was hard for him to actually GET this information out of Snape) Are you saying that Dumbledore's motivation was to INCREASE hostility between Snape and Harry, not to decrease it? I am arguing that much more should have been done to help Harry and Snape to cross the bridge towards each other, to make them see that they are on the same side, IF Snape is of course. Instead, IMO, Snape treated Harry NOT just like tough instructor of martial arts, but more like an enemy and of course he got the same attitude from Harry. By the way, now I am not even sure that Pensieve was Dumbledore's. I think Vmonte made VERY good point. Dumbledore WOULD have tell Snape that Harry may want to take a look in it. If Dumbledore indeed did so, it makes me wonder of Snape intentions again. JMO, Alla From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 19 17:29:59 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:29:59 -0000 Subject: Neville in DA (was In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122433 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Don't you find it ironic, that Neville progressed in Harry's DADA > club more during a few months than in Snape class during five years. Well actually Neville only started progressing in the DA when some old friends of his parents made a surprise visit from Azkaban. He probably wanted to impress them in case he would meet them. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 19 17:48:15 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:48:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122434 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > And in violating Snape's privacy Harry is doing his job, fighting > back. Yeah, right. If someone has breached your mind, you fight back after the fact by stealing his diary. Hopefully there's something worthwile in there, that makes up for all the secrets you let the other party have because you were too obnoxious to practice. Besides, when in a war, you are supposed to fight your opponents, not the members of your side. Gerry From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Jan 19 23:32:35 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 23:32:35 -0000 Subject: Neville in DA (was In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122435 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > > Don't you find it ironic, that Neville progressed in Harry's DADA > > club more during a few months than in Snape class during five years. > > Well actually Neville only started progressing in the DA when some old > friends of his parents made a surprise visit from Azkaban. He probably > wanted to impress them in case he would meet them. > > Gerry Hickengruendler: Not quite. He also became better before the Death Eaters escape, Harry commented on it in one of the earlier DA meetings. The Death Eaters escape was just another motivation. He also did very well under Lupin's turtoring, of course, or in Herbology with Professor Sprout. I think it's clear that he does best in the classes of those who have most patience with him. That said, I won't rule totally out, that Snape thinks he might help Neville this way. But IMO it doesn't matter. Snape, as Harry, Neville and Hermione's teacher, has some obligation to treat them civilly, and IMO he doesn't. Snape is one of my favourite characters, but he's a nightmare in class and a sadist who loves to insults his students with cruel remarks (Hermione's teeth). From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Jan 19 19:27:06 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:27:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: fears and recklessness (was: Harry and Boggarts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050119192706.47129.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122436 Juli: > I've always thought of fear as a human emotion, necessary to > life, if there's no fear you become reckless. vmonte responds: > You think? Sirius was pretty reckless and I wouldn't > say he had no fears. Juli again: I read somewhere (damn memory) that if you have no fears you have nothing to gain. I don't think Sirius was too reckless, he did stayed for a long time at 12 GP even hating it, he was reckless sometimes, but mostly he thought at least twice about what he was about to do. From MadameSSnape at aol.com Thu Jan 20 00:47:35 2005 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:47:35 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) Message-ID: <76.4ae9cb36.2f2059a7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122437 In a message dated 1/19/2005 1:07:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, trekkie at stofanet.dk writes: TrekkieGrrrl wrote: > > Some people just can't stand clumsy people. It's not a nice trait, > but a lot of people feel that way. Some people cope better than other > at being around "stupid" people. Again, not a nice trait, but also, > as it's been repeated ad nauseam, Snape is not a "nice" person. He's > irrational, holds grudges, hates clumsy fools and has a volatile > temper. > > vmonte responds: > > This is not the reason why Snape treats Neville badly. Or else Goyle > and that other dunderhead would have been put out of their misery > long ago. > You're forgettinthat Crabbe and Goyle are Slytherins. AND that their fathers are death Eaters. So naturally Snape will have to put up with them. Probably by ignoring them. ~Trekkie =========== Sherrie here: It's not even so much "stupid" people - those who are truly stupid can be tolerated. After all, they really can't help it - "you just cain't cure stupid." What's far more annoying are people who AREN'T stupid - but just can't seem to "get it." Crabbe & Goyle are obviously trolls - you really can't expect much of them. Neville, though...he's got at least one working brain cell - I can easily see why he might irritate Snape. Sherrie (who has to try VERY hard to control this trait in herself) (who [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 19 21:05:21 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:05:21 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122438 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > This refers to Pippin's theory that it wasn't Peter Pettigrew who > was the spy that betrayed the Potters in the first Voldemort war, > but Lupin (using the codename Wormtail), who joined Voldemort > because of the way the Wizarding World treats werewolves. But as > Pippin has a tendency to treat her own speculations as canon > evidence in discussions (especially where Lupin and Snape are > concerned), this can be confusing to those unaware of the ESE!Lupin > theory. > OK, this is an old one, but I've just reread the end of PoA and I see not one little bit of evidence for this theory. I am really trying to understand why you, Pippin, cling to it that much. Rowling loves red herrings, true, but there is always evidence for the truth as well. Solid evidence as soon as you know what you are looking for. Nothing vague or insubstantial. I've read your evidence and I just cannot find anything substantial there. Here's why I think its nonsense Let's see: Black gets the newspaper with Ron's and Scabber's picture, resulting in he's at Hogwarts. He's actively after Peter as we know from the dormitory scene where he threathens Ron with a knife. Then in the Shrieking Shack: 'Harry... I as good as killed them, he croaked.' 'I persuaded Lily and James to change to Peter at the last moment, persuaded them to use him as Secret-Keeper instead of me... (Bloomsbury hardcover p. 268) next page: '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 te kill me, Remus.. (...) 'He's cme to try and kill me again! 'Pettigrew shrieked suddenly pointing at Black, an dHarry saw that he used his middle finger, because his index was missing. 'He killed Lily and James, and now hi's going to kill me, too... You've got to help me, Remus...' Next page: 'You haven't beeen hiding from me, for twelve years,' said Black. 'Youve been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters. I heard things in Azkaban, Peter... they al think you're dead, or you'd have to anser to them... I've heard them screaming all sorts of things in their sleep. Sounds like they think the double-crosser doucle-crossed them. Voldemort went tot het Potters' on your information... and Voldemort met his downfall there. To make ESE!Lupin possible you have to have two traitors. Peter does not deny he was the Secret Keeper, and therefore the only one who could betray the Potters. He nowhere, nowhere says anything that points to Lupin, though he has the opportunity. So, you expect us to believe, that Peter, coward that he is, kept the fact that he was not te secret keeper for himself? Why would he have done such a thing? Gerry From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 20 01:11:14 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:11:14 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122439 Alla: > By the way, now I am not even sure that Pensieve was Dumbledore's. I think Vmonte made VERY good point. > > Dumbledore WOULD have tell Snape that Harry may want to take a look in it. > > If Dumbledore indeed did so, it makes me wonder of Snape intentions again. Potioncat: It seems to me, that in an earlier discussion a poster quoted a section from one of the later chapters that did seem to confirm the Pensieve is DD's. I had been one of the strongest proponents of its being Snape's personal Pensieve. But, in any case, given how stingy DD is with information, I don't know that he would tell Snape about the incident where Harry dove into his Pensieve. And as we don't know, we can't (or shouldn't) judge Snape's behavior relative to the knowledge....I think I just tied my fingers into knots. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 01:39:44 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:39:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050120013944.40926.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122440 --- phoenixgod2000 wrote: > Now that I have your attention, I just wanted to start a debate > about a character that wasn't Snape, Harry, or Dumbledore. Bless you. Bless you a thousand times. > I separate her from Ginny in the rest of the series > because she bears no resemblance to book 1-4 Ginny. Am I the only > person who was annoyed by her sudden prominence in OOTP? She burst > onto the scene like a bad fanfic character, suddenly good at > everything without a cohensive explanation and it certainly > detracted from my enjoyment of the book. Was I the only who felt > that way? I sort of agree. I didn't find it hard to believe that she'd get over her crush of Harry and become more mature (I was quite grateful to JKR that she didn't have Ginny waste her teen years mooning over Harry). And I certainly find it believable that the youngest child and only daughter would have inner resources of hidden strength that no one expected. Budding Quidditch star Ginny was slightly over the top, and that I found hard to accept. After all the hoo-haa about the importance of practice etc. it was slightly unbelievable that borrowing the brooms at home and flying around a field, alone (presumably), would somehow quailify as getting in shape. So I could have lived without that part. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Jan 20 02:12:14 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:12:14 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Message-ID: <1e1.33e5599e.2f206d7e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122441 In a message dated 1/19/2005 5:42:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, mgrantwich at yahoo.com writes: Budding Quidditch star Ginny was slightly over the top, and that I found hard to accept. After all the hoo-haa about the importance of practice etc. it was slightly unbelievable that borrowing the brooms at home and flying around a field, alone (presumably), would somehow qualify as getting in shape. So I could have lived without that part. Magda ***************************************************************** Chancie: Why should it be unbelievable that Ginny turns out to be a good Quidditch player? Harry after all had never even been on a broom in his entire life, and was made seeker the first time he had ever flown! That IMO is more unbelievable than Ginny taking Fred and George's brooms and getting a feel for flying and ending up as a decent player. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 02:24:58 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:24:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050120022458.94310.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122442 > Michelle: > Probably because he is so complex, and he had to overcome his > upbringing to make the right choices. It's a very difficult thing > to > do, to outgrow the prejudices that you've been indoctrinated with > since birth and rise above them. > Sirius was not complex at all. He was a pretty straight, linear character. He didn't like his family. He had a great friend named James Potter. The Potters treated him like a second son. Therefore, as soon as he could, he shucked the family he didn't like and adopted the family he did like. And that was that. That's why he was pretty brisk when he described his late brother's career as a Voldemort supporter and his early death. The guy wasn't his brother anymore, just a fool he happened to have been related to, once, many years ago. His real brother was James and his grief over James' death is real, deep, and passionate. To answer Casey's original question, I don't like Sirius and never did. I went back into old HPGU posts and am delighted to find that I didn't like him after POA and GOF. It's always nice to know that one has spotted a bad egg right off. For me the big issue was the Prank: not so much what it would have done to Snape (I can accept that teenage boys do dumbass things) but what would have happened to Lupin. That after five years of friendship Sirius was capable of seeing Remus as a monster (rather than a boy with a terrible affliction) when it was convenient for Sirius to do so, really caused me to write him off as a positive force for Harry. I really wonder if Sirius would have turned into a "good guy" and Order member had James not been an anti-Dark Arts guy. Had James been a pureblood snob, then I think Sirius would have been too. He was a "my friend right or wrong" kind of guy, and introspection was not one of his strong suits. In fact, I think the entire Marauder set up was desperate for a shake-up by their 6th year. Four guys reflecting their own wonderfulness back at each other all through their teen years must have been rather stifling. You can argue that Sirius, Remus and Peter never really got past their school days at Hogwarts and that James alone managed it. Why? Lily. I think after the Prank was over and James had some time by himself, he was shaken at how close they had all come to disaster. The whole episode would have been a bucket of cold water over his head as he realized how things had spun out of control. And perhaps he started asking himself if Lily wasn't right, if he shouldn't stop doing things just because he felt like it and started living up to a higher standard that just hacking around with the guys and having fun. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 02:25:18 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:25:18 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: <1e1.33e5599e.2f206d7e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122443 Chancie: Why should it be unbelievable that Ginny turns out to be a good Quidditch player? Harry after all had never even been on a broom in his entire life, and was made seeker the first time he had ever flown! That IMO is more unbelievable than Ginny taking Fred and George's brooms and getting a feel for flying and ending up as a decent player. vmonte responds: I agree completely. The girl grows up in a family with 5 boys and people find it hard to believe that she is a tough cookie? Please, it's called survival. When you don't have other girls to play dolls with, you learn to play what the boys are playing. Besides, talent is talent. Why couldn't she be gifted in Quidditch? It's obvious that it runs in her family. Vivian From a_rude_mechanical at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 02:29:13 2005 From: a_rude_mechanical at yahoo.com (a_rude_mechanical) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:29:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 36, The Only One He Ever Feared Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122444 Here is the rest of the Chapter 36 summary/discussion!! The first half of the summary/discussion may be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122222 Chapter 36, part two: DD deflects a killing curse, and aims a spell that LV's deflects with a shield. They discuss DD's unwillingness to kill and LV's inability to understand that there are things worse than death. ---In fact, DD calls that LV's greatest weakness. In what way is that LV's weakness? In other words, have we seen any evidence that wanton killing has harmed him? The centaur protects DD from another killing curse and is shattered. DD wraps a flame around LV, who turns it into a snake that moves to attack DD. LV disappears and reappears standing on the plinth in the fountain. Fawkes swoops in and swallows a killing curse LV aims at DD as DD vanishes the snake. ---I love that the centaur protects DD here. Whole lotta centaur in this book, eh? Suddenly, the water in the pool rises and surrounds LV, who disappears. Bellatrix and Harry assume LV to be dead. DD yells for Harry to be still. Harry suddenly feels horrific pain in his scar? too much to bear. LV has possessed his body and begins to taunt DD, saying "Kill me now!" ---Why this particular taunt, I wonder? It's not as though DD was trying to kill him anyway, as we learned a few paragraphs ago. It was never DD's intent to murder LV, so why tease him? Harry begins to hope that DD will kill him/LV, because he is suffering so much pain. He thinks about death and realizes, "I'll see Sirius again." His heart "fills with emotion" at the thought of seeing Sirius and all of a sudden LV leaves his body. Harry opens his eyes to see DD, and then the Atrium full of people. Witches and wizards emerge from the fireplaces, Cornelius Fudge among them, led by the house elf and goblin statues. ---So THAT's where they went! ---So, the thought of Sirius expels LV from Harry's body? Does this fit in with what we know of possession from book 2? A wizard named Williamson cries out that he saw LV disapparate with Bellatrix. Everyone is shocked that LV was just moments ago standing in the MoM. DD walks forward?some of the witches and wizards raise their wands, but the goblin and house elf statues applaud?and tells Fudge where to find the other DEs. Fudge orders DD's arrest. DD is not phased; he tells Fudge that he will fight his men. DD also reminds Fudge that what he has been telling Fudge for months concerning LV is the truth. Fudge acquiesces, grudgingly, and asks what happened to the fountain. ---Again, mention of the fountain of Magical Brethren. DD tells Fudge that they can talk as soon as Harry is back at Hogwarts. Fudge sees Harry for the first time. DD creates a portkey out of the wizard statue's head. Fudge tries to assert some control (pffft!) and berates DD for creating a portkey without authorization. DD lets him have it, telling him to remove Umbridge from the school, order the Aurors to get off Hagrid's back, and that he (DD) will meet Fudge in one half hour. DD agrees to talk to Fudge briefly that night, and that if any further discussion is needed, "letters addressed to the headmaster will find me." DD tells Harry to take the portkey, and the two leave Fudge blubbering in the MoM Atrium. ---Why is DD so anxious to get Harry back to Hogwarts? Is there healing there? Protection? ---I think it's interesting that DD so calmly reinstates himself as headmaster?it's almost as though he was humoring Fudge all along, but now that things have become serious, it's time to stop fooling around. Who has control over Hogwarts, anyway?? Thanks again and enjoy the discussion! 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 justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 03:06:28 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:06:28 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments (Changeling!Harry varient theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122445 Valky wrote: > > Snape *may* have been helping DD to decipher what was going on also. > OTOH I think you make excellent sense when you say that Snape feels > his true master is in Harry, the Alan Rickman quotes about respect > and admiration that were recently put up here for us by someone very > helpful (thankyou), seem to suggest that Snape would have some > loyalty to the charming and clever Tom Riddle, if he indeed ever > knew him as that. Perhaps in Snapes mind there is a feeling that he > can *save* his old friend Tom from becoming Voldemort, a "second > chance" like the one DD has given him. Carol responds: Considering that Riddle was 33 years older than Snape and disappeared fifteen years before Snape was born, returning when Snape was a schoolboy so changed that he was unrecognizable, I'd say that the chances of Snape and Riddle being "old friends" are slim to none. I'm guessing that Snape saw him for the first time when he joined the DEs at about age eighteen, at which time Voldemort was 51 and had long since droped his identity as Tom Riddle. Is there any evidence to indicate that Voldemort wasn't already snake-faced in VW1? And in any case, he would have *used* the ambitious boy to further his personal agenda rather than befriending him. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 03:09:09 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:09:09 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122446 Alla earlier: By the way, now I am not even sure that Pensieve was Dumbledore's. I think Vmonte made VERY good point. Dumbledore WOULD have tell Snape that Harry may want to take a look in it. If Dumbledore indeed did so, it makes me wonder of Snape intentions again. Potioncat: It seems to me, that in an earlier discussion a poster quoted a section from one of the later chapters that did seem to confirm the Pensieve is DD's. I had been one of the strongest proponents of its being Snape's personal Pensieve. But, in any case, given how stingy DD is with information, I don't know that he would tell Snape about the incident where Harry dove into his Pensieve. And as we don't know, we can't (or shouldn't) judge Snape's behavior relative to the knowledge....I think I just tied my fingers into knots. Alla: I did not mean it in a sense that Dumbledore would tell Snape about the incident simply for the sake of telling about it. I would think Dumbledore may tell specifically for the sake of WARNING Snape to be careful, you know, since the stakes are that high that Harry can be too curious and it is better ... you know to be a responsible adult and not to provoke his curiousity, knowing that he was so desperately seeking answers all year. But maybe you are right and Dumbledore was keeping it a secret. JMO, Alla From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 03:11:16 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:11:16 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122447 Potioncat: It seems to me, that in an earlier discussion a poster quoted a section from one of the later chapters that did seem to confirm the Pensieve is DD's. I had been one of the strongest proponents of its being Snape's personal Pensieve. But, in any case, given how stingy DD is with information, I don't know that he would tell Snape about the incident where Harry dove into his Pensieve. And as we don't know, we can't (or shouldn't) judge Snape's behavior relative to the knowledge....I think I just tied my fingers into knots. Snow: Very true, I believe it was not only a borrowed Pencieve but along with the borrowed Pencieve was a bit of info from Dumbledore to Snape that Harry has been previously cautioned about curiosity: "Curiosity is not a sin," [ ] "But we should exercise caution with our curiosity " GOF Snape, if nothing else, is not stupid! In other words this scene happens for a reason and the reason Snape allowed Harry to purposely see himself place memories in the Pencieve is nothing more than a test that both Snape and Dumbledore accurately assumed Harry would fail at. This was a way to convey information to Harry without Harry becoming suspicious as to why and ask too many questions over it. (We all know via OOP that Harry shouldn't be told too much right?) This brings up the point of why Snape acted(?) the way he did when he caught Harry. Dumbledore and Snape were well aware of Harry's personality and his traits (attributed and not); they both knew that Harry would look at the Pencieve if given an opportunity (so let's give the boy just enough information. Amazing and timely that Snape cut off this viewing of this memory when he did, isn't it?). Harry's viewing of this particular scene made him rethink his position on Snape and question his own father. I don't know if this ties your fingers tighter, Potioncat, or not I guess it all depends on whether you are a DISHWASHER theorist--- ("Mysterious Agendas Generate Interesting Conclusion: Dumbledore Is Secretly Hatching Ways to Assure Superiority for Harry in the Emerging Resolution."). Snow From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 03:30:15 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:30:15 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122448 Chancie: Why should it be unbelievable that Ginny turns out to be a good Quidditch player? Harry after all had never even been on a broom in his entire life, and was made seeker the first time he had ever flown! That IMO is more unbelievable than Ginny taking Fred and George's brooms and getting a feel for flying and ending up as a decent player. vmonte responds: I agree completely. The girl grows up in a family with 5 boys and people find it hard to believe that she is a tough cookie? Please, it's called survival. When you don't have other girls to play dolls with, you learn to play what the boys are playing. Besides, talent is talent. Why couldn't she be gifted in Quidditch? It's obvious that it runs in her family. Alla: Vmonte, I hear you again. It is so true, when you have nobody to play dolls with, you will play with toy cars, or WHATEVER IT IS your brothers are playing. I actually witnessed such situation rather recently in RL. (two year old girl who will not even come close to the dolls, which her parents buy her plenty, but extremely happy to play with cars, because her five year old brother plays with them) On the subject of Ginny in general. I am one of those who like her a lot. Of course, she would not be talkative much in Harry's presence. I am so happy that she got over her shyness,when he is around. I did see the hints in the other books that Ginny actually does have a personality. The most obvious example is of course Ron's "she usually never shuts up". I do hope that Ginny survives the end of the series. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 03:33:31 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:33:31 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122449 Betsy wrote: > But if Snape is not redeemed, then he is still a Death Eater. He is > ESE!Snape, and his constant saving of Harry's life is part of some > evil complex plot of... evil complexity? > > No, Snape is definitely redeemed. He's just not sweet and fuzzy. I > don't think he'll ever be sweet and fuzzy (thank goodness). I do > hope there is development of his and Harry's relationship. There is > so much similarity between those two that it'd be a shame if they > didn't finally see each others good sides. > > > Alla countered: > > NO, Betsy. That is the fundamental difference between how you and me > see the character of Snape. To me not a DE anymore does not > equal "being redeemed". > > Snape as sadist, who enjoys the sufferings of Harry and Neville > needs redemption, IMO. > Carol responds: Possibly you two are using the word "redeem" in different but equally valid senses. Betsy seems to be using it to mean reform, and I would agree that Snape, for all his numerous faults, is "redeemed" in that sense, a reformed Death Eater who has no intention of going back to Voldemort and is actively fighting against him. But I think Alla is using it in the sense of atone or expiate, IOW not just repenting and opposing Voldemort but somehow extinguishing his guilt, paying for his sins in some painful way, in which case I can see why she doesn't think he is yet redeemed. Am I right, or close to right? If not, can you both clarify your concept of redemption? I'm not quite sure how Snape could redeem himself in that second sense except by dying to save Harry or some similar self-sacrifice, a la Boromir. Anyone have any Snape redemption theories that don't involve his death? Would saving Harry from deadly peril without dying in the process count? (*I* think it would, but I also confess that that's what I hope will happen.) Carol From Nrsedany2be at aol.com Thu Jan 20 03:40:50 2005 From: Nrsedany2be at aol.com (Nrsedany2be at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:40:50 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122450 I think what most Ginny haters forget is we see her only from Harry's point of view. JKR never had a reason before to go into Ginny very much, so unless Harry saw her, we never saw her. And Harry didn't have much reason to ask Ron what Ginny was like. It's not unusual for girls like Ginny to turn out the way she is. Anything is possible in big families, especially when you are the only girl. We never hear about hexes because Ginny never had a reason to hex someone in front of Harry or to Harry. And as someone else said she is Fred and George's sister. Most younger siblings learn by example. In GOF Ginny may never had flown because one she didn't think she was good enough to practice with Harry or two there wasn't enough brooms for her to practice with the others. Although sometimes I think people over analyze things. I want to write, but part of me is afraid because if I am popular will people analyze every little thing I write. Danielle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 20 03:47:54 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:47:54 -0000 Subject: The Set Up (was Re: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122451 > Snow: snip In other words this scene happens for a reason and the reason Snape allowed Harry to purposely see himself place memories in the Pencieve is nothing more than a test that both Snape and Dumbledore accurately assumed Harry would fail at. This was a way to convey information to Harry without Harry becoming suspicious as to why and ask too many questions over it. snip Harry's viewing of this particular scene made him rethink his position on Snape and question his own father. Potioncat: So, the conversation goes like this? DD: "Look, Sevvie, Minne and I have spent the last 5 years telling Harry how great his Dad was. We need to let him find out the truth." SS: "It's OK, H.M. I've told him already." DD: "But that's not good enough. How about we let him see a time that James embarrassed you for no reason?" SS: "Was there a time for no reason? Oh, how about the time they flipped me upside down in front of everybody?" DD: "Great! Just put that memory in the Pensieve each lesson until an emergency comes up, causing you to hurridly leave the room. Harry will be overcome with curiosity, and look in it." SS: "Done! I can't wait!" Please understand, that was tongue-in-cheek, not sarcastic. Well, I have no trouble believing JKR set the situation up. But I can't understand why DD and Snape would. Can you explain it again? (Keep in mind I'm a bear of very little brain.) Potioncat From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 04:00:30 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:00:30 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: <20050120022458.94310.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122452 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > For me the big issue was the Prank: not so much what it would have > done to Snape (I can accept that teenage boys do dumbass things) but > what would have happened to Lupin. That after five years of > friendship Sirius was capable of seeing Remus as a monster (rather > than a boy with a terrible affliction) when it was convenient for > Sirius to do so, really caused me to write him off as a positive > force for Harry. I have this problem with Prank discussion. It almost always ends up in some kind of circular reasoning, because we lack the actual information for what happened and why (and make no mistake, we do-- unless you have some version of the books that I don't?). To elaborate: Sirius is the kind of person who doesn't think about his friends, we know this because he didn't think about Lupin, and he did the Prank the way that he did because Lupin wasn't really important to him. This is self-validating: if you are inclined to think of Sirius as not caring for his friends, the reading of the situation becomes straightforward. If you are inclined to go "something here doesn't quite add up--why would he do that?", the situation is more complex. And I say unto y'all--there is no canon to set us firmly upon one side or the other. When there IS, I, for one, welcome our new canonical overlords. [Everything can be read towards multiple ends in this scenario: Snape's perception, Dumbledore's enigmatic reply to Snape's voicing of his perception, Sirius' description, Lupin's own description...does it add up? None of you have convinced *me* of a scenario that accounts for all the facts yet.] But I also don't think Sirius is a perfectly 2-D character, as I think Draco Malfoy is. There's certainly tension going on there: the pull of family expectations versus some motivation that considers that just not quite right, the capacity for petty cruelty and for selfless concerns, the growing up in a time when things are steadily becoming more than a little scary. [The comments about his family remind me of Jessica Mitford's about her sister Diana--and that is something that Rowling absolutely surely knows of.] Why, if you should have occasion to put his better qualities together with those of Severus Snape, you would have a remarkably well-rounded hero. My little internal structuralist says that's not accidental. -Nora sits herself firmly in the empiricist camp of the school of recovery From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 04:18:33 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:18:33 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122453 Betsy wrote: But if Snape is not redeemed, then he is still a Death Eater. He is ESE!Snape, and his constant saving of Harry's life is part of some evil complex plot of... evil complexity? No, Snape is definitely redeemed. He's just not sweet and fuzzy. I don't think he'll ever be sweet and fuzzy (thank goodness). I do hope there is development of his and Harry's relationship. There is so much similarity between those two that it'd be a shame if they didn't finally see each others good sides. Alla countered: NO, Betsy. That is the fundamental difference between how you and me see the character of Snape. To me not a DE anymore does not equal "being redeemed". Snape as sadist, who enjoys the sufferings of Harry and Neville needs redemption, IMO. Carol responds: Possibly you two are using the word "redeem" in different but equally valid senses. Betsy seems to be using it to mean reform, and I would agree that Snape, for all his numerous faults, is "redeemed" in that sense, a reformed Death Eater who has no intention of going back to Voldemort and is actively fighting against him. But I think Alla is using it in the sense of atone or expiate, IOW not just repenting and opposing Voldemort but somehow extinguishing his guilt, paying for his sins in some painful way, in which case I can see why she doesn't think he is yet redeemed. Am I right, or close to right? If not, can you both clarify your concept of redemption? I'm not quite sure how Snape could redeem himself in that second sense except by dying to save Harry or some similar self-sacrifice, a la Boromir. Anyone have any Snape redemption theories that don't involve his death? Would saving Harry from deadly peril without dying in the process count? (*I* think it would, but I also confess that that's what I hope will happen.) Alla: Hmmmm, not exactly Carol. My concept of "redemption" includes both " to reform" AND " to atone". Let's forget for a second that as of today, which can totally change tomorrow and back again, I am having my doubts as to whether Snape is truly REFORMED DE. Let's pretend that he is truly loyal to the Dumbledore and accordingly to the Light. Even if I will be sure that he is truly loyal to the Light, I will never believe that he is completely reformed yet, because I think he still has DE mentality ( enjoying to see another human being in pain and enjoying causing such pain) True, IF Snape is truly loyal to the Light he does not want to kill anymore, but I believe that he still likes to hurt other people and his students make for nice subjects for his exercise. Accordingly, I think that Snape still needs to undergo reformation and well, atonement will be nice too. Just my opinion, Alla From ltlisone at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 01:53:03 2005 From: ltlisone at yahoo.com (Meng Yu) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 17:53:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups]Re: The Order's means of communication... In-Reply-To: <92.1e7ccf42.2f1f49fd@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050120015303.27962.qmail@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122454 Chancie: > And well, I'm thinking that maybe the answer > to this could be kneazle's! It's something that > muggles wouldn't find odd, and it wouldn't attract too much attention. Hi Chancie, I think Kneazle could be a means of communication but during the conversation between DD and Harry at the end of OoTP DD said that Snape contacted the order immediately after seeing Harry in Umbridge's office and I imagine that would be hard to manage with Kneazle traveling back and forth, maybe house elves since they could apparate. Personally I believe as people have suggested before it is with Patronus. (During the scene in GoF right before the third task when Krum and Harry was at the edge of the FForrest with DD, DD send a stream of silver to get Hagrid to come and we know that DD's Patronus is the pheonix.) And it was very convenient that Harry taught the DA the patronus charm. I wonder what Ron's and Ginny's and F&G's patronus are? :) mm From ltlisone at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 02:07:29 2005 From: ltlisone at yahoo.com (Meng Yu) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:07:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: <20050120013944.40926.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050120020729.22404.qmail@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122455 Magda: > Budding Quidditch star Ginny was slightly over the > top, and that I found hard to accept. Magda I think of think the key is Budding. As Ginny pointed out herself in the book, during the match against Hufflepuff the other seeker had a cold and sneezed during a bad time. She also said that since Harry took the normal snitch and the one they had was slow. Harry also said that he thought he could have done better and since Harry is pretty humble about his own skills normally, Ginny probably wasn't great. In the game against Ravenclaw and Cho, we don't know how well Ginny flew. But Hermione had said earlier in the book when she was explaining Cho's constant crying to Ron and Harry that Cho was flying really badly that year and was close to being kicked off the team. So maybe she wasn't that hard to beat. It would have been interesting to see if Ginny could have beaten Malfoy. :P After all the hoo-haa about the importance of > practice etc. it was slightly unbelievable that > borrowing the brooms at home and flying around a field, alone (presumably), would somehow > quailify as getting in shape. Magda We do know that first years at least had flying lessons. So Ginny would have gotten at least basic training in it and she did have team practice before the actual matches. We don't know how much practice people who are not on the team gets so maybe she was good compared to everyone else who tried out. Also from Ron's keeper tryouts we know that Angelina was considering commitment to the team along with other things(such as family?) when she picked the players. (Since she didn't think Ron was the best keeper who tried out but she picked him anyways.) > So I could have lived without that part. me too :P I think JKR probably just didn't want to introduce another character at that point. Wonder who the other new chaser is going to be? ltl From ltlisone at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 02:42:14 2005 From: ltlisone at yahoo.com (Meng Yu) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:42:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape vs Quirell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050120024214.41097.qmail@web30409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122456 > Juli wrote: > 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 > conversations, right? So how come Snape does not > know that Snape has changed sides? that he is actually working for the Order and Dumbledore? I think LV knew that Snape have changed sides. I think Snape isn't spying in OoTP, or at least not pretending to be a DE. I think we think that because Snape was a spy last time, Harry thinks that Snape is a spy, and we have no comment from anyone in the order to contradict this. If you reread about Snape acting as a spying it is almost all speculation on Harry and Ron and Hermione's part which seems like a great red herring since Ron is almost always wrong about these things. Harry asked Snape about it once and Snape said yes but his eyes were glittering and we don't know what that means yet due to current on going debate :P. I think Snape probably would enjoy misleading Harry about something like this. We know that Snape was cleared during the trials last time around since DD testified so all the people at the trial knows about it too. > vmonte responds: > If you're highly suspicious like me, you can read > these scenes > another way. Snape knows from the beginning that > Voldemort is inside > of Quirrell, and he is helping Voldemort. Quirrell > is trying to fight > off Voldemort, and Voldemort has enlisted Snape to > keep an eye on him- > -and keep him sedated/drugged, and quiet until > Voldemort is strong > enough to take over Q's body completely. Does this mean you think Snape is spying for LV and not DD/order? Because if Snape is working for DD then why didn't he tell DD right away about LV/Q? At least fire Quirrell so he wasn't so close to the stone. But if he was working LV then nothing in the other books makes any sense since LV wouldn't have needed Moody then etc etc. I agree that these scenes are very confusing. And this is what SS/PS said "Professor Quirrell, in his absurd turban, was talking ot a teacher with greasy black hair, a hooked nose, and sallow skin. It happened very suddenly. The hooked nose teacher looked past Quirrell's turban straight into Harry's eyes and a sharp hot pain shot across the scar on Harry's forehead." ... (conversation with Percy about snape) Harry watched Snape for a while but Snape didn't look at him again." So the book didn't explicitely say if Snape was checking out Quirrell's turban or not. Maybe he wanted one for himself for all his greasy hair. :P (surprised how much funny it is to make fun of Snape, no wonder Sirius and James did it :P) ltl From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 03:33:25 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:33:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: <20050120022458.94310.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050120033325.32513.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122457 Why do I like Sirius? So many reasons, here're some: 1- He's loyal. He stands by his friends no matter what, his friendships are for life. 2- He's honest. He tells what he's thinking straight out, he's not concerned of what other may think. 3- He stands by all he believes. He's got ideals. 4- He loves Harry. He answers his questions when noone else does. He risks everything and anything for his wellfare. 5- He puts himself after others. 6- He rose above his family's teachings to become a better man. 7- He's extremely cool, even as a dog, he still acts cooly. 8- When he loves, he loves with all his heart and soul. 9- He's trustworthy. 10- He's sexy (OK, I'm superficial). 11- He's got gray eyes, that seem to look into your soul. 12- When he laughs it sounds almost like a barking dog. 13- He makes all sorts of sacrifices for people he loves (remember living of rats?) 14- He doesn't have an ounce of selfishness in his body. 15- Shall I go on? Juli- Proud member of SAD DENIAL __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 03:46:53 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:46:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: All about Lupin (warning: rant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050120034654.787.qmail@web61206.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122458 Pippin writes: "--GoF ch 24> Remus was a danger to the students, neither Hagrid nor Dumbledore were. If he forgot his potion once, he could do it again. As he says: "They will not want a werewolf teaching their children, Harry. And after last night, I see thier point. I could have bitten any of you...that must never happen again." PoA p. 423 --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 03:48:24 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:48:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 36, The Only One He Ever Feared In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050120034825.19299.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122459 Great chapter summary! --- a_rude_mechanical wrote: > Suddenly, the water in the pool rises and surrounds > LV, who > disappears. Bellatrix and Harry assume LV to be > dead. DD yells for > Harry to be still. Harry suddenly feels horrific > pain in his scar > too much to bear. LV has possessed his body and > begins to taunt DD, > saying "Kill me now!" > > ---Why this particular taunt, I wonder? It's not as > though DD was > trying to kill him anyway, as we learned a few > paragraphs ago. It > was never DD's intent to murder LV, so why tease > him? > Juli: DD tells Harry that what Voldemort really wanted was to kill Harry, not him. He was hoping DD would try to kill him while he was inside Harry, and I guess a body without a sould isn't much. > Harry begins to hope that DD will kill him/LV, > because he is > suffering so much pain. He thinks about death and > realizes, "I'll > see Sirius again." His heart "fills with emotion" > at the thought of > seeing Sirius and all of a sudden LV leaves his > body. Harry opens > his eyes to see DD, and then the Atrium full of > people. Witches and > wizards emerge from the fireplaces, Cornelius Fudge > among them, led > by the house elf and goblin statues. > > ---So THAT's where they went! > ---So, the thought of Sirius expels LV from Harry's > body? Does this > fit in with what we know of possession from book 2? Juli: Maybe there are different kinds of possession. Ginny was possessed by a memory, HArry was possessed by a living soul. HArry loves Sirius, the single thought of his godfather filled his heart and soul with love, and since LV has never known love, he can't handle it, I'm guessing it burns, just like Quirrell got burned when he touched HArry. Since recently I'm a firm believer that LOVE is the power Harry has to vanquish LV. > > ---Why is DD so anxious to get Harry back to > Hogwarts? Is there > healing there? Protection? Juli: As Hermione (and anyone else who's read Hogwarts, a History) knows, Hogwarts is not only protected by walls, it's protected by very ancient magic (or was it Snape during occlumency lessons?). I guess that there's enough power in Hogwarts to keep its inhabitants safe. Not only DD being there is what provides protection, DD left before Harry could get kicked out. > ---I think it's interesting that DD so calmly > reinstates himself as > headmasterit's almost as though he was humoring > Fudge all along, but > now that things have become serious, it's time to > stop fooling > around. Who has control over Hogwarts, anyway?? Juli: It seems like the MoM has control over some aspects of Hogwarts, the governor others, and the headmaster others. But since DD was proven right, there really wasn't much reason why anyone could keep him out of Hogwarts anyway. It shows how powerful DD really is, he is far above Fudge, and he knows it. Juli __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 03:54:51 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:54:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's experiments (Changeling!Harry varient theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050120035451.17321.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122460 Carol wrote: > > Is there any evidence to indicate that Voldemort > wasn't already > snake-faced in VW1? Juli: In CoS Tom Riddle is described as good looking, and I can't see why a snake could be handsome in any way. As for young Severus helping LV, I don't think so, mainly for the reasons Carol wrote up thread. The age difference is too big, LV must have started looking for a way into inmortality before he re-surfaced as Voldemort, let's not forget that he was a brilliant student (DD says he was the smarter student Hogwarts has ever had - CoS), he could have brewed any potion all by himself, and the help (if any) of the dark wizards of his time. Juli __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 04:29:18 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:29:18 -0000 Subject: GoF - Chapter Nine In-Reply-To: <00ac01c4fc59$a5ad3f60$0402a8c0@carolina.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122461 Kethryn wrote: > > And your question blends in nicely with one of my own...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. I rather doubt that Voldemort/Rat were planning on killing Cedric - how could they know he would tie with Harry for the Cup - and I seriously doubt they knew Frank was listening until Nagini told them. So that leaves Barty Couch but I couldn't swear to it that Voldemort/Rat knew they would have to kill him at this point...not when he could be controlled with magic. > > So, my question is, who else could it have been? Carol responds: I'm guessing that you have the American edition, as I do. But I'm pretty sure that the Bloomsbury edition says "one more Curse" to perform rather than "one more murder." There was a discussion of this discrepancy some time ago, but rather than resurrect old posts, I'll just ask Geoff or someone else with the Bloomsbury edition to confirm the point. I'm pretty sure that no other murder was planned and that the curse referred to Barty Sr., who was to be put under the Imperius Curse. I'm not sure what curse they performed on Moody to subdue him, but I don't think it was one of the Unforgiveables. A "stupefy" would have been enough to lock him in the trunk and obtain a lock of his hair for the Polyjuice potion. Carol From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 04:46:39 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:46:39 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Quirell In-Reply-To: <20050120024214.41097.qmail@web30409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122462 ltl wrote: So the book didn't explicitely say if Snape was checking out Quirrell's turban or not. Maybe he wanted one for himself for all his greasy hair. :P (surprised how much funny it is to make fun of Snape, no wonder Sirius and James did it :P) vmonte responds: I laughed out loud when I read your post! I almost woke up my son. And, no I don't really believe that Snape was working for LV during SS/PS. The pieces don't really fit well for that scenario. Vivian From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 05:00:03 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:00:03 -0000 Subject: The Set Up (was Re: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122463 > Snow: snip In other words this scene happens for a reason and the reason Snape allowed Harry to purposely see himself place memories in the Pencieve is nothing more than a test that both Snape and Dumbledore accurately assumed Harry would fail at. This was a way to convey information to Harry without Harry becoming suspicious as to why and ask too many questions over it. snip Harry's viewing of this particular scene made him rethink his position on Snape and question his own father. Potioncat: So, the conversation goes like this? DD: "Look, Sevvie, Minne and I have spent the last 5 years telling Harry how great his Dad was. We need to let him find out the truth." SS: "It's OK, H.M. I've told him already." DD: "But that's not good enough. How about we let him see a time that James embarrassed you for no reason?" SS: "Was there a time for no reason? Oh, how about the time they flipped me upside down in front of everybody?" DD: "Great! Just put that memory in the Pensieve each lesson until an emergency comes up, causing you to hurridly leave the room. Harry will be overcome with curiosity, and look in it." SS: "Done! I can't wait!" Snow replying: LOL very cute (I mean that) I doubt that the teaching was to fault Harry's dad but it may have been to allow Harry to understand (discretely {don't tell anyone about this Harry}) about Snape and his past. A simplified understanding as to why Snape feels the way `he' does about that particular circumstance and the way he personally views it. Potioncat: Please understand, that was tongue-in-cheek, not sarcastic. Well, I have no trouble believing JKR set the situation up. But I can't understand why DD and Snape would. Can you explain it again? (Keep in mind I'm a bear of very little brain.) Potioncat Snow: If I could I would be JKR! No, really... I definitely question why this scene occurred when Dumbledore knows and, specifically cautions Harry against peeping, lends the Pencieve to Snape who also knows (via Dumbledore) that Harry is a peeper, and yet allows Harry to view Snape place memories in the Pencieve and and turn his back. Yeah that would not happen with Snape, and Snape would not leave for, what should be a significant amount of time if you are saving the Slytherin kid from his predicament, and amazingly return at the precise climatic time to intervene. Like I said, Dumbledore has a plan and this may have been part of it-- for some reason unknown to Harry and thus the reader. Snow From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Jan 20 05:10:51 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:10:51 -0000 Subject: FILK: What Is This Fabric? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122464 What Is This Fabric? To the tune of What Is This Feeling? from Stephen Schwartz's Wicked Hear an excerpt at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000TB01Y/qid=1106197317/sr=2- 1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-5316483-3083144 "[Winky] still does not care for clothes, Harry Potter. Nor do the other house-elves. None of them will clean Gryffindor Tower any more, not with the hats and socks hidden everywhere, they finds them insulting, sir." - Dobby in OOP, Chap.19 THE SCENE: Gryffindor Tower. Two house-elves share their concerns over Hermione's latest liberation project FIRST HOUSE-ELF There's been some confusion Over cleaning Gryffindor SECOND HOUSE-ELF But of course, it's not the messes FIRST HOUSE-ELF And it's not that I don't love it.... BOTH For we know that elves should not be waxing wroth Yes, there's been some confusion For you see, we found some more . FIRST HOUSE-ELF .Of Hermione's exceedingly peculiar And altogether quite impossible to ignore . SECOND HOUSE-ELF ..Cloth FIRST HOUSE-ELF What is this fabric? So woven and knit? SECOND HOUSE-ELF It's felt or it's satin Or something like it. FIRST HOUSE-ELF Is it a stocking? SECOND HOUSE-ELF Is it acrylic? FIRST HOUSE-ELF I think it shocking BOTH What is this fabric? We stand here appalled What is this stuff called? It's .. Clothing! It's contaminated clothing! FIRST HOUSE-ELF Here's some wool SECOND HOUSE-ELF Some yarn FIRST HOUSE-ELF A bow thing BOTH It is clear ? she'd clothe us all Ev'ry little hat and ev'ry sock Makes us fear she'll break apart our lock With polyester clothing She is placing us in peril With this display of apparel We will surely grieve! Ev'ry elf is gonna be set free If we cannot stop her shopping spree Then it will be clothing Clothing us With what she weaves! (Enter DOBBY, WINKY & CHORUS OF HOUSE-ELVES) DOBBY Fellow house-elves, do not be distressed You will be happier once you are dressed See these linens, see these cottons They're the means through which she'll free us And your chains will be forgotten FIRST HOUSE-ELF But it's still so injury-ous! WINKY To my fellow elves, let me transmit The woe of one forced to manumit I simply want to tell you: Being free's the pits! Don't share her .. FIRST AND SECOND HOUSE-ELF (simultaneously with below) What is this fabric So pleated and plaid? It's felt or it's flannel Or something as bad It needs some brushing `Cause it's acrylic Oh, what is this fabric? Does it have a name? Yes: Ahhh: Ahhh: WINKY & CHORUS OF HOUSE-ELVES (simultaneously with above) ..Clothing Her contaminated clothing Made with wool, with yarn A bow thing. It is clear: She'll clothe us all! Ev'ry little hat Makes us fear she'll break Apart our lock ALL Clothing! FIRST AND SECOND HOUSE-ELF (&WINKY & CHORUS OF HOUSE-ELVES) Don't let `Mione inscribe her (Clothing!) Mark on these immoral fibers (Clothing!) It's purely so wrong! (So wrong!) FIRST AND SECOND HOUSE-ELF All of us declare we'll not try on Anything in burlap or nylon FIRST AND SECOND HOUSE-ELF (&WINKY & CHORUS OF HOUSE-ELVES) And we'll not wear clothing (Clothing!) Never never clothing (Clothing!) Truly awful clothing (Clothing us!) Our whole (Clothing!) Life long! (Her contaminated clothing!) (Enter HERMIONE, with an armful of newly-made hats) HERMIONE Hi! ALL ELVES (except DOBBY) Ahhhhhh! (The elves all run off in panic, leaving DOBBY free to take all of the hats) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm Note: I derived a lot of my vocabulary for this filk from the Fabric Dictionary http://www.fabriclink.com/Dictionary.html Did you know there's such a thing as a Dobby weave? From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Jan 20 06:33:03 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:33:03 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments (Changeling!Harry varient theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122465 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Valky wrote: > the Alan Rickman quotes about respect and admiration that were recently put up here for us by someone very helpful (thankyou), seem to suggest that Snape would have some loyalty to the charming and clever Tom Riddle, if he indeed ever knew him as that. > > > Carol responds: > Considering that Riddle was 33 years older than Snape and disappeared fifteen years before Snape was born, returning when Snape was a schoolboy so changed that he was unrecognizable, I'd say that the chances of Snape and Riddle being "old friends" are slim to none. I'm guessing that Snape saw him for the first time when he joined the DEs at about age eighteen, at which time Voldemort was 51 and had long since dropped his identity as Tom Riddle. > Valky again: Yes you're quite right Carol, but I just realised something. Tom Riddle was a popular respected and admired Slytherin student at Hogwarts. When Harry first comes to Gryffindor he was told about a past student that was the pride of the House in his time, Charlie Weasley. We are given Rons perspective that he worries he won't be able to compare to Charlie. Now think about Slytherin house when Severus is a boy. The pride of Slytherin house, their former Head Boy and saviour of Hogwarts Tom Riddle. At this time I can imagine that Tom Riddle might have become a role model and idol for Severus. Dumbledore notes that when Riddle returned as Voldemort hardly anyone recognised him. So there is a good chance that noone in Snapes circle was able to make the connection between Tom and Voldemort for him, and hence he went on admiring the *other* Slytherin Boy who came from tragedy, Tom became great, so could he. So instead we could find that Sevvie projects himself onto child Tom and believes in a second chance for him in that way. Carol wrote: > Is there any evidence to indicate that Voldemort wasn't already > snake-faced in VW1? And in any case, he would have *used* the > ambitious boy to further his personal agenda rather than befriending him. > Valky: There is a grey area there, DD says he was unrecognisable so he definitely changed, but I wonder did he change more over that 11 years. The answer is probably yes but in terms of my theory it doesn't help because he was already unrecognisable. If Snape was into anything about Tom it was his status as a former Slytherin. From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 20 06:36:40 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:36:40 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Narcissa Malfoy (WAS: Everything Stolen (WAS: Why the Dark Mark? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122466 Betsy asked: > Which leads me to a question that's been bugging me for a while. Why >is Draco an only child? It doesn't make sense for the Malfoy family to have >only one heir, especially in those dangerous times. And if Narcissa is >about Lucius' age (which puts them in the same age group as Arthur and >Molly Weasley, I think) why did they wait so long to have a child? You are assuming here that the timing and number of their children was the Malfoys' choice. It didn't occur to me the first time I read the books, but remember Draco quoting his father in PS/SS, that the Weasleys have "more children than they can afford?" I hear that as sour grapes -- I think Lucius Malfoy would like to have a large family of purebloods to carry on the family name, but all he got was Draco, while the Weasleys have six boys and a girl, don't care that they are poor, *and don't even care about the fact that they are pureblood.* From Lucius Malfoy's point of view, all those smart, healthy, happy children are *wasted* on the Weasleys. Janet Anderson From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Jan 20 07:13:03 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:13:03 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection - Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122467 > bboyminn: > > How can Harry destroy Voldemort, that is truly the big question? I > also have trouble seeing Harry casting the AK against Voldemort and > killing him. Harry's too young and too nice, and too many > impressionable people are watching. > > However, I do have two speculative endings that are consistent with > this new 'Protection Charm' theory. > > So, once upon a midnight dreary as I pondered weak and weary, this > scenario came to mind. Through some set of cicumstances that I have > yet to imagine, the final showdown occurs in the Chamber of Death. In a heated battle from which Harry realizes there can be no winners, > Harry makes the ultimate sacrifice. In a moment of distraction Harry siezes (or perhaps, possesses) Voldemort and pulls him behind the Veil. > > Behind the Veil awaits Voldemort's many victims who pull him down to the depths of hell where he belongs. Harry on the otherhand is > reunited with his Parents and Sirius in a tearful heartwrenching > scene. After many hugs and tears, Harry's parents tell him that it is not his time and that he must go back. So, dead Harry returns to life, and goes on to live that life in peace, love, and prosperity. > Valky: This is a terrific theory, Steve. By sharing your weary ponderings you brought something to my mind I would like to share. Imagine your scenario, right up til the moment Harry grabs Voldemort by the cloak and makes to pull him into the veil. Then imagine the hand of someone we know at the appearing suddenly at the point where the world meets the beyond, Sirius' Hand. as Voldemort falls Harry is held suspended between the two worlds. In this moment Harry is connected to Sirius' immortal soul and is transported to the other side in his mind where the scenes of his family and loved ones take place, then cue your ending. Like it? From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Thu Jan 20 07:27:10 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:27:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection - Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501200227195.SM01088@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 122468 > > bboyminn: > > > > How can Harry destroy Voldemort, that is truly the big question? I > > also have trouble seeing Harry casting the AK against Voldemort and > > killing him. Harry's too young and too nice, and too many > > impressionable people are watching. > > > > However, I do have two speculative endings that are consistent with > > this new 'Protection Charm' theory. > > > > > So, once upon a midnight dreary as I pondered weak and weary, this > > scenario came to mind. Through some set of cicumstances that I have > > yet to imagine, the final showdown occurs in the Chamber of Death. > In a heated battle from which Harry realizes there can be no winners, > > Harry makes the ultimate sacrifice. In a moment of distraction > Harry siezes (or perhaps, possesses) Voldemort and pulls him > behind the Veil. > > > > Behind the Veil awaits Voldemort's many victims who pull him down > to the depths of hell where he belongs. Harry on the otherhand is > > reunited with his Parents and Sirius in a tearful heartwrenching > > scene. After many hugs and tears, Harry's parents tell him that it > is not his time and that he must go back. So, dead Harry > returns to life, and goes on to live that life in peace, > love, and prosperity. > > > > > Valky: > This is a terrific theory, Steve. By sharing your weary ponderings > you brought something to my mind I would like to share. > > Imagine your scenario, right up til the moment Harry grabs Voldemort > by the cloak and makes to pull him into the veil. > Then imagine the hand of someone we know at the appearing suddenly > at the point where the world meets the beyond, Sirius' Hand. as > Voldemort falls Harry is held suspended between the two worlds. > In this moment Harry is connected to Sirius' immortal soul and is > transported to the other side in his mind where the scenes of his > family and loved ones take place, then cue your ending. > Like it? Vivamus: Very interesting theory. Certainly possible. If they are there, and they can talk, who says they could not reach to grab in that one place, after all? If, however, it is a recognizable hand, wouldn't it make more sense if the hand had an index finger missing? Then PP could finally repay his life debt to Harry. LV would have to kill him first, but we're all expecting that, right? Vivamus From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 07:33:50 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:33:50 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection - Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > How can Harry destroy Voldemort, that is truly the big question? > > > <...snipping...> > > > > So, once upon a midnight dreary as I pondered weak and weary, this > > scenario came to mind. Through some set of cicumstances that I > > have yet to imagine, the final showdown occurs in the Chamber of > > Death. ... Harry makes the ultimate sacrifice.... and pulls him > > (Voldy) behind the Veil. > > > > ...edited... > Valky: > This is a terrific theory, Steve. By sharing your weary ponderings > you brought something to my mind I would like to share. > > ... Harry grabs Voldemort by the cloak ... to pull him into > the veil. ... the hand of someone ... appearing ... at the point > where the world meets the Beyond, Sirius's Hand. As Voldemort falls, > Harry is held suspended between the two worlds. > > ... Harry is connected to Sirius' immortal soul and is > transported to the other side in his mind where the scenes of his > family and loved ones take place, then cue your ending. > Like it? bboyminn: Cool theory, I definitely like it. I have had similar scenerios where Harry and Voldemort are struggling in front of the Veil, and hands reach out from beyond the Veil and pull Voldemort in, but I could never quite work out how to get Harry reunited with Siriuss and his parent under those circumstances. The best I could come up with is that he could hear them on the /other side/, or best case, they pull back the Veil and he can see their ghostly spirits. There's not much precedent for communication from beyond the Veil though, so the idea was a little weak. Of course, this would all have to occur on Halloween because that is when the 'veil' between the Netherworld and the earthly realm is the thinnest. But, could the story really end on Halloween, wouldn't it have to go to the end of the year? Not sure how to resolve that. But your idea solves the problem of Harry meeting his parent and Sirius, it allows Harry to be temporarily trapped between the world of the /here/ and the /beyond/. I could see that happening. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 20 07:51:10 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:51:10 -0000 Subject: GoF - Chapter Nine In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > I'm guessing that you have the American edition, as I do. But I'm > pretty sure that the Bloomsbury edition says "one more Curse" to > perform rather than "one more murder." There was a discussion of this > discrepancy some time ago, but rather than resurrect old posts, I'll > just ask Geoff or someone else with the Bloomsbury edition to confirm > the point. Geoff: I think the quote you want is: '"One more curse... my faithful servant at Hogwarts... Harry Potter is as good as mine, Wormtail. It is decided. There will be no more argument. But quiet... I think I hear Nagini..."' (FOG "The Riddle House" p.16 UK Edition) From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 20 08:10:03 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:10:03 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122471 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Renee: > I can think of a reason why DD didn't offer Harry the choice: if > Harry could remove the memories he doesn't want Snape to see, his > motivation to learn Occlumency would be even less than it is. > > That's also the reason IMO, why complaints that the situation isn't > fair (Snape can remove his memories but Harry can't) are beside the > point. Wanting to throw Snape out of his memories ought to be an > incentive to Harry to take learning Occlumency serious. > Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. > > > Alla: > > I am not sure I agree. Shouldn't Harry's motivation to learn > Occlumency be to throw Voldemort out? ( But of course it was hard for > him to actually GET this information out of Snape) > > Are you saying that Dumbledore's motivation was to INCREASE hostility > between Snape and Harry, not to decrease it? Renee: Yes, the reason why Harry needs to learn Occlumency, or so we're told, is that he has to throw Voldemort out. But he's practising on Snape, or supposed to. The first thing he has to learn is to feel how it is when someone's intruding into his memories, and learning to throw them out. During the lessons, that someone is Snape (who else could it be?). If Harry has the opportunity to extricate the memories he doesn't want Snape to see and put them into a pensieve, his motivation to throw Snape out of his head will diminish. Harry's reaction to Snape accessing the memory of him and Cho, and that of Cedric Diggory lying dead on the ground, shows that it works like that. Those are the moments when he puts an effort into it. If those memories had been in a pensieve, Harry probably wouldn't have bothered. He must learn to see his own vulnerability to intrusion. Unfortunately he fails to acknowledge this and focuses on the person of the teacher - not very surprisingly, as Snape obviously isn't the right person to teach him. Alla: > I am arguing that much more should have been done to help Harry and > Snape to cross the bridge towards each other, to make them see that > they are on the same side, IF Snape is of course. > > Instead, IMO, Snape treated Harry NOT just like tough instructor of > martial arts, but more like an enemy and of course he got the same > attitude from Harry. Renee: I agree. The enmity between Harry and Snape ought not to have been ignored. But I've ceased to expect much psychological finesse from most of the people in the Wizarding World. Alla: > By the way, now I am not even sure that Pensieve was Dumbledore's. I > think Vmonte made VERY good point. > > Dumbledore WOULD have tell Snape that Harry may want to take a look > in it. > > If Dumbledore indeed did so, it makes me wonder of Snape intentions > again. > Renee: Somehow, I don't think Dumbledore did. It doesn't sound like DD to confirm Snape's bad opinion about Harry by pointing out that Harry might decide to snoop into the Pensieve. Talking negatively about students to (other) teachers sounds more like Snape ("This class contains Neville Longbottom..."). From technomad at intergate.com Thu Jan 20 08:55:58 2005 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:55:58 -0600 Subject: New filk! Message-ID: <003b01c4fecd$de53c840$94560043@technomad> No: HPFGUIDX 122472 I've been filking again... ---------- The Leader of the Death Eaters ttto The Phantom of the Opera, from _The Phantom of the Opera_) Harry: He peers out through my eyes Sees what I see He knows the things I want He's here in me So kill me, Dumbledore For now I find The leader of the Death Eaters is here Inside my mind! Voldemort: I seek that prophecy Kept in that room What does it say of me? Is it my doom? It's shattered on the floor And now I find I'm stuck here inside Harry Potter's head Inside his mind! Harry: Your face is like a snake Your skin is white Voldemort: The things I want, I take By day or night Both: And now You're here in me/I'm got you here We are combined The leader of the Death Eaters, I fear Is in my/his mind! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From trekkie at stofanet.dk Thu Jan 20 09:01:07 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:01:07 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: GoF - Chapter Nine References: Message-ID: <007a01c4fece$94536d30$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122473 > Carol: >> I'm guessing that you have the American edition, as I do. But I'm >> pretty sure that the Bloomsbury edition says "one more Curse" to >> perform rather than "one more murder." There was a discussion of > this >> discrepancy some time ago, but rather than resurrect old posts, I'll >> just ask Geoff or someone else with the Bloomsbury edition to > confirm >> the point. > > Geoff: > I think the quote you want is: > > '"One more curse... my faithful servant at Hogwarts... Harry Potter > is as good as mine, Wormtail. It is decided. There will be no more > argument. But quiet... I think I hear Nagini..."' > > (FOG "The Riddle House" p.16 UK Edition) If it's of any use, the danish translation uses the word "curse" (forbandelse) as well (mot likely, of course because it's translated from the english version and not the american) - but sometimes it can be interesting to see ho a word is translated into other languages. ~TrekkieGrrrl From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Jan 20 09:08:43 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:08:43 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection - Future In-Reply-To: <200501200227195.SM01088@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122474 > bboyminn: > > > > Harry makes the ultimate sacrifice. In a moment of distraction Harry siezes (or perhaps, possesses) Voldemort and pulls him behind the Veil. Behind the Veil awaits Voldemort's many victims who pull him down to the depths of hell where he belongs. Harry on the otherhand is reunited with his Parents and Sirius in a tearful heartwrenching scene. > > > > Valky: > the moment Harry grabs Voldemort by the cloak and makes to pull him into the veil. > imagine the hand of someone we know at the appearing suddenly > at the point where the world meets the beyond, > > Vivamus: > Very interesting theory. Certainly possible. If they are there, and they can talk, who says they could not reach to grab in that one place, after all? > > If, however, it is a recognizable hand, wouldn't it make more sense if the hand had an index finger missing? Then PP could finally repay his life debt to Harry. LV would have to kill him first, but we're all expecting that, right? > > Valky: Oh, you are right about that Vivamus, I have forgotten Peter, however I have doubts that Peters payment of his debt will redeem him, so I am not sure about this scenario. I will have to think about where we place Peter here, and what will make Sirius' hand recognisable. Sorry I cant give you a better answer than that. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Jan 20 09:18:57 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:18:57 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection - Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > > > bboyminn: > Harry makes the ultimate sacrifice.... and pulls him (Voldy) behind the Veil. > > > > > > ...edited... > > > > Valky: > > This is a terrific theory, Steve...... I would like to share. > > ... Harry grabs Voldemort by the cloak ... to pull him into > > the veil. ... the hand of someone ... appearing ... at the point > > where the world meets the Beyond, Sirius's Hand. As Voldemort falls, Harry is held suspended between the two worlds. > > > bboyminn: > > Of course, this would all have to occur on Halloween because that is when the 'veil' between the Netherworld and the earthly realm is the thinnest. But, could the story really end on Halloween, wouldn't it have to go to the end of the year? Not sure how to resolve that. > Valky: Ahh good point there, I think you're right and that if Harry sees the other side of the veil it will be on Halloween. The only resolution I can come to is that the heartwrenching reunion that we've pictured is not the end but the beginning of the story that happens behind the veil, it all depends how long he stays and what he finds there. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Jan 20 09:42:41 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:42:41 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection - Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122476 > > bboyminn: > Harry makes the ultimate sacrifice. In a moment of > distraction Harry siezes (or perhaps, possesses) Voldemort and pulls him behind the Veil. Behind the Veil awaits Voldemort's many victims who pull him down to the depths of hell where he belongs. Harry on the otherhand is reunited with his Parents and Sirius in a tearful heartwrenching scene. > Valky: > the moment Harry grabs Voldemort by the cloak and makes to pull > him into the veil. > > imagine the hand of someone we know at the appearing suddenly > > at the point where the world meets the beyond, > > > > > > Vivamus: > > Very interesting theory. Certainly possible. If they are there, and they can talk, who says they could not reach to grab in that one place, after all? > > > > If, however, it is a recognizable hand, wouldn't it make more > sense if the hand had an index finger missing? Then PP could > finally repay his life debt to Harry. LV would have to kill him > first, but we're all expecting that, right? > > > > > > Valky: > Oh, you are right about that Vivamus, I have forgotten Peter, > however I have doubts that Peters payment of his debt will redeem > him, so I am not sure about this scenario. > I will have to think about where we place Peter here, and what will make Sirius' hand recognisable. Sorry I cant give you a better > answer than that. Valky adds: I really should have put this in before, but I'll add it now anyway. I did have images of Voldemort trying to grab hold of Peters hand to save himself but accidentally taking hold of the Silver hand. Which promptly falls off and LV is lost to the veil. It doesn't explain how a hand through the veil could be recognisable and neither does explicity mean Peter repays his life debt. But I am working on those things..... | | | | | | Reached the end of Hogwarts fifth year? Then it's time to take your OWL exams.... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Prophecy_Orb/ * * * | | | | _Signum Orbis_ From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Jan 20 10:44:41 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:44:41 -0000 Subject: Snape at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122477 Potioncat: > I don't follow your theory about separating from the Patronus. > Could you elaborate, and provide the canon? > > I think JKR has said that the trio will not become animagi, so > being able to summon a Patronus does not mean a wizard can become an > animagi. Also, Snape did not learn about the Marauders' Animagi > until PoA, so that would not have been a motivating factor in his > younger days (I once came up with that motivation too.) OK, I'll admit that a lot of this is speculative, but I will try and link it to canon where possible - no matter how tenuous the link!! The seperation from one's Patronus is not supported by canon, but comes from the books by Philip Pullman who JKR has previously admitted she admires! (List elves - I promise this digression will be brief!!). In his books, there are alternate dimensions, and in one of these everyone has a 'daemon' that is somehow physically and psychologically connected to the person. Seperating the two, is possible but extremely dangerous. I have always wondered if it is possible to seperate from your patronus, which would retain some of your spirit. This may be how LV survived! Just a theory!! As for Snape's knowledge of the marauder's animagi capabilities - We know that the Marauder's became Animagi to control Lupin in Werewolf form. Therefore, if James saved Snape from Lupin, does it not follow that he would have been the stag at this moment. I am sure that it can't simply have been James telling Snape not to go down the tunnel. I'm not sure Snape would regard that as saving his life. I think James had to rescue Snape from immediate danger - i.e. he was the stag to defend Snape from Lupin thus revealing himself to Snape. I'm sure that would then be a powerful motivation for Snape to become an animagi to prove he was just as capable. > > Potioncat: > I have no strong opinion at all whether Snape was at GH. But what > do you base your idea on that it was that night that Snape changed > sides? It's an interesting idea, I'm just not convinced canon > supports it. I have no direct canon for this either (sorry). However, we do know that Snape placed 3 memories in the Pensieve. I am sure that the third memory is exactly why Snape changed sides. Also, the only new peice of info from Snape's second memory is that Lily had tried to help Snape. From JKR, we know that the events at Godric's Hollow are very important to the story. I am sure that Snape plays some vital role in all of this - and I think it involves Lily. I need to look back and see if there is any canon for Snape's presence in the order prior to LV's fall (other than any comments from DD). This may add weight to the theory - if there is no evidence that Snape was in the order prior to GH. Brothergib (who promises to look for some canon tonight!!) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Thu Jan 20 10:55:34 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:55:34 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122478 I hope the list elves will allow this one! I was just trying to decide what the important scenes were in POA that JKR stated foreshadowed events that will occur in later books. My two thoughts are; 1. Lupin talking about Lily and what an amazing person/witch she was. Don't remember any canon for this at all! I still think that there is some link between Snape and Lily. Not necessarily love, but something strong enough for Snape to switch sides. Was DD telling the truth when he told Harry that Snape saved Harry in PS/SS because of a debt to his father, or was it more because of a debt he feels he owes to Lily! 2. When Lupin transforms, Snape instinctively protects all three children. Not the act of an evil man, I think you'll agree. Somehow, in the end, it will be Snape who saves Harry/Ron/Hermione from LV. Brothergib From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 11:06:25 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:06:25 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <76.4ae9cb36.2f2059a7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122479 > Sherrie here: > > It's not even so much "stupid" people - those who are truly stupid can be > tolerated. After all, they really can't help it - "you just cain't cure stupid." > What's far more annoying are people who AREN'T stupid - but just can't seem > to "get it." Crabbe & Goyle are obviously trolls - you really can't expect > much of them. Neville, though...he's got at least one working brain cell - I > can easily see why he might irritate Snape. Finwitch: Someone told me that before pedacogic studies, if students didn't learn, the question was what was wrong with the students (which is Snape's attitude. He tells it during the first class - speech: "the dunderheads I usually have to teach") Afterwards, he asked what was wrong with his teaching methods... That should tell you something. If they don't "get it", maybe *you* ought to try out different methods of communicating what ever it is you're trying to express, when you're explaining things to them. For starters, check your vocabulary. Can you use some other words? Oh, and a tip to parents: if a child (in the age of learning words) is say - pointing a chair, asking: "What is?" - don't repeat the SAME word the next time your kid points at it. You know, instead of chair, words like wood (if the chair's made of wood) or seat (because you sit on it) will do fine, or the colour - or maybe you could say it's a piece of furniture. Try to use a different word for each question - the child gets a good vocabulary and you don't get bored due to repeating yourself... Finwitch From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Jan 20 11:54:03 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:54:03 -0000 Subject: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122480 Dungrollin: > I've found some canon to suggest that fear is actually a > good motivator, and particularly for Neville: > > OotP, chapter 25 The Beetle at Bay: > "Harry was pleased to see that all of them, even Zacharias Smith, > had been spurred on to work harder than ever by the news that ten > more Death Eaters were now on the loose, but in nobody was this > improvement more pronounced than in Neville. The news of his > parents' attackers' escape had wrought a strange and even slightly > alarming change in him. He had not once mentioned his meeting > with Harry, Ron and Hermione on the close ward in St. Mungo's and, > taking their lead from him, they had kept quiet about it too. Nor > had he said anything on the subject of Bellatrix and her fellow > torturers' escape. In fact, Neville barely spoke during the DA > meetings any more, but worked relentlessly on every new jinx and > counter-curse Harry taught them, his plump face screwed up in > concentration, apparently indifferent to injuries or accidents and > working harder than anyone else in the room. He was improving so > fast it was quite unnerving and when Harry taught them the Shield > Charm - a means of deflecting minor jinxes so that they rebounded > upon the attacker - > only Hermione mastered the charm faster than Neville." > Make of it what you will. SSSusan: Motivated by fear or by revenge, do you think? Dungrollin All right, all right. I was being lazy. I'll be drawn on this. To be honest, I think that one could argue for both interpretations, but since I proposed that his DADA improvement was motivated by fear, I'll argue against revenge. Is Neville a vengeful character? Does vengeance occupy a large part of his psyche? Lets look at some examples. In PS (chapter 15: The Forbidden Forest), Filch has just caught Harry and Hermione coming down from the Astronomy tower where they sent Norbert off with Charlie, and takes them to McGonagall's office. "Harry caught Neville's eye and tried to tell him without words that this wasn't true, because Neville was looking stunned and hurt." Stunned and hurt. Not angry. And we don't even see Harry apologise. Then later in PS, (chapter 13: Nicholas Flamel) at the Quidditch match, Malfoy's insulting Ron and Neville. Neville retains his composure, answering back with "I'm worth twelve of you Malfoy." It's only when Ron attacks Malfoy, that "Neville hesitated, then clambered over the back of his seat to help." Not much more is said, but the implication is that Neville was helping Ron, by attacking Crabbe and Goyle (neither of whom had done anything other than laugh at Neville's comment, it was Malfoy who had insulted him) rather than out of a desire for vengeance on his part. At the end of PS, Hermione gets him with the full body bind as the trio sneak out of the common room to go down the trapdoor. Again, we see no apology, but Neville doesn't seem to want any revenge ? they're all friends at the leaving feast, at any rate. I can't think of any other examples except for one, which, to my mind, clearly shows Neville not to be vengeful. In the DoM, faced with his parent's torturer: "STUBEFY!" Neville shouted again, pointing his wand at each Death Eater in turn. "STUBEFY! STUBE-" Stupefy??? Then Bella (apparently) kills Sirius, "SHE KILLED SIRIUS!" bellowed Harry. "SHE KILLED HIM ? I'LL KILL HER!" and Harry chases after her and tries to crucio her. That's more like it. *That's* wanting revenge. Neville, apparently, stays behind. Having abandoned his injured friends to be loyally at Harry's side in the death room, when Harry was facing the DEs on his own, he now waits behind leaving Harry to chase after Bella alone. If he were really motivated by revenge, he'd have been after Harry like a shot, to help. I've certainly never interpreted Neville's character as vengeful. Courageous and loyal, yes (see above, the fight at the Quidditch match), vengeful, no. The others in the DA were also motivated to work harder by the DE's escape, - even Zacharias Smith - and I doubt that revenge was uppermost in their minds. Neville just had a better understanding than the others of what DEs running around loose meant, as he should. He was afraid. Nothing shameful in that, I'd be terrified. Quoting my quote: > In fact, Neville barely spoke during the DA > meetings any more, but worked relentlessly on every new jinx and > counter-curse Harry taught them, his plump face screwed up in > concentration, apparently indifferent to injuries or accidents and > working harder than anyone else in the room. So why doesn't it work in potions lessons? Why doesn't the fear he feels for Snape motivate him to try harder in potions. Why does someone with the courage to shout stupefy through a broken nose and point a wand that isn't going to work at a group of adult DEs (including one or more that tortured his parents mad) have a boggart in the shape of the potions master? Aye, there's the rub. Dungrollin (Whose new carpet looks lovely, but means that she's now getting nasty electric shocks from the fridge.) From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 11:57:34 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:57:34 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122481 Geoff: > Harry is an adolescent. At this age, we have heroes; we have role > models and we have uncertainties about ourselves. It is a shattering > experience when one of our guides proves to have feet of clay. > Although canon doesn't record it, I'll lay odds on Harry going off > for a quiet cry somewhere. The worst outcome of this confrontation > with Snape because of his stupidity in looking in the Pensieve is the > undermining of his images of James and also Sirius. How can he, as a > young person finding his way in life, screw himself up to approach > Snape? If Snape had any feeling for the problems faced by his classes > at this age - particularly remembering his own rocky progress - he > would make himself more approachable and not assume the role of a > fearsome taskmaster. > > Harry has failed. He knows that he has failed. He feels that his > father has failed. What he really needs is someone who can take him > forward and show him how to learn from that failure and rise above > it. Sadly, that someone is not Snape because he himself has never > overcome his own probelms with the Marauders. Finwitch: I can tell, that I have had experience of the sort Harry had: "I can't believe it". Those are the words I think describe that feeling best. Not thinking the other person lied/ or that thing I saw didn't happen - it's just a shock of disbelief. I think I know how Harry must have felt about it. Other experiences I've had that come close, had to do with my ideas - ideas that run deep within - that some movies, books, pieces of news have changed. I just didn't know what to think for a while. But failure? I never thought of any of those as a failure - I don't know - disillusionment, learning experience, shock, drastic change of views, opening of eyes... Failure's a lack of success or noticing at all. And what comes to realising the wrongness of entering the pensieve - Harry would have apologised, but Snape threw him out before he had the chance. Finwitch From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 13:17:58 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:17:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050120131758.4695.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122482 --- nrenka wrote: > I have this problem with Prank discussion. It almost always ends > up > in some kind of circular reasoning, because we lack the actual > information for what happened and why (and make no mistake, we do-- > unless you have some version of the books that I don't?). To > elaborate: Sirius is the kind of person who doesn't think about his > friends, we know this because he didn't think about Lupin, and he > did the Prank the way that he did because Lupin wasn't really > important to him. This is self-validating: if you are inclined to > think of Sirius as not caring for his friends, the reading of the > situation becomes straightforward. If you are inclined to > go "something here > doesn't quite add up--why would he do that?", the situation is more > complex. Did I say that Lupin "wasn't really important to him"? I did not. I said that Sirius was capable of regarding Lupin as a monster when it was convenient (ie, scaring Snape). He certainly did regard Lupin as his friend, probably his best friend after James. That was what made the act such an emotional betrayal. Sirius is not Peter Pettigrew, who I believe really didn't give a toss for James, Sirius and Remus as individuals but worshiped the Marauders instead. I'm quite sure that afterwards Sirius felt like a guilty little s**t for it but that doesn't quite make up for the original action entirely. The backstory about the Prank that we lack concerns the relations between Snape and Sirius; JKR has said this. We've got all the info we need about the relations between Sirius and Remus. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From quigonginger at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 14:05:04 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:05:04 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Re: The Order's means of communication... In-Reply-To: <20050120015303.27962.qmail@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122483 mm wrote: > I think Kneazle could be a means of communication > but during the conversation between DD and Harry at > the end of OoTP DD said that Snape contacted the order > immediately after seeing Harry in Umbridge's office > and I imagine that would be hard to manage with > Kneazle traveling back and forth, maybe house elves > since they could apparate. (snip) Ginger: I got a chill when I read about the house elves. You could be SO right! There are over 200 at DD's disposal, they are eager to serve, they keep their masters' secrets, and as you pointed out, they can apparate anywhere, including within and without Hogwarts. All the Order needs is a way of summoning them, which should be fairly easy. The Protean charm would work. Give each member of the Order a trinket, charm it, have them rub it or something, and poof! Instant Messanger!House Elf. The only worry I have is why DD didn't use it the night Arthur was attacked, which could be explained by the fact that the protraits were handy. Or why Snape didn't use it to summon DD the night Harry and Co. went to the MoM. I'm sure there are other occasions. JKR did say that it is something we have seen before, and Sirs and Ma'ams, we has seen House Elves! Anyone willing to go with this one? Refute it? Ginger, who's pipes finally thawed! OH, water, water, glorious water! From drliss at comcast.net Thu Jan 20 14:09:24 2005 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:09:24 +0000 Subject: Why Do you Like Sirius? (An analysis of why the Prank wasn't a big deal) Message-ID: <012020051409.15880.41EFBB94000200D500003E0822007481849C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 122484 Nora: I have this problem with Prank discussion. It almost always ends up in some kind of circular reasoning, because we lack the actual information for what happened and why (and make no mistake, we do-- unless you have some version of the books that I don't?). To elaborate: Sirius is the kind of person who doesn't think about his friends, we know this because he didn't think about Lupin, and he did the Prank the way that he did because Lupin wasn't really important to him. This is self-validating: if you are inclined to think of Sirius as not caring for his friends, the reading of the situation becomes straightforward. If you are inclined to go "something here doesn't quite add up--why would he do that?", the situation is more complex. Lissa: I couldn't agere with this more. The Prank- which we've seen very little of in canon- is not a straightforward situation. There are several things to consider: 1.) We have no idea what Snape did or said to provoke Sirius's anger. It could be that he existed (knowing Sirius, very possible), but it could be that he said or did something truly nasty to Remus or Sirius (knowing Snape, very possible). Or it could be somewhere in between (knowing JKR, very probable!) But the fact is, we don't know what Snape did. 2.) Sirius has a history of not thinking. We know this for a fact, and we see it very clearly in OotP. What does this mean for the Prank? I don't think Sirius necessarily thought that Snape would be killed. The way I envision it, Sirius thought Snape would see the werewolf and run away screaming like a little girl, perhaps wetting himself, and end up horribly embarrassed. Furthermore, I don't think Sirius thought the werewolf would kill Snape. What Sirius saw was a.) Remus, and his mild, considerate personality, and b.) the wolf he ran around with, which was a dangerous and exciting playmate, but controllable and not a killer. I think Sirius unconsciously grafted those personalities onto the werewolf, and consequently assumed that because Remus would never kill Snape, the wolf would never kill Snape. 3.) Sirius and Remus are guys. Generally speaking, guys tend to get through interpersonal problems a bit easier because they don't give them so much weight. I'm not saying Remus wasn't angry, but given his willingness to forgive and his healthy dose of testosterone, he probably didn't analyze the situation to the depth that we do. 4.) We don't know how Remus reacted. Personally, I see a huge shift in both Remus himself and specifically in Remus and Sirius's relationship from the Pensieve scene to the present day. In the Pensieve scene, Remus does not stand up to Sirius at all. In the present day, he's the only one that can control him. Now granted, there's a lot of time between the two, but what made Remus change? Could it have been that the Prank shifted the dynamic between the two of them? It could be that Sirius realized how badly he screwed up, Remus realized he had to speak up and get angry with Sirius, and their relationship actually changed for the BETTER, not for the worse! Sirius became more sensitive to Remus, Remus became less of a doormat. 5.) Sirius's life at the time was a mess. When did the Prank happen? Sixth year. When did Sirius run away from home? When he was 16. The two are very likely closely related. Sirius was under some major stress, and while that's not an excuse, it is a reason that people do stupid, terrible things like this. While Sirius pretends that running away from home was no big deal, he's still incredibly bitter about his mother, which to me says he still hurts from it. I don't think running away was something he wanted to do, but something he had to do, and I don't think he ever really accepted that. 6.) The magical world has a different view of danger than we do. All you parents out there: how overjoyed would you be if your 11 year old started flying around, 70 or 80 feet overhead, on a broomstick? How would you feel if your 17 year old had to swipe an egg from a mother dragon? Heck- how overjoyed would you be if your son was injesting something of his own making that made him throw up? The magical world does view danger with a much more relaxed view than we Muggles do. The assumption that Remus would have been killed if Sirius's plan had succeeded, while logical, is a purely fandom one. It is possible that Dumbledore would have had enough power to protect Remus, and that he might have been able to convince the Committee for the Disposal of Magical Creatures that Remus was holed up in the Shack as he should have been, and that the fault lay with Sirius. It may be that he would have been put in Azkaban for a few years and then released. And it may have been that he would have been killed. We don't know what the consequences would have been for sure given the unique nature of the situation, and if Remus would not have been killed that certainly lowers the stakes for Sirius. (Although I think we can all agree that Remus would have gone through some serious mental anguish over it!) 7.) Remus doesn't seem that torn up over it in the Shrieking Shack. Remus does hesitate when he explains the Prank to Harry and Hermione and Ron. However, bear in mind that while Remus is completely convinced Sirius is innocent, he knows that the Trio is not. He has to explain it, because Sirius can't really and Snape will make it sound terrible. But he knows the truth makes Sirius sound like the murderer he's accused of being. So he hesitates and glosses over. But never once does he seem all that upset about it. Now, granted, this probably isn't the strongest point because when does Remus ever seem all that upset about ANYTHING?, but I think it's still something to raise an eyebrow over and consider if he really was that upset about it. Overall, I think the Prank gets blown way out of proportion in deciding whether or not Sirius is a good guy. I love Sirius as a character because he's so human: JKR is right that we often see ourselves and our actions as different than what they really are. Sirius knows what he should be doing, and in many ways he tries very hard to do it, but he comes up short a lot. He's not perfect, and that's exactly why I think he's such an amazing character. And now I should get back to work ;) Lissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 20 14:28:53 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:28:53 -0000 Subject: James/Stag in tunnel (was Re: Snape at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122485 Brothergib wrote: snip > > As for Snape's knowledge of the marauder's animagi capabilities - We know that the Marauder's became Animagi to control Lupin in Werewolf form. Therefore, if James saved Snape from Lupin, does it not follow that he would have been the stag at this moment. I am sure that it can't simply have been James telling Snape not to go down the tunnel. > I'm not sure Snape would regard that as saving his life. I think > James had to rescue Snape from immediate danger - i.e. he was the > stag to defend Snape from Lupin thus revealing himself to Snape. I'm sure that would then be a powerful motivation for Snape to become an animagi to prove he was just as capable. Potioncat: I thought I should take another look at this, to see if there was any room for interpretation.(Of course, there's always room for interpretation.) On the last page of chp 18 of PoA, Remus is speaking: "--but your father, who'd heard what Sirius had done, went after Snape and pulled him back, at great risk to his life..Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel." So, it sounds to me that James in boy form ran in after Snape and pulled him out. He would not have been at risk in stag form. It would seem that if James had been a stag, that information would have been revealed to DD during the "little chat" that surely followed. In addition, it does not appear that adult Snape knows about the amimagi abilities of the Marauders. There was, once upon a time, discussion as to whether a stag could get through the tunnel, given how tight it is for humans. Many thought that James generally transfigured outside of the tunnel. Potioncat: who is going to brag now, Ahem. My teenagers got out of bed at 4:30am today to spend the day outdoors in the cold snow to serve as volunteers at the Inaugural events. Each going with his/her Scout troop. If you're watching and you see people in bright yellow coats...two of them are my kids. Although this act of volunteerism represents service to country, it does not necessarily reflect the way anyone in the family voted. ;-) From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 14:36:28 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:36:28 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: <20050120131758.4695.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122486 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > The backstory about the Prank that we lack concerns the relations > between Snape and Sirius; JKR has said this. We've got all the info > we need about the relations between Sirius and Remus. Here I would disagree. We have no idea how Remus felt about it at the time--we only have his rather blithe commentary on it at the present [see below, same thread, for some more discussion on that], which could be rationalization, could be a real change in Remus from past to present, but could be how he reacted at the time. Remus is a rather opaque character in many ways, so I'm really not sure what his reactions mean. That said, the lack of a clear-and-detailed explanation of Sirius' motivation(s) also makes it impossible to state with confidence how he was regarding Lupin in the whole thing. [We have like, what, two incidents we're going on for past relations, Pensieve!scene and the mess of Prank information--not enough for a good seriated model.] While we know that there was some great breakdown in trust between Sirius and Remus, what we do not have is (for example) something that would let us straightforwardly connect the Prank to that. It may well turn out--it's plausible, but it's also unproven. Hence the argument that circularity often insues; with all of us, we ask the kinds of questions that fit into our own paradigms and (pre) dispositions towards characters. And the incommensurability of accounts about this event strikes me as a very deliberate literary decision and a good one on JKR's part: it could come out the most *or* the least obvious way by the addition of minimal information. -Nora sings the praises of seriation and Verstehen readings From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 20 14:35:55 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:35:55 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: <20050120131758.4695.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122487 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: Magda > The backstory about the Prank that we lack concerns the relations > between Snape and Sirius; JKR has said this. We've got all the info > we need about the relations between Sirius and Remus. > Renee: I'm not sure we do. We still don't know why exactly Sirius thought Remus was the spy. And we don't know if Remus thought Sirius was the spy before or after Halloween '81, or both. I'll be disappointed if those questions aren't answered in the last two books. From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 14:59:30 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:59:30 -0000 Subject: I hate Ginny Weasley!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122488 Danielle writes: >I think what most Ginny haters forget is we see her only from Harry's >point of view. I, personally, have this nasty habit of liking the characters exactly the way JKR intended. I hate Snape, I love Sirius, I think Ron and Hermoine are great - the only one I have issues with is Ginny. Maybe it is because she's sort of a non-person to Harry. >Although sometimes I think people over analyze things. I want to >write, but part of me is afraid because if I am popular will people >analyze every little thing I write. Goodness, don't let that stop you! Just try to analyze it yourself and get all your ducks in a row, first. It also helps to join a critique group and have them overanalyze it while you're writing. (I know of an excellent one, if you're interested.) And think on the bright side -if people are overanalyzing your work, it's because they're READING it! And wouldn't that be awesome! Nicky Joe, Writer's Advocate From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jan 20 15:04:15 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:04:15 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122489 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich > wrote: > > Magda > > The backstory about the Prank that we lack concerns the relations > > between Snape and Sirius; JKR has said this. We've got all the > info > > we need about the relations between Sirius and Remus. > > > > Renee: > I'm not sure we do. We still don't know why exactly Sirius thought > Remus was the spy. And we don't know if Remus thought Sirius was the > spy before or after Halloween '81, or both. I'll be disappointed if > those questions aren't answered in the last two books. I've said this before and haven't received a reply, so I really hope that this time someone will respond: Sirius (and James) suspected Lupin because they were forced to. DD told James that someone close to him was a traitor. James had to choose between his three best friends - not a lot of choice there. One he trusts as a brother (Sirius) and one he can't (tragically) take seriously enough to see as a threat (Pettigrew). Lupin is the spy by default. In the same way, after James' and Lily's death, Lupin is forced into believing Sirius guilty (I'm assuming that Lupin wasn't in the know about the spy thing before). I don't think there is any evidence that the breakdown of trust between them had any other sources. Naama From meriaugust at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 15:11:26 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:11:26 -0000 Subject: CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Chapter 36, The Only One He Ever Feared In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122490 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_rude_mechanical" wrote: > Chapter 36, part two: > > DD deflects a killing curse, and aims a spell that LV's deflects with > a shield. They discuss DD's unwillingness to kill and LV's inability > to understand that there are things worse than death. > > ---In fact, DD calls that LV's greatest weakness. In what way is > that LV's weakness? In other words, have we seen any evidence that > wanton killing has harmed him? Meri: Well, maybe this isn't considered wanton (because we don't know how well planned the original expedition was) but LV attacking Godric's Hollow sure didn't help him any. He killed Lilly, which directly led to his vaporization. But I think what DD was refering to as LV's weakness is his fear of death. And how many families did he rally to DD's cause by killing one of their members? To be so desperate to avoid dying that you would do anything including killing others, is a weakness: it shows you as selfish and fearful of life itself. snip > DD tells Harry to take the portkey, and the two leave Fudge > blubbering in the MoM Atrium. > > ---Why is DD so anxious to get Harry back to Hogwarts? Is there > healing there? Protection? Meri: Hogwarts is the one place that LV will not dare attack (at least not yet). Harry is safe there in the headmaster's office and, as DD explains later, he is too full of pain and emotion over Sirius for LV to try to posess his mind maybe ever again. Harry belongs at Hogwarts, and had he been made to stay at the DoM not only would we readers have been denied one of the greatest scenes ever committed to the page (DD and Harry's conversation/confrontation) but he would have been forced to answer questions publicly and to a still hostile Fudge and the existence of the prophecy would have had to have been revealed to many more people. DD knew he had to get Harry alone, the safest place was Hogwarts. > ---I think it's interesting that DD so calmly reinstates himself as > headmaster?it's almost as though he was humoring Fudge all along, but > now that things have become serious, it's time to stop fooling > around. Who has control over Hogwarts, anyway?? Meri: The enemy is clear now, Fudge has finally been disproven and the WW will see that it was DD they should have been listening to all along. Like Harry, DD belongs at Hogwarts, and I think that DD is just stepping up into a leadership void (while Fudge is probably just hoping that he will be provided a nice pension when they throw him out of the MoM on his backside). Meri - who never cared much for the character of Peter Pan, because he feared dying (and living), too... From Snarryfan at aol.com Thu Jan 20 15:43:47 2005 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:43:47 -0000 Subject: Baby-steps? (was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122491 I'm sorry, I have to snip a lot, I only wanted to comment on this bit. > Finwitch: > > And what comes to realising the wrongness of entering the pensieve - > Harry would have apologised, but Snape threw him out before he had > the chance. It was probably a good thing that Snape threw him out. He really lost it, we have an idea of the worst he can do. (Is Occlumency can be see like DADA? A test from DD to see if Snape can do the job?) He could hit Harry, he probably wanted to hurt him, really hurt him and...he's all "GET OUT". Pessimist view: He's really dangerous, he'll never be able to change, and just prove why DD doen't want him in the DADA post. Optimist view: He's really dangerous, he can hurt Harry, he know that and try to stop himself before it's too late. He can't do it, so he choose the faster way to not hit him, push him the farest away from him. Maybe his thoughts were 'the little bastard, like his father, make you pay, hit him, stop', followed by the "GET OUT", before he give in. Wonder in what state was his office after Harry's gone. Better the jars than the child. I don't say it excuses him, but maybe we saw a very little baby-step progress in Snape's habit. Now, if only he and Harry could go in the Room of Requirments two day per weeks with a baseball bat and as much breaking thing as possible to let off the steam. Hem, differents day, absolutely not together. Say, Monday and Tuesday for Snape, Thursday and Friday for Harry. Christelle From olivertraldi at gmail.com Thu Jan 20 05:08:27 2005 From: olivertraldi at gmail.com (delemtri) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:08:27 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: <20050120020729.22404.qmail@web30407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122492 Magda: > So I could have lived without that part. ltl: > me too :P I think JKR probably just didn't want to > introduce another character at that point. Wonder who > the other new chaser is going to be? Oh, I don't know. This is a family of seven children who always all play Quidditch together. Charlie could have played for Great Britain, Ron's becoming quite good at Keeper, and we've never had any reason to believe that the twins are anything but stellar Beaters. Given that Harry inherited his Quidditch abilities from his father, why wouldn't Ginny get at least some of what her siblings got? Oliver From Jen at alveymedia.com Thu Jan 20 05:29:26 2005 From: Jen at alveymedia.com (Jennifer Nielsen) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:29:26 -0700 Subject: Harry and Boggarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122493 > vmonte responds: > You think? Sirius was pretty reckless and I wouldn't say he had no > fears. Sure Sirius had fears. He was afraid of becoming useless, of being irrelevant. I think, too that he was afraid of loving Harry too much. After all, he lost James. Jen From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jan 20 15:13:43 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:13:43 -0000 Subject: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122494 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > Why does > someone with the courage to shout stupefy through a broken nose and > point a wand that isn't going to work at a group of adult DEs > (including one or more that tortured his parents mad) have a boggart > in the shape of the potions master? Gerry: Actually I thought that quite easy to understand. Neville's parents were tortured to insanity when he was a child, too young to understand insanity, too young to understand torture. And then, what happens to him. From a (presumably) warm and loving environment he comes to live with his grandmother, who constantly belittles him and tells him he is not as good as his father was in a rather acid way. Even worse, the whole family apparently joins in this kind of treatment, with his uncle forgetting that he is holding him upside down outside of the window because he is offered something to eat. So Neville comes from an environment where he is constantly verbally abused, and even physically by accident (but then, it was in a good cause, wasn't it? ) And then, when he is safely away from this kind of "nurturing" environment there is somebody even worse than his grandmother! Somebody even more sarcastic, who has it in for him big time. Somebody with even a lower opinion of him than his grandmother, who though he is a disappointment, at least cares for him. Meet professor Snape, the potions master. No wonder he fears this man worse than anything else. The death eaters? What have they done to him? They may kill him, true, but they cannot keep him in a class subject to horrid sarcasm, which hurts and hurts and hurts for a couple of years. And at least, against the DE's he can fight. Not against Snape. There he can only endure. Gerry From glowriter at cox.net Thu Jan 20 15:32:30 2005 From: glowriter at cox.net (Stephanie) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:32:30 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122495 Stephanie: Hi, I'm new here. I love getting on here and reading what you all have to say. I know for a fact that you are all way ahead of me on the subject of Harry Potter, but I'm a newbie at having just read the books nine months ago. I've looked around to see if anyone has asked this yet, but I didn't see anything. I was talking to my best friend about HP and it dawned on me about a possible suspect for HBP. I mentioned it as a joke since I can almost not believe it to be true. Well, I have an idea that Trevor the toad is the HBP. I think JKR has been pointing him out to us as he continually escapes from Neville. How he is a Prince I'm not sure, but I strongly think he is either a wizard turned into a toad, or an animangus. I'm reading the books again now, so I plan on paying more attention to information regarding Trevor. I may be imagining things. My friend is hopeful that he will be a relation to Harry somehow so he's not always without family. I don't know about that, but I wonder if JKR would actually make a toad a prince. If she had someone kiss him like Hermione, or Ginny, to bring him back to human form, it would be even more farfetched. I truly don't think that part will be true, but I still think Trevor will be the prince. Another thought that another friend of mine brought up was that there has already been a "pet deceiving the owner" routine with Ron and Scabbers, so I could be grasping here. Thanks for letting me post my little farfetched theory. I hope this hasn't been asked a million times. I just wanted to see what all of you thought about it. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jan 20 16:19:13 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:19:13 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (warning: rant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122496 Gerry: Hi Pippin OK, first of all, I really, really can't see any of this. No clues no nothing. No evidence whatsoever. Just a theory made up from missing information and wishful thinking (sorry) I have question for the British here though. I've been reading the archive and there I read about the chocolate incident in the train at the beginning of PoA as a clue for Lupin being evil, because of warnings some here had as children against people giving away poisened candy. Well, I did miss that clue completely, because in my country those warnings don't exist. We are warned when we are children about taking candy from strangers, but poisened candy? No, never, nothing. No urban legends, does not exist. I know it is an American thing though. So does this fear of strangers handing out poisened candy exist in Britain? If so, I still don't think its a clue, but if not, JKR cannot have meant it as a clue, because it would not be in her mindset. Curiously waiting for a reply, Gerry From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 16:35:22 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:35:22 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection - Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122497 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > > Cool theory, I definitely like it. I have had similar scenerios where Harry and Voldemort are struggling in front of the Veil, and hands reach out from beyond the Veil and pull Voldemort in, but I could never quite work out how to get Harry reunited with Siriuss and his parent under those circumstances. The best I could come up with is that he could hear them on the /other side/, or best case, they pull back the Veil and he can see their ghostly spirits. There's not much precedent for communication from beyond the Veil though, so the idea was a little weak. > > Of course, this would all have to occur on Halloween because that is when the 'veil' between the Netherworld and the earthly realm is the thinnest. But, could the story really end on Halloween, wouldn't it have to go to the end of the year? Not sure how to resolve that. > > But your idea solves the problem of Harry meeting his parent and > Sirius, it allows Harry to be temporarily trapped between the world of the /here/ and the /beyond/. > Steve/bboyminn Tonks here: Harry has to go beyond the veil too and actually be dead in order for what LV left in him to die with LV. As you say, once beyond the veil they can not come back, so a hand can not reach out to outside the veil to grab LV. Harry has to go in with him. I like the veil being pulled aside. This might happen later, after Harry goes in. Representative of the temple veil being torn in two when Jesus died. As to Halloween. It is true that the *veil* is thinnest at that time. Someone else on this list either suggested it or had some hint from JKR, I am not sure which, that the final battle happens before the school year ends. The last book will not end at the end of the year. Of course the reason for this is that Harry is dead. But I think that like Christ, he will be the only one to return from behind the veil. And then he will go back again, or on to somewhere that represents Heaven. I still think, in spite of the fact that the WW observes Christmas and Easter (which means that Harry is not Jesus, because He has already been in the world and done all of that already) that Harry represents Christ in these books. Or perhaps the Christ in each of us. Tonks_op From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 16:35:59 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:35:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122498 > Yeah, right. Someone has breached your > mind, you fight back after the fact by > stealing his diary. If you think it will put your opponent off his form then yes, that is exactly what you do. After all, Harry is supposed to be in training for things that will happen in the real world and if he ever has a chance to look into Voldemort's pensive he should do so because it might save his live someday. After all, before the first lesson Snape said "You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me or defend yourself in any other way that you can think of"; Harry took him at his word and did think of another way. Obviously Snape didn't think of it first and is upset that Harry did, but Snape learned a lesson too, don't be careless. > Besides, when in a war, you are supposed > to fight your opponents, not the members > of your side. In war games short of killing them you treat the other side like the enemy. Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 16:42:02 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:42:02 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups]Re: The Order's means of communication... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122499 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > > Ginger: > > I got a chill when I read about the house elves. You could be SO > right! There are over 200 at DD's disposal, they are eager to serve, they keep their masters' secrets, and as you pointed out, they can apparate anywhere, including within and without Hogwarts. All the Order needs is a way of summoning them, which should be fairly easy. > The Protean charm would work. Give each member of the Order a > trinket, charm it, have them rub it or something, and poof! Instant Messanger!House Elf. Tonks here: Nice idea. I thought someone said that JKR said that they use their wands, but maybe that was just a speculation. Someone else suggested cats. (sorry, don't remember who). I think that cats are how Squibs communicate with the WW. After all every Squib we know has one!! Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 20 17:34:09 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:34:09 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin replies In-Reply-To: <20050120034654.787.qmail@web61206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122500 Various replies, scroll down for yours: Gerry: > To make ESE!Lupin possible you have to have two traitors. Peter does not deny he was the Secret Keeper, and therefore the only one who could betray the Potters. He nowhere, nowhere says anything that points to Lupin, though he has the opportunity. Pippin: Is it written in stone somewhere that only one old school friend can be a traitor? That would be news to the Cambridge Spies (Burgess, Blunt, Maclean and Philby). http://www.crimelibrary.com/spies/cambridge/cambridgemain.ht m Peter is accused of three crimes: betraying the secret, a year's worth of espionage against the Order, and killing twelve Muggles. I think he was guilty of only the first. It's true that Peter doesn't point the finger at Lupin in the Shrieking Shack. In the first place, he may have tried. His mouthings are very like the product of a silencing spell. But what does he have to gain if he does? He's still the false secret keeper, worthy of death for that alone in Sirius's eyes. And if Lupin is really a DE, he's not going to let *any* of them live to accuse him. At least if Pettigrew confesses, there's a chance Lupin will let the others go. But Peter never does admit to having been the spy, or to the Muggle deaths. Arynn Octavia: > Remus was a danger to the students, neither Hagrid nor Dumbledore were. If he forgot his potion once, he could do it again. As he says: "They will not want a werewolf teaching their children, Harry. And after last night, I see their point. I could have bitten any of you...that must never happen again." PoA p. 423< Pippin: Ah, yes, the famous confession. You know, if Dumbledore's confession at the end of OOP had been made according to the same formula he'd have said something like this: "Fudge and Rita Skeeter have been saying that I'm too old to do my job. And after last night, I see their point. I could have lost you to Voldemort." A bit lacking, isn't it? And if Lupin's confession had followed Dumbledore's formula, what could he have said? How about,"It is my fault Pettigrew escaped. Werewolves are at fault if they do not remember to take their potion." (paraphrase of Dumbledore's words, OOP ch 37) You see the difference, I hope. Lupin not only fails to acknowledge the actual damage he did, leaving Harry to blame himself (so much for Lupin's vaunted sensitivity to Harry's unspoken needs), he also fails to acknowledge any personal responsibility. He blames the whole business on being a werewolf, which of course he can't help, and fails to acknowledge, unlike Dumbledore, that his job is to manage his condition, not use it as an excuse. Renee: I don't see much difference between your ESE!Lupin and a psychopath. Could anyone commit the impressive number of murders and other atrocities, starting at the age of 16 - hating himself for what he's done, as you imply - and be the kind and caring person we see in the books? Pippin: As you can see in the above example, Lupin isn't wholly without guilt. That makes him different than a psychopath like Riddle. But he's become very adept at avoiding the issues. Can kind and caring people become murderers under the influence of someone like Riddle? Apparently so. There are those distressing psychology experiments where people placed in the role of lab experimenters or prison guards were easily persuaded to torture and abuse others. Their moral cowardice was related to their desire to please others, just as Lupin's is. Could Voldemort's friendship have mattered to Lupin? It mattered to Ginny. "No one's ever understood me like you, Tom....I'm so glad I've got this diary to confide in. It's like having a friend I can carry around in my pocket...." CoS ch 17 IMO, Lupin wouldn't hate Voldemort just because he looked like a monster, or because other people thought he was evil, and he would feel sorry for him. He might even think he could save him. > Renee: > I wasn't talking about the kind of love that makes blind, also known as infatuation, but about the love commonly called charity in a Christian context. And yes, I do think that JKR's message is that true charity will greatly enhance what goodness there is in people, and lack of it will diminish their chances of turning away from evil, with Tom Riddle and young Snape as the prime examples. Pippin: It's not the kind of love that's at issue, IMO. If people can choose evil in the face of God's goodness, surely Dumbledore's cannot always avail? Pippin . From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 17:52:21 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:52:21 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122501 Hickengruendler writes: >And I also know that she's at an age where people change, but >still I, too, found her change to sudden, and was for example >dissatisfied with Jo's explanation about Ginny's Quidditch skills. >It's really impossible, that she's flying secretly around the Burrow, >without anyone noticing. I thought the "secret" quidditch skills to be somewhat ludicrous. Why on earth would she need to be sneaky about it? Her family is full of quidditch fanatics so I can't understand why they wouldn't encourage a talent for it, especially when her brothers already have skill. As the only girl, she might be a trifle overprotected, but it doesn't seem logical that she could practice unseen with so many siblings. And how much more dangerous is quidditch than spellcasting? Not much. If she's good at quidditch, make her good from the get-go instead of introducing it later as something of a surprise. Nicky Joe From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Thu Jan 20 18:01:06 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:01:06 -0000 Subject: Harry and Boggarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122502 think, too that he was afraid of loving Harry too much. > After all, he lost James. > > Jen I always thought he was disappointed in Harry because he wasn't more like James. Casey, Sirius hater. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Jan 20 18:05:58 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:05:58 -0000 Subject: old TBAY Frog Prince (wasRe: Half Blood Prince Theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122503 > Stephanie: snip Well, I have an idea that Trevor the toad is the HBP. I think JKR has been pointing him out to us as he continually escapes from Neville. snip> I don't know about that, but I wonder if JKR would actually make a toad a prince. If she had someone kiss him like Hermione, or Ginny, to bring him back to human form, it would be even more farfetched. I truly don't think that part will be true, but I still think Trevor will be the prince. Potioncat: Hi, welcome to HPfGU. Oddly enough I was wandering around the archives this morning and read post 37498 not too long before reading your post. Take a look, it was written in April of 02, before OoP and certainly long before we knew the name of book 6. Here's the link. TAKE WARNING---TBAY http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/37498 Potioncat From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Jan 20 18:08:38 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:08:38 -0000 Subject: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122504 Dungrollin wrote: > > Why does > > someone with the courage to shout stupefy through a broken nose > > and point a wand that isn't going to work at a group of adult > > DEs (including one or more that tortured his parents mad) have a > > boggart in the shape of the potions master? > > Gerry replied: > Actually I thought that quite easy to understand. Neville's parents > were tortured to insanity when he was a child, too young to > understand insanity, too young to understand torture. And then, > what happens to him. From a (presumably) warm and loving > environment he comes to live with his grandmother, who constantly > belittles him and tells him he is not as good as his father was in > a rather acid way. Even worse, the whole family apparently joins > in this kind of treatment, with his uncle forgetting that he is > holding him upside down outside of the window because he is > offered something to eat. So Neville comes from an environment > where he is constantly verbally abused, and even physically by > accident (but then, it was in a good cause, wasn't it? ) > And then, when he is safely away from this kind of "nurturing" > environment there is somebody even worse than his grandmother! > Somebody even more sarcastic, who has it in for him big time. > Somebody with even a lower opinion of him than his grandmother, > who though he is a disappointment, at least cares for him. Meet > professor Snape, the potions master. No wonder he fears this man > worse than anything else. Dungrollin: Now that story sounds oddly familiar... Substitute "tortured to insanity" with "murdered by Voldemort" and "grandmother" with "aunt and uncle"... So why doesn't Harry fear Snape more than anything else? From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Thu Jan 20 18:46:43 2005 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:46:43 -0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! References: Message-ID: <001801c4ff20$652a16b0$0501010a@harrypotter> No: HPFGUIDX 122505 From: "xcpublishing" Nicky Joe > I thought the "secret" quidditch skills to be somewhat ludicrous. > Why on earth would she need to be sneaky about it? Her family is > full of quidditch fanatics so I can't understand why they wouldn't > encourage a talent for it, especially when her brothers already have > skill. As the only girl, she might be a trifle overprotected, but it > doesn't seem logical that she could practice unseen with so many > siblings. And how much more dangerous is quidditch than > spellcasting? Not much. Actually, I think the problem was that her siblings wouldn't let her practice in "THEIR" precious brooms. My older sister, too, was very jealous of her stuff, even when they weren't particularly important for her or when she knew I wouldn't destroy any of it. I did the same thing then - use her stuff without anyone knowing, not even my mother, because I was afraid she wouldn't aprove of it... that or try to make my sister lend me her things, which would make my sister ferociously angry. It was a means of avoiding problems. And I suppose Ginny would try to keep her parents from spending money on yet another broom for her - I know I let go from many things because I'd feel guilty about making my parents spend money on them, principally when they were always stressing over money already. Elanor Pam From vidarfe at start.no Thu Jan 20 18:59:36 2005 From: vidarfe at start.no (vidar_fe) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:59:36 -0000 Subject: Harry and Boggarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122506 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > vmonte: > > Just a thought here. Do you think that by the end of the series Harry > will conquer all his fears and actually see what a boggart really > looks like? > > Vivian vidar_fe: Not impossible, provided that he survives!! It's pure speculation of course. Vidar From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Jan 20 19:31:17 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:31:17 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: <001801c4ff20$652a16b0$0501010a@harrypotter> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122507 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Paula \"Elanor Pam\"" wrote: > > Actually, I think the problem was that her siblings wouldn't let her > practice in "THEIR" precious brooms. My older sister, too, was very jealous > of her stuff, even when they weren't particularly important for her or when > she knew I wouldn't destroy any of it. I did the same thing then - use her > stuff without anyone knowing, not even my mother, because I was afraid she > wouldn't aprove of it... that or try to make my sister lend me her things, > which would make my sister ferociously angry. It was a means of avoiding > problems. And I suppose Ginny would try to keep her parents from spending > money on yet another broom for her - I know I let go from many things > because I'd feel guilty about making my parents spend money on them, > principally when they were always stressing over money already. > Hickengruendler: Yes, but surely you didn't use your sister's stuff to fly around the neighbourhood? ;-) The interesting thing here is, if Jo hadn't explained Ginny's QUidditch ability at all, I wouldn't have thought about it. I would have thought that she just discovered her talent during flying lessons, like Harry did. But JKR did gave us an explanation, and it was one that I don't find convicing. I do think it's in character for the twins not to lend her their broomsticks, and I also can see that Ginny would "borrow" them secretly, but that she is flying around the Burrow, without anyone noticing, doesn't make sense at all. Surely somebody would see her. I don't want to concentrate too much on this, there are other inconsistencies in the series that have nothing to do with Ginny at all. But it's just an example, of why I find Ginny's character development not as convincing, compared to the development of other characters. I do think JKR planned spunky Ginny from the beginning, but I also think she could have presented her better and smoother. Hickengruendler From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 20 19:41:19 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:41:19 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122508 Nicky Joe: > I thought the "secret" quidditch skills to be somewhat ludicrous. Why on earth would she need to be sneaky about it? < Eh, you've never been a little sister, have you? I can just imagine what my brother would have done to me if I'd laid a finger on his electric trainset, or his baseball glove, let alone a valuable racing broom. Sheesh! Isn't it odd though, that Ginny always seems to get what she needs? Where *did* her broom come from? It can't be Ron's old one that was overtaken by passing butterflies. And where did she get dress robes for the Yule Ball? Pippin wondering if Ginny has a fairy godmother or just a talent for larceny From gromm at cards.lanck.net Thu Jan 20 18:35:30 2005 From: gromm at cards.lanck.net (Maria Gromova) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:35:30 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: life debt References: Message-ID: <02c801c4ff28$51101640$eb41983e@rcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 122509 Kelly signed: > Kelly, > thinking how much happier Harry would be without Snape as a > teacher ;) Maria now: Well, our Russian saying goes: 'Pikes exist so that the crucians don't get lazy'. Maria "So you think dragons are huge, blustery monsters, good for nothing except lying around guarding a hoard of jewels, or flying around scaring the wits out of everybody with their noxious, flame-blower breath?" "Ah, but then you haven't met Fanuilh." From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 20:24:05 2005 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:24:05 -0000 Subject: The Order's means of communication... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122510 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > Tonks here: > Nice idea. [about house elves being the Order's means of communication] > I thought someone said that JKR said that they use their > wands, but maybe that was just a speculation. LisaMarie concurs: JKR herself (long may she prosper) states, in the "Rumors" section of her website, that the Order's means of communication "requires nothing but a wand," and that we have seen it employed by an Order member, but before we knew the Order existed. (link: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/rumours_view.cfm?id=26) I am enclined to agree with Meng Yu, who stated upthread that the most likely means would be the Patronus (or something that looks very much like a Patronus), as we see it used in GoF when DD summons Hagrid to the edge of the Forest when Crouch Sr. appears and Krum is attacked. Reason #1***It requires /only/ a wand. Reason #2***DD is an Order member. (obviously) Reason #3***We didn't know about the Order at this time, but we were about to find out about it. DIGRESSION: Whether DD was an Order member *at the time* is a matter of some question and interpretation, but inconsequential, IMO. I think that canon states that the Order had not been reformed until LV's rebirth, thus Lupin's comment to Molly Weasley that "You weren't in the Order last time ..." (OOTP) This implies that the Order did not exist while there was only disembodied, inactive LV. Like I said, a minor point, but hey; I teach high schoolers. I'm used to explaining things very clearly. [And I'm sorry I can't supply exact canon locations for the above references; I'm at school, and my books are at home. If I were a real fan, I guess I would keep copies in my classroom, huh?] #4***It is not vulnerable to interception or trickery (something else Jo mentions in the above link). Relatedly, we have seen a Patronus do as it was told: in the 'Dudley Demented" chapter of OOTP, when Harry's Patronus drives away the first Dementor, he orders it to turn and drive off the other, too, and it does. This is the only instance I know of where a Patronus does as it's told, but maybe we just haven't been fully educated on the functions of the Patronus yet. So, what does the rest of the HPfGU world think of this theory? Tonks: >Someone else suggested cats. (sorry, don't remember who). I think that cats >are how Squibs communicate with the WW. After all every Squib we know >has one!! I have often wondered about the bizarre love affair that is Filch and Mrs. Norris, but I had not connected that with our other (much more likeable) Squib-in-residence, Mrs. Figg. Good one! Maybe there is something there. I wonder just how Mrs. Norris manages to "report" students to Filch. Personally, I have always found Mrs. Norris more than a little unsettling. Just wondering what everyone else thinks of her. LisaMarie, who is glad to be back after a 3-month detour into the world of fanfiction From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 20 20:27:49 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:27:49 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (warning: rant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122511 > Gerry: > Hi Pippin > > OK, first of all, I really, really can't see any of this. No clues no nothing. No evidence whatsoever. Just a theory made up from missing information and wishful thinking (sorry) > Pippin: That's quite all right . The thing is, there's little evidence in canon that Peter was the spy or the Muggle killer, either. Sirius actually says that he never guessed Peter was the spy. He would hardly have chosen Peter as the Secret-Keeper if he'd had the slightest suspicion. And he says that Peter blew up the street with a wand held behind his back, but even if Sirius thinks he saw this (how??) no one else did. There's supposed to be a famous law school demonstration where someone runs into a classroom and threatens the teacher with a banana. People always think it's a gun. Sirius, like the watching Muggles, may not have seen what he thought he saw. You asked in a previous post why I believe the theory. I suppose I like to think Jo has an artist's pride in her work, and it's easier for me to believe that she made the character she calls her favorite among the adults a victim of evil rather than a victim of sloppy writing. All that missing information got left out by accident? I don't think so. I don't regard myself as subversive theorist. I'm not trying to invent an alternate context for the books, I'm trying to make sense of the context as I find it. I suppose I am a conspiracy theorist, but only because in each of the books so far a conspiracy has been unmasked. Pippin who learned today that the Cambridge spy Kim Philby had a stammer like Professor Quirrell From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 21:12:01 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:12:01 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122512 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stephanie" wrote: > > Stephanie: > Hi, > I'm new here. (Snip)>I have an idea that Trevor the toad is the HBP. I think JKR has been pointing him out to us as he continually escapes from Neville. How he is a Prince I'm not sure, but I strongly think he is either a wizard turned into a toad, or an animangus. ----------------- Tonks here: Welcome to the group Stephanie! Trevor as the HBP. Well now it would be just like JKR to do that! Right under our noses all along. Last thing most of us would think of even though it is in all of those fairytales. Does make you wonder doesn't it?? If he is under a spell maybe he is really old from the time of Neville's grandfather or even later. Who gave Neville that frog, wasn't it his grandfather? And all this time we thought it was because the giver was just out of step with what was fashionable. I can just hear JKR snickering now... "Ha ha, they never guessed it! As blatantly obvious as it was. Yes if you want to hide something put it right out there in the open and no one will ever see it. I got 'um again!!" Tonks_op From jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 20 21:40:13 2005 From: jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk (jlv230) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:40:13 -0000 Subject: The Order's means of communication... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122513 LisaMarie said: JKR herself (long may she prosper) states, in the "Rumors" section of her website, that the Order's means of communication "requires nothing but a wand," and that we have seen it employed by an Order member, but before we knew the Order existed. (link: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/rumours_view.cfm?id=26) I am enclined to agree with Meng Yu, who stated upthread that the most likely means would be the Patronus (or something that looks very much like a Patronus), as we see it used in GoF when DD summons Hagrid to the edge of the Forest when Crouch Sr. appears and Krum is attacked. Reason #1 It requires /only/ a wand. Reason #2 DD is an Order member. (obviously) Reason #3 We didn't know about the Order at this time, but we were about to find out about it. Reason #4 It is not vulnerable to interception or trickery (something else Jo mentions in the above link). Relatedly, we have seen a Patronus do as it was told: in the 'Dudley Demented" chapter of OOTP, when Harry's Patronus drives away the first Dementor, he orders it to turn and drive off the other, too, and it does. This is the only instance I know of where a Patronus does as it's told, but maybe we just haven't been fully educated on the functions of the Patronus yet. So, what does the rest of the HPfGU world think of this theory? JLV here: I definitely agree that the Patronus is the most likely candidate for being the method of communication that the Order use. I would like to add that the Patronus has a particular significance for Harry as his Patronus represents his father. Now, I believe one of the main themes of the books is parents (a subject close to JKRs heart as we know from interviews/her website) and I think that Harry's Patronus is highly symbolic of parental protection. (A bit like Lily's sacrifice, if you will.) I therefore thought it would be a shame if all these impressive pieces of magic can do is chase Dementors away (amazing as that may be). All this has led me to speculate on the role that Patroni (particularly Harry's) are likely to play in the final battle with Voldemort. I want Prongs to fight side by side with Harry - wouldn't that be a Kodak moment? Your opinions/wild suggestions would be welcome! JLV From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 20 22:02:19 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:02:19 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin (warning: rant) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122514 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > I suppose > I like to think Jo has an artist's pride in her work, and it's easier > for me to believe that she made the character she calls her > favorite among the adults a victim of evil rather than a victim of > sloppy writing. All that missing information got left out by > accident? I don't think so. Renee: Don't you think you should allow for a third possibility: that you're misinterpreting both the text and JKR's intentions? Pippin: > I don't regard myself as subversive theorist. I'm not trying to > invent an alternate context for the books, I'm trying to make > sense of the context as I find it. I suppose I am a conspiracy > theorist, but only because in each of the books so far a > conspiracy has been unmasked. Renee: I don't think it's possible to subvert an unfinished story. But it seems to me that being a conspiracy theorist when you're dealing with the mind of a single person instead of a RL riddle is a precarious position. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Thu Jan 20 16:59:15 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:59:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122515 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > If you think it will put your opponent off his form then yes, that > is exactly what you do. OK, Snape is out, Harry takes a peek, wanting to be finished before Snape is back. So how this is supposed to make Snape off his form, is not clear to me. Now, if Harry would have rushed to the pensieve and stuck his head in when Snape was attacking his mind, I could see your point. But now? No way. And of course it is an extremely unwise thing to do. After all, this is supposed to be about Harry learning Occlumency. And being able to keep out the best, without resorting to external means, because they most likely will not be available if he needs the skill. He should be trying to defend himself against a Snape in top form. That's what learning a skill is about. > Harry took him at his word and did think of another way. Obviously > Snape didn't think of it first and is upset that Harry did, but Snape > learned a lesson too, don't be careless. Don't ever, ever trust Harry Potter to keep his nose out of anything which is not his business, I would say. > In war games short of killing them you treat the other side like the > enemy. And how does that help him to learn Occlumency? Gerry From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 17:45:21 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41 at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:45:21 -0000 Subject: More on Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122516 Hey-- I was following with interest the discussion of Snape, because I'm so fascinated by him, and I thought I'd post a couple of links, prompted in part by taking a gander at the Whysnape? site. Snape is most obviously an ISTJ in the Meyers-Briggs personality scale. Here's the link to the site which decides what personality type you are (take the test as Snape and you will undoubtedly get ISTJ as the type): http://www.personalitytest.net/cgi-bin/q.pl Here's a link describing ISTJs in general: http://www.personalitypage.com/ISTJ.html Here's a link describing ISTJs in relationships (including as lovers, parents, etc.): http://www.personalitypage.com/ISTJ_rel.html Fascinating, no? Leslie From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 18:50:09 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:50:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Harry and Sirius (was Re: Harry and Boggarts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050120185009.97173.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122517 > Jen Wrote: > I think, too that he was afraid of loving Harry too > much. After all, he lost James. > > Casey replied: > I always thought he was disappointed in Harry > because he wasn't more like James. Juli: There's only one time when Sirius expressed any disappointment on Harry (During OoP when Sirius suggests they meet at Hogsmeade and Harry, too concerned says NO). All other times when Sirius looks at Harry you can see pride in his eyes. From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 20 22:09:25 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:09:25 -0000 Subject: Harry and Boggarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122518 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Casey" wrote: > > think, too that he was afraid of loving Harry too much. > > After all, he lost James. > > > > Jen > > I always thought he was disappointed in Harry because he wasn't more > like James. > > Casey, Sirius hater. Geoff: I believe that one of the tests of real love is that you can carry on loving a person even when they let you down or disappoint you...... It's certainly at the core of Christian love - both on the human and heavenly level. From olivertraldi at gmail.com Thu Jan 20 19:18:16 2005 From: olivertraldi at gmail.com (delemtri) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:18:16 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122519 > Stephanie: > I have an idea that Trevor the toad is the HBP. I think JKR > has been pointing him out to us as he continually escapes from > Neville. How he is a Prince I'm not sure, but I strongly think he > is either a wizard turned into a toad, or an animangus. Oliver: Here are two posts from COSForums about the possibility of Trevor as the HBP. I have to say that personally I would be surprised to see JKR use the same twist twice, but the fact that it would be a toad turning into a prince does add a certain charm to the idea. http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=1323570&postcount=354 http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=1343796&postcount=499 From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Jan 20 22:12:32 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:12:32 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups]Re: The Order's means of communication... Message-ID: <1c8.22d76b75.2f2186d0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122520 In a message dated 1/20/2005 6:10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, quigonginger at yahoo.com writes: mm wrote: > I think Kneazle could be a means of communication > but during the conversation between DD and Harry at > the end of OoTP DD said that Snape contacted the order > immediately after seeing Harry in Umbridge's office > and I imagine that would be hard to manage with > Kneazle traveling back and forth, maybe house elves > since they could apparate. (snip) ************************************************ Chancie: Hmmm... Good point! Only thing is there is a slight problem with using only House Elves too. Not everyone has them! I originally said Kneazle's because of Mrs. Figg's numerous cats, and Harry thinking once that the street was empty not even a cat...(sorry I don't know where that quote is from, but I can try to find it if you would like). But I can see your point too that Kneazles could very well be too slow. I just feel there must be a reason cats are alway's mentioned, and why Hermione ended up with Crookshanks. Then again, it could just be a way to introduce them to those who haven't read FBWTFT. But as for the original question, perhaps the order uses a combination of things depending on how quickly the message needs to arive, and what needs to be done. What do you think? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 20 22:13:23 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:13:23 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122521 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich > > wrote: > > > > Magda > > > The backstory about the Prank that we lack concerns the relations > > > between Snape and Sirius; JKR has said this. We've got all the > > info > > > we need about the relations between Sirius and Remus. > > > > > > > Renee: > > I'm not sure we do. We still don't know why exactly Sirius thought > > Remus was the spy. And we don't know if Remus thought Sirius was > the > > spy before or after Halloween '81, or both. I'll be disappointed if > > those questions aren't answered in the last two books. Naama: > > I've said this before and haven't received a reply, so I really hope > that this time someone will respond: > > Sirius (and James) suspected Lupin because they were forced to. DD > told James that someone close to him was a traitor. James had to > choose between his three best friends - not a lot of choice there. > One he trusts as a brother (Sirius) and one he can't (tragically) > take seriously enough to see as a threat (Pettigrew). Lupin is the > spy by default. In the same way, after James' and Lily's death, Lupin > is forced into believing Sirius guilty (I'm assuming that Lupin > wasn't in the know about the spy thing before). I don't think there > is any evidence that the breakdown of trust between them had any > other sources. > > Renee: Well, I'll try, though I don't have much to come up with by way of an answer, except that it does seem possible. Unfortunately, if this were the case, it would make James and Sirius even more short- sighted than I thought they were. If they had no particular reason to distrust Lupin, the possibility that it *was* Peter ought to have crossed their minds. Also, I hope you don't mind if I find this scenario too undramatic to be appealing, though this doesn't necessarily speak against it. From lorelei_2 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 20 20:02:58 2005 From: lorelei_2 at hotmail.com (Laurie Suiter) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:02:58 -0800 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122522 Valky wrote : > Oh let them be reunited in death if need be just NOT THAT! to which mooseming responded : > JKR also said she *had* to kill Sirius, perhaps because he > has a job to do which requires him to be dead..... > > Say hello to Sirius the undead! and now Laurie writes: Perhaps Sirius will "live long and prosper" in portrait form...? Wonder what the Fat Lady would think about him being able to enter her frame whenever he likes...!! And would he still be able to transform into Snuffles?? From sro35 at webtv.net Thu Jan 20 20:38:52 2005 From: sro35 at webtv.net (sro35 at webtv.net) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:38:52 -0500 Subject: Sirius Mother's Picture In-Reply-To: HPforGrownups@yahoogroups.com's message of 19 Jan 2005 22:20:37 -0000 Message-ID: <27475-41F016DC-2019@storefull-3117.bay.webtv.net> No: HPFGUIDX 122523 Hi, I am new to this group and have enjoyed every moment of my stay here. I listen to HP on tape (instead of reading the books) so some of my spelling may be way off. For that, I apologize in advance. Something has been bothering me ever since I finished OOTP and perhaps it has been discussed here. If not, I would love to have your input. Here goes: Why can't Sirius' mother transport between her pictures (which must exist somewhere in her extended families homes) and tell all of the Phoenix secrets? Perhaps the sticking charm prevents this but it does not come up in the book (canon?). Thanks for reading my post......Stan P.S.--I think that Ginny is great, but that is a post for another time. From ngermany at excite.com Thu Jan 20 22:10:13 2005 From: ngermany at excite.com (adeptandinept) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:10:13 -0000 Subject: The Order's means of communication... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122524 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > LisaMarie said: >>> I am enclined to agree with Meng Yu, who stated upthread that the > most likely means would be the Patronus (or something that looks > very much like a Patronus), as we see it used in GoF when DD summons > Hagrid to the edge of the Forest when Crouch Sr. appears and Krum is > attacked. > Reason #1 It requires /only/ a wand. > Reason #2 DD is an Order member. (obviously) > Reason #3 We didn't know about the Order at this time, but we were > about to find out about it. > Reason #4 It is not vulnerable to interception or trickery > (something else Jo mentions in the above link). Adept: I dont agree with the patronus theory. A real patronus is too short lived a bit of magic. It's also too obvious. The protean charm on a galleon was discreet, but is vulnerable to interception and trickery. JKR said, "a chocolate frog card, or any object that would have to be remembered and carried on the person, would always be vulnerable to loss, destruction or trickery. The Order communicates in a way that requires nothing but a wand. You saw the Order's method of communication in use even before you knew about the existence of the Order; it was employed by an Order member." Loss, destruction or trickery. A wand is capable of being lost (Harry in GOF). A wand is capable of being destroyed (Neville in OotP). I dont know of any evidence regarding trickery but why not? I think JKR means something else. I'm new here and am not ready to jump into the fire, but I don't agree wholly with your interpretation of her quote. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 22:16:14 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:16:14 -0000 Subject: Harry and Sirius (was Re: Harry and Boggarts) In-Reply-To: <20050120185009.97173.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122525 > Juli: > There's only one time when Sirius expressed any > disappointment on Harry (During OoP when Sirius > suggests they meet at Hogsmeade and Harry, too > concerned says NO). All other times when Sirius looks > at Harry you can see pride in his eyes. Alla: Yes, I frankly don't even see how it is disputable that he loved the boy. Of course, he will look for some of his best friend in his son. It is understandable, after all he did love James like a brother. But TO ME the things Sirius did for Harry do prove that he loved Harry for himself. And since I do take interviews into consideration, don't forget that according to JKR Sirius' love for Harry was his greatest redeeming quality. Just my opinion, Alla From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 20 22:16:29 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:16:29 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: Gerry: > And of course it is an extremely unwise thing to do. After all, this is > supposed to be about Harry learning Occlumency. And being able to keep > out the best, without resorting to external means, because they most > likely will not be available if he needs the skill. He should be > trying to defend himself against a Snape in top form. That's what > learning a skill is about. Geoff: If the person charged with teaching Harry the required skills had done his job properly and in the right frame of mind, the situation would not have arisen. I remarked in an earlier post that the method used with Harry was akin to throwing a non-swimmer into the deep end and walking away. There has to be a starting level and then a learning curve - steep maybe - which will equip the trainee to handle the real life situations. From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Thu Jan 20 22:17:50 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:17:50 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1F757E6B-6B31-11D9-BC39-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 122527 On Friday, January 21, 2005, at 04:52 am, xcpublishing wrote: > I thought the "secret" quidditch skills to be somewhat ludicrous. > Why on earth would she need to be sneaky about it? Her family is > full of quidditch fanatics so I can't understand why they wouldn't > encourage a talent for it, especially when her brothers already have > skill. As the only girl, she might be a trifle overprotected, but it > doesn't seem logical that she could practice unseen with so many > siblings. And how much more dangerous is quidditch than > spellcasting? Not much. If she's good at quidditch, make her good > from the get-go instead of introducing it later as something of a > surprise. > > Nicky Joe > Yeah I see your point, but all these siblings are not around all the time. She must have been dreadfully lonely in that last year before she went to school: just her and her Mum all day, with her father and eldest brothers working, and the others at school. Actually, much as I love Mrs Weasley, under those circumstances I think I would be tempted to take a picnic lunch and my brother's broom and go practice quiddich A LOT! Maybe her brothers made fun of her if she expressed an interest and her parents couldn't afford the extra broom anyway? Ron was really embarrassed at being seen to try for the team, even if the twins had used him as a practice keeper (as a convenience for THEM, you note!) He was afraid of making a fool of himself in front of everyone, and it wouldn't be surprising if Ginny felt the same. Jocelyn From ngermany at excite.com Thu Jan 20 21:11:20 2005 From: ngermany at excite.com (jackthedragonslayer) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:11:20 -0000 Subject: The Order's means of communication... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122528 > mm wrote: > I think Kneazle could be a means of communication > but during the conversation between DD and Harry at > the end of OoTP DD said that Snape contacted the order > immediately after seeing Harry in Umbridge's office > and I imagine that would be hard to manage with > Kneazle traveling back and forth, maybe house elves > since they could apparate. (snip) I have a thought. I imagine they communicate in more than one way. Floo, apparation, owl, protean charms, bewitching mirrors, and mystery method. I imagine there are probably other ways we haven't thought of yet. But she said it was a method requiring only a wand. I am suggesting that a shower of sparks is another method requiring only a wand. A shower of sparks would be controlled and each pattern would have its own message. Like smoke signals, I suppose. In Book 1 it said, "Viewers as far apart as Kent, Yorkshire, and Dundee have been phoning in to tell me that instead of the rain I promised, they've had a downpour of shooting stars!" US edition, chapter 1. In book 5, "Far, far above them, a shower of bright red sparks had flared among the stars. Harry recognized them at once as wand sparks." And the next paragraph reads,"'Second signal, let's go!' said Lupin loudly, as more sparks, green this time, exploded high above them." US edition, hardcover, chapter 3, page 55. "jackthedragonslayer" From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Jan 20 22:27:47 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:27:47 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Half Blood Prince Theory Message-ID: <1da.344159c0.2f218a63@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122529 In a message dated 1/20/2005 8:34:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, glowriter at cox.net writes: Stephanie: I was talking to my best friend about HP and it dawned on me about a possible suspect for HBP. I mentioned it as a joke since I can almost not believe it to be true. Well, I have an idea that Trevor the toad is the HBP. I think JKR has been pointing him out to us as he continually escapes from Neville. How he is a Prince I'm not sure, but I strongly think he is either a wizard turned into a toad, or an animangus. I'm reading the books again now, so I plan on paying more attention to information regarding Trevor. I may be imagining things. ******************************************** Chancie: Welcome to HPforGU! I don't really remember anyone saying much, about Trevor, but it is an interesting theory. And I see no reason why it's not possible. I think that there must be a reason that Neville is the only person with a Toad in the school. And I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that Scabers ended up being a human, we had already seen Poly-Juice when fake Moody turned up at the end of GOF. JKR seems to like to reintroduce thing in her story's. Perhaps Snape will finally make true to his promise to test one of Neville's potions (that is of course if he takes NEWT) on Trevor, and Neville inadvertently makes a cure for poor Trevor. Hmmm.. Maybe Neville will be a Healer after all! Just a thought! Chancie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From trekkie at stofanet.dk Thu Jan 20 22:32:03 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:32:03 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) References: Message-ID: <002101c4ff3f$dda09e10$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122530 > Gerry: >> And of course it is an extremely unwise thing to do. After all, > this is >> supposed to be about Harry learning Occlumency. And being able to > keep >> out the best, without resorting to external means, because they most >> likely will not be available if he needs the skill. He should be >> trying to defend himself against a Snape in top form. That's what >> learning a skill is about. > > Geoff: > If the person charged with teaching Harry the required skills had > done his job properly and in the right frame of mind, the situation > would not have arisen. I remarked in an earlier post that the method > used with Harry was akin to throwing a non-swimmer into the deep end > and walking away. There has to be a starting level and then a > learning curve - steep maybe - which will equip the trainee to handle > the real life situations. But there's one thing about the WW that springs to my mind: It is in many ways extremely oldfashioned. And the part about throwing prople in the water to teach them how to swim HAS been used. Both my Mother and my grandmother (who are 75 and 103 now) both learned to swim that way (in the sea, no less). It was normal practice at the time (and maybe they had a sadistic Snapish swimming teacher too, I dunno...) Of course, that method made some people afraid of water, in some cases for life, but it was still regarded "the" way of doing it. You were taught, on land, what to do and then plopped in the water, expected to know how. In some countries it is still regarded a good idea to spank students. Other countries regards that practice as medival and barbaric, it's all about culture. And we don't know enough about how teachers in the WW are educated (according to some, they're not really educated at all, you graduate from Hogwarts and start teaching... Like in Victorian England.) ~TrekkieGrrrl From easimm at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 22:24:13 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:24:13 -0000 Subject: Snape's prophecy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122531 In message 119148, I buried the following theory, and I'm bringing it up now because I think it might be helpful in several Snape threads now running. If Snape was hoping to be the "Hero Who Vanquishes the Dark Lord", but learned of the OOTP prophecy before Harry came to Hogwarts, Snape could be jealous of Harry and Neville Longbottom for being the foretold Hero(s). It could explain the extra animosity he seems to have for Harry and Neville. (As far as I can tell, recently we came very close to discussing whether Snape knew about the OOTP prophecy, but haven't discussed how such knowledge could explain his actions.) Perhaps we'll learn something in the future about a prophecy for Snape, one deeply unsatisfying to him, in which he learns he'll be the man who helps the man who gets rid of Voldemort. In other words, he'll always be playing second fiddle. (This was part of 119148 as well.) "curlyhornedsnorkack" From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 22:25:07 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (Rebecca) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:25:07 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122532 > > Stephanie: > > I have an idea that Trevor the toad is the HBP. I think > > JKR has been pointing him out to us as he continually escapes > > from Neville. How he is a Prince I'm not sure, but I strongly > > think he is either a wizard turned into a toad, or an animangus. > > Oliver: > I have to say that personally I would be surprised to see > JKR use the same twist twice, but the fact that it would be a toad > turning into a prince does add a certain charm to the idea. In my opinion, she has already used the same twist twice. Twice now things/people have not been as they've seemed. Once in the case of Pettigrew and once in the case of Crouch Jnr / Mad Eye Moody. Both of these are the same in essense (disguises), but their purpose and their being forced to show themselves are very different, different enough to be believeable. I'm sure JKR is capable of writing Trevor being the HBP in the story believably too. (Just had a thought of a third example of something not exactly the same, but similar - Rita Skeeter.) Becky From lorelei_2 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 20 22:29:25 2005 From: lorelei_2 at hotmail.com (Laurie Suiter) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:29:25 -0800 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122533 Renee (SNIPPED): I agree. The enmity between Harry and Snape ought not to have been ignored. But I've ceased to expect much psychological finesse from most of the people in the Wizarding World. Laurie: This has probably been posted before but...isn't the whole point of Occlumency to prevent someone (especially an enemy) from reading your thoughts? It seems to me that Dumbledore wasn't ignoring the Harry/Snape enmity at all--he was actually counting on it, hoping Harry would work that much harder to protect his thoughts from Snape. Unfortunately the plan backfired... Just my .02, of course. Laurie S. From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Jan 20 22:43:46 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:43:46 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Order's means of communication... Message-ID: <1ad.2f837bc5.2f218e22@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122534 In a message dated 1/20/2005 2:23:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, ngermany at excite.com writes: Adept: I dont agree with the patronus theory. A real patronus is too short lived a bit of magic. It's also too obvious. The protean charm on a galleon was discreet, but is vulnerable to interception and trickery. ******************************************* Chancie: I agree with you! People (especially muggles) would notice that a large silvery animal was flying through the air! I did forget about JKR saying that you need a wand. And also someone asked how did Mrs. Noris tell Filtch what the students were doing. Well Maybe a wand could give them a voice? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Thu Jan 20 22:50:15 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:50:15 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Order's means of communication... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122535 In a message dated 1/20/2005 2:31:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, ngermany at excite.com writes: But she said it was a method requiring only a wand. I am suggesting that a shower of sparks is another method requiring only a wand. A shower of sparks would be controlled and each pattern would have its own message. Like smoke signals, I suppose ************************************** Chancie: Very possible, however, I don't think that the order would use wand sparks for everything. Again it's too noticeable to all the muggles, and DE's would be able to find where the sparks were coming from if they were repeated on a regular basis. Too, I don't think that it would be very practical to have them be coded into messages much like smoke signals, what if the DE's deciphered the code? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 23:13:19 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:13:19 -0000 Subject: Snape's DE past (Was: Favorite Snape Scenes) In-Reply-To: <200501171309313.SM00788@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122536 Vivamus wrote: > The only justification I can see for his {Snape's] behavior towards the Gryffindors is that he is acting as a spy again, pretending to be a loyal DE, and so must be consistently nasty towards them where the Slytherins will see it. It's hard to see him doing that, with DD publicly testifying that he was a spy, Carol responds: Snape's own hearing, in which he was cleared of all charges, was apparently a small affair that was not publicized. His name did not appear on the list of DEs found innocent by reason of Imperius (Malfoy, nott, Avery, Crabbe, Goyle, Macnair, et al.--the ones Harry named as being present in the graveyard scene). Karkaroff's hearing was before about 200 members of the Wizengamot, but because Karkaroff was doing a sort of plea bargain, exchanging names of fellow DEs for his own freedom, neither the public nor the press was present (Ritat Skeeter attends Bagman's hearing, not Karkaroff's). Apparently Dumbledore's statement to the Wizengamot that Snape switched sides and spied for him before Godric's Hollow was sufficient to ensure the silence of the Wizengamot members. Clearly Snape's DE past is not a matter of public knowledge, or, as I said in another post, three quarters of the parents would write letters of protest to Dumbledore and Rita Skeeter would have played up that story rather than Hagrid's being a half-giant. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 23:35:40 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:35:40 -0000 Subject: Lily's protective charm (Was: His mother's eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122537 Carol earlier: > > I've also been arguing for a protective charm placed on Baby!Harry, but your version gives me shivers. Also, we have indications that Lily was good with Charms but nothing has been said about her and potions. > > Still, a potion combined with an incantation does sound like a form of "ancient magic" so I'm certainly not ruling it out. > > > > Here's my version, combining my theories and yours and attempting to answer the question about Voldemort: > > > > Lily places an elaborate Protego (shield charm) on Baby Harry, perhaps involving an incantation like the one kemper hypothesized (as opposed to the mere name of the spell), and, using her finger, marks Harry's forehead with an (defense) eihwaz rune, like a priest marking a baby's forehead with a cross in a baptismal service. The incantation specifies that the charm will be activated by her self-sacrifice. > > Shortly afterwards, she is murdered, sacrificing herself for Harry and activating the charm. Voldemort tries to kill Harry, and the powerful Protego erupts through Harry's forehead, leaving an eihwaz-shaped opening that later turns into a scar. The Protego deflects the AK onto Voldemort, who is not killed because of the protections he put on himself The force of the Protego explodes not only Voldemort but everything around him, and the house crashes on dead Lily and Baby!Harry. (Dead James is somewhere outside the house where he died duelling with Voldemort.) While the wound is open, some of Voldemort's powers and possibly some of his anger enters into Harry. (I don't think, as explained elsewhere, that he permanently lost those powers, but he can't use them until he regains a body, and meanwhile, Harry, marked as Voldemort's equal by the very scar that symbolizes his protection, now possesses some of the same powers in latent form.) > I think an explanation like this allows the scar to be caused by a cut when the AK hit (AKs normally don't leave any mark) and at the same time allows the scar to be a symbol of his mother's protection, the eihwaz (defense) rune. > > > Claire responds: > I'm delurking after a very long time because this theory utterly > intrigues me (Carol, it gave me goosebumps too--nice going, Kemper). > Especially since, after reading several of the entries, I remembered > a couple of things: > 1. Reading not long ago the fact that Lily's wand was good for charm work was going to be important. Which correlates nicely with > Kemper's theory. > 2. Along the rune lines, could Hermione's mistranslation during her > Ancient Rune's OWL have a bearing here? Carol responds: Exactly. Ollivander's remark about Lily's first wand being "a nice wand for Charm work" surely foreshadows some important charm that she performed, just as James's wand, which was "excellent for Transfiguration," foreshadowed his ability to become an Animagus. And the eihwaz/ehwaz rune confusion, in no way important to the plot at the point it's inserted, is the type of throwaway line that JKR uses for planting clues. So you've hit on the two key pieces of evidence on which the Lily's-ancient-magic-involves-more-than-self-sacrifice theory is based. And no, it doesn't have an acronym: LAMIMTSS is not exactly a word. But if you feel like braving Yahoomort to find old posts on the topic, you'll find that I've mentioned both of these items before as support for the theory--not, however, with reference to an incantation like the one kemper suggested! Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 20 23:53:19 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:53:19 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122538 > Pippin wrote: > You are right that in either case, it would be reasonable for Harry > to be angry at Snape for being a crummy teacher. Except that > Harry *doesn't * think Snape is a crummy teacher. He has never once > thought, either in potions or in occlumency, "If Snape didn't > badger me and make me feel like a failure, I could learn this > stuff." It's the conclusion of some readers, but not, so far, of > Harry himself. > > > Alla disagreed: > > I beg to differ, Pippin. Harry does reach such conclusion, more than > once. He does not generalise it, but in each of the following > instances he does question Snape's teaching ability, IMO. > > We also Have Harry's "I am trying,... but you are not telling me > how" - OOP, p.535, which as you recently agreed is quite a > legitimate complaint against Snape's teaching style. > > Oh and in PoA before their boggart lesson ,when Snape so "kindly" > puts Neville down before lesson starts: > > So, I'd say Harry has plenty negative thoughts about Snape's > teaching style. > > Just my opinion, > > Alla Carol responds: But teaching *style* and teaching *ability* are two different things. Surely there's no question that Snape knows his subject (Potions--I'm not getting into Occlumency here), the first criterion for teaching ability. The question that has not yet been fully answered is whether his students are learning what he's teaching. But surely both Neville and Harry must have learned *something* in Snape's class to perform as well as they apparently did on the Potions OWL. We'll find out more on that topic in HBP. Till then, the evidence is not in. And as Pippin said, Harry has not yet blamed Snape for his unimpressive performance in Potions (I'm not counting zeroes; I'm considering only Harry's potion-making skills). Harry knows that he doesn't study, that he puts off his homework till the last minute, that he doesn't pay attention in class. If it weren't for Hermione, both he and Ron would probably fail most of their classes. IMO, she's doing them no favor by doing their work for them or correcting it before they turn it in. And *that* is no fault of Snape's. Carol From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Thu Jan 20 23:58:13 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Brenda) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:58:13 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stephanie" wrote: > > Stephanie: > Hi, > I'm new here. I love getting on here and reading what you all have to > say. I know for a fact that you are all way ahead of me on the subject > of Harry Potter, but I'm a newbie at having just read the books nine > months ago. I've looked around to see if anyone has asked this yet, > but I didn't see anything. I was talking to my best friend about HP > and it dawned on me about a possible suspect for HBP. I mentioned it > as a joke since I can almost not believe it to be true. Well, I have > an idea that Trevor the toad is the HBP. I think JKR has been pointing > him out to us as he continually escapes from Neville. How he is a > Prince I'm not sure, but I strongly think he is either a wizard turned > into a toad, or an animangus. I'm reading the books again now, so I > plan on paying more attention to information regarding Trevor. I may > be imagining things. > > My friend is hopeful that he will be a relation to Harry somehow so > he's not always without family. I don't know about that, but I wonder > if JKR would actually make a toad a prince. If she had someone kiss > him like Hermione, or Ginny, to bring him back to human form, it would > be even more farfetched. I truly don't think that part will be true, > but I still think Trevor will be the prince. Another thought that > another friend of mine brought up was that there has already been a > "pet deceiving the owner" routine with Ron and Scabbers, so I could be > grasping here. > > Thanks for letting me post my little farfetched theory. I hope this > hasn't been asked a million times. I just wanted to see what all of > you thought about it. Luckdragon: Well this theory is just as good as any others and there is one little quote from Jo in a past interview that has always niggled at me. insert: What happened to Neville's Toad? JKR: He's still lurking.. Curious! Very curious! From ejblack at rogers.com Fri Jan 21 00:05:13 2005 From: ejblack at rogers.com (Jeanette) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:05:13 -0000 Subject: Sirius Mother's Picture In-Reply-To: <27475-41F016DC-2019@storefull-3117.bay.webtv.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122540 Stan wrote: > Here goes: Why can't Sirius' mother transport between her pictures > (which must exist somewhere in her extended families homes) and tell all > of the Phoenix secrets? What an extremely good point! It's one I certainly missed, even with all a the times I've read the books. I think, perhaps, because she is so ugly both in behaviour and attitude I was assuming that no one who wasn't FORCED to have her picture around would. However, I am sure that her behaviour would have been very different, say talking to the Malfoys. And I can see being related to them there would be another portrait somewhere. She could be a very serious security breach unless the Order has somehow stopped her from transporting. By the by, we know in the WW, personalities can move between painted pictures of themselves, any thought if they can also move from picture to photogragh? Jeanette From ejblack at rogers.com Fri Jan 21 00:07:06 2005 From: ejblack at rogers.com (Jeanette) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:07:06 -0000 Subject: The Order's means of communication... In-Reply-To: <1ad.2f837bc5.2f218e22@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122541 > > Chancie: > I did forget about JKR saying that you need a wand. And also someone > asked how did Mrs. Noris tell Filtch what the students were doing. Well > Maybe a wand could give them a voice? Does Filtch have a wand? I thought he was a squib. Jeanette From olivertraldi at gmail.com Thu Jan 20 23:57:30 2005 From: olivertraldi at gmail.com (delemtri) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:57:30 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122542 > > Oliver: > > I have to say that personally I would be surprised to see > > JKR use the same twist twice, but the fact that it would be a toad > > turning into a prince does add a certain charm to the idea. > > Becly: > In my opinion, she has already used the same twist twice. Twice now > things/people have not been as they've seemed. Once in the case of > Pettigrew and once in the case of Crouch Jnr / Mad Eye Moody. > Both of these are the same in essense (disguises), but their purpose > and their being forced to show themselves are very different, > different enough to be believeable. I'm sure JKR is capable of > writing Trevor being the HBP in the story believably too. > > (Just had a thought of a third example of something not exactly the > same, but similar - Rita Skeeter.) Oliver: That's slightly different. The idea of a mistaken identity is a strong *theme* throughout the books - things like the Polyjuice Potion, the Animagi, the Imperius Curse, and Voldemort's various possession-like things with Harry and Ginny question our entire conception of identity. What I'm saying is that this *method* of questioning identity has been used several times already, and so I don't think it'll really appear again. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 00:27:07 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:27:07 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122543 Magda wrote: > Snape's a horrible guy - EVERYONE agrees with this. I really don't > know why this is controversial for some people. You can be a > HORRIBLE person and still think that murdering people is a Bad Thing. > Morality is not the same as niceness. > > > Alla: > > Not everyone agrees with the fact that Snape is a horrible guy. > Otherwise our Snape bashing and Snape defending sessions would have > died out pretty fast. :o) > > And even if I forget my doubts whether Snape now really thinks that > murdering people is a bad thing, I would still think that those who > abuse children for their pleasure are not "moral" people. Carol responds: Yes, I'm one of those people who doesn't think that Snape is "horrible"--just strict, sarcastic, and occasionally unfair. Definitely not "nice," but until and unless he betrays Harry, DD, or the Order, I will never concede that he's evil. He is very often *protecting* Harry. It would not be in his best interests, to say the least, if Harry were killed. His goals are to get Harry to obey the rules, stay out of danger, follow directions, and show respect. Contrast the motives of the teachers we know to be evil, notably Umbridge (impose an MOM agenda on Hogwarts at all costs) and Crouch!Moody(kill Harry). But what I'm interested in here is not defending Snape for the thousandth time but the idea that a person must be *nice* in order to be *good*. Harry, our hero, whom we all agree is good, is very often not nice, especially in OoP. He's rude and even cruel to Ron and Hermione, his best friends. He's definitely not nice to Seamus when Seamus wants to know what happened to Cedric. And he certainly doesn't turn the other cheek to Dudley; he bullies him in return. I can go quote hunting if you like to show mean!Harry. On those occasions, has he become temporarily evil? Umbridge and Crouch!Moody are both "nicer" than Snape. Does that make them good? Or are meanness and evil two different things? Carol From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Jan 21 00:21:16 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:21:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122544 Carol responds: > But teaching *style* and teaching *ability* are two different things. > Surely there's no question that Snape knows his subject (Potions-- I'm > not getting into Occlumency here), the first criterion for teaching > ability. The question that has not yet been fully answered is whether > his students are learning what he's teaching. But surely both Neville > and Harry must have learned *something* in Snape's class to perform as > well as they apparently did on the Potions OWL. We'll find out more on > that topic in HBP. Till then, the evidence is not in. Harry seems to have confidence in his potions score based on his essay on Poly-juice potions. a potion he knew well because he learned and used it outside of Potions class. I won't be giving Snape much credit for any of Harry's successes in Potions. > And as Pippin said, Harry has not yet blamed Snape for his > unimpressive performance in Potions (I'm not counting zeroes; I'm > considering only Harry's potion-making skills). Harry knows that he > doesn't study, that he puts off his homework till the last minute, > that he doesn't pay attention in class. If it weren't for Hermione, > both he and Ron would probably fail most of their classes. IMO, she's > doing them no favor by doing their work for them or correcting it > before they turn it in. And *that* is no fault of Snape's. What makes you think that Harry would be failing most of his classes? Harry isn't a devoted student like hermion but there isn't any evidence of scraping by either. amount of effort doing school work isn't an indication of grades. hell, in highschool I spent most of my classroom time in a haze and/or asleep and I managed to get a 3.9 gpa for seven straight semesters. There is every indication that Harry is doing just fine in school if not top of the class. Do you really think DD would allow Harry to skate by when he knows whats at stake? I don't. "Phoenixgod2000" From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 00:42:45 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:42:45 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122545 Pippin wrote: Eh, you've never been a little sister, have you? I can just imagine what my brother would have done to me if I'd laid a finger on his electric trainset, or his baseball glove, let alone a valuable racing broom. Sheesh! Isn't it odd though, that Ginny always seems to get what she needs? Where *did* her broom come from? It can't be Ron's old one that was overtaken by passing butterflies. And where did she get dress robes for the Yule Ball? wondering if Ginny has a fairy godmother or just a talent for larceny vmonte responds: The lucky thing about being the only girl is that all of your stuff is always new. She cannot use any of the boy's hand-me-downs, right (well, except for the baby clothes)? The boys on the other hand have it rough. The oldest is guaranteed new clothes, but the rest get the hand-me-downs. Vivian From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 00:43:56 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:43:56 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Order's means of communication... Message-ID: <191.37201634.2f21aa4c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122546 In a message dated 1/20/2005 4:10:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, ejblack at rogers.com writes: Does Filtch have a wand? I thought he was a squib. Jeanette **************************************** Chancie: Ahhhh!!! Once again I'm not fully thinking my theory's out before I post! Appologies! But I thought it was a good idea, until you pointed out that gaping hole in my theory! Oh well, so then how do you think he finds out what Mrs. Noris "tells" him? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 00:55:46 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:55:46 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122547 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: > > But what I'm interested in here is not defending Snape for the > thousandth time but the idea that a person must be *nice* in order > to be *good*. Harry, our hero, whom we all agree is good, is very > often not nice, especially in OoP. He's rude and even cruel to Ron > and Hermione, his best friends. He's definitely not nice to Seamus > when Seamus wants to know what happened to Cedric. And he certainly > doesn't turn the other cheek to Dudley; he bullies him in return. I > can go quote hunting if you like to show mean!Harry. On those > occasions, has he become temporarily evil? Umbridge and Crouch! > Moody are both "nicer" than Snape. Does that make them good? Or are > meanness and evil two different things? Umm, as a leading proponent of the anti-"good but not nice" school, I'll answer. Harry is definitely falling off of the path of treating people well when he behaves like that...and such is the lesson of the book, in part--it matters how you treat people. Umbridge and Crouch!Moody are both nice...but in a very superficial use of the word, as both are undertaking some process of deceit. (I've always insisted, in pushing this program, that the 'fake nice' niceness is not what is being talked about). (For a better than I could EVER write it discussion of issues of deceit, I tip y'all to http://www.jelks.nu/misc/articles/bs.html. Give me a few weeks and I'll find a way to work it in somehow.) What is being got at, I think, by the argument over nice-and-good is that we can conceive of a person who is not a good person (stative/ontological category) but who takes actions that are good...that is to say, the goodness is located in the action, rather than in the person. To be a good person statively requires a particular orientation/consideration of other people, which mean behavior betrays as not being present. Or we could have recourse to Kantian ethics, where roughly speaking (very roughly), the intentions of the action are what counts. A common mistake made here is to assume that *considering* that what you are doing is good is enough to pass the test--it is not. It must pass a strict categorical imperative/rationality test (which means someone like Lucius Malfoy fails, even if he genuinely believes that what he is doing is good). Here, means and ends (in some understandings of the theory) blend together so that means ARE ends. How you get to a goal is an inherent component of getting to the goal itself...for our purposes, then, *how* you teach the students and treat them in the classroom is not separable from the end of teaching them. "Any means to achieve their ends" is the antithesis of this proposal, and it's a principle that hasn't exactly been looked on well, so far. Meanness and evil are not necessarily the same thing, but meanness and the stative condition of being a good person do not co-exist well, if at all. This is because being mean to people is a fundamental statement about how you regard other people...and we're playing in an essentialist universe here, like it or not. Hence we might wish to distinguish between 'being a good person' and 'doing good things'. So I would say that yes, a person must be genuinely nice--that is to say, treat other people with respect for their subjectivity--to *be* a good person. He does not have to be nice to take actions that may be construed as good, but we should be aware that there are very important to western thought moral constructions that would not consider those actions good, because they were not taken from the right perspective. -Nora roots around for her mini-Kant... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 00:55:55 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 00:55:55 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122548 vmonte earlier: > >and a racist too.. > >"Don't ask me to fathom the way a werewolf's mind works," hissed Snape. > > >Betsy: > I don't see any sign of racism in this scene, I'm sorry. Is it the werewolf comment? That doesn't strike me as racist. Snape thinks Lupin has betrayed Dumbledore and led Harry into a trap, as Snape was lead into a similar trap when he was a student. Snape was almost killed by Lupin at that time, so there's a reason for the distrust. > I generally think of racism as illogical stereotyping. > > vmonte responded: > This is your most upsetting comment BTW. What do you think a werewolf represents in JKR's world? Pick any derogatory name and insert it into where the word werewolf should be. How does it sound now? I think people should be called by their names don't you. > > How about if Snape had yelled out: Don't ask me to fathom the way > Lupin's mind works," instead. > Carol responds: I agree with Betsy that prejudice against werewolves (who are genuinely dangerous) is not racism. The entire WW classifies werewolves as beasts, not people. (Check "Fantastic Beasts.") Ron shares the same prejudice, and even Hermione shouts, "Don't trust him! He's a werewolf! And as Betsy says, Snape was almost killed by the very werewolf he's referring to. It would be extremely unlikely for him to view werewolves in any other way. This is a very different matter from prejudice against Muggleborns, who are judged as inferior to other wizards because of their parents' lack of magical ability. And even that isn't really racism as the race of the Muggleborn (white, black, or Asian) is wholly irrelevant. Werewolves become vicious, murderous creatures. It is not, IMO, irrational to fear and mistrust such people, especially when the whole WW shares your view. Carol, who's getting a bit tired of all the emotionalism and wishes that people would not get upset when other posters express opinions that they don't share From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 01:06:53 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:06:53 -0000 Subject: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122549 Dungrollin: Now that story sounds oddly familiar... Substitute "tortured to insanity" with "murdered by Voldemort" and "grandmother" with "aunt and uncle"... So why doesn't Harry fear Snape more than anything else? vmonte responds: Neville's grandmother loves him, but sees him as a disappointment. So, naturally Neville has an inferiority complex. Harry's aunt and uncle hate him, and see him as a freak. So, naturally Harry could give a rats rear end what they think of him; he just wants them to leave him alone. Vivian From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 01:30:37 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:30:37 -0000 Subject: The Order's means of communication... In-Reply-To: <191.37201634.2f21aa4c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122550 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/20/2005 4:10:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, > ejblack at r... writes: > > > Does Filtch have a wand? I thought he was a squib. > > Jeanette > Chancie said: > > Ahhhh!!! Once again I'm not fully thinking my theory's out > before I post! Appologies! But I thought it was a good idea, > until you pointed out that gaping hole in my theory! Oh well, > so then how do you think he finds out what Mrs. Noris "tells" > him? Tonks here: I saw a show once about communication with animals. Maybe the cat and squibs have a mental connection. The cat sends a mental picture. The Squib send a mental picture back. Not words... pictures. This is not the same as magic, because some Muggles can do it. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 01:42:00 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:42:00 -0000 Subject: OotP Chapter Discussion: 36, Only One He Ever Feared In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122551 "a_rude_mechanical" wrote: > > Here's the first half of the summary/discussion of OotP Chapter > Thirty Six, "The Only One He Ever Feared". The discussion questions > occur within the summary and are marked with three dashes. Thanks!! > Carol: Interesting way to set up the discussion, Elisabeth, and I love your Yahoo ID. Should I call you Bottom or Snout? Okay, maybe Flute would be better. Elisabeth wrote: > ---Wizards don't need electricity, nor medicine; they can > apparate/disapparate; portkeys carry them from one location in the > world to another and yet they still have to wait for elevators. > Which calls to mind this question: why in the world doesn't > Bellatrix simply disapparate? DD clearly believes that the other DEs might because he immobilizes them with disapparation in mind. > So .wha??? Carol responds: I think you can only apparate into the Atrium and then take the lifts from there. (Employees can also use Floo Powder to enter and leave the Atrium, but I'm sure that the fireplaces are monitored to prevent illegal use.) It does seem odd that DD would need to apply an anti-disapparating jinx if the same rules apply. Maybe the MoM figures that only authorized people would be allowed in the building because you can only apparate into the Atrium so it's possible to disapparate from any part of the building(?). The lifts would still be needed for those who used the visitor's entrance or Floo (not all wizards can apparate). As for Bellatrix, she can't leave because she thinks Harry still has the Prophecy orb. I think she wants to taunt Harry and lure him into fighting with her so she can Crucio or kill him and get it from him. And just at the point when she discovers that it's broken, Voldemort shows up. Carol, realizing that she's just as confused as Elisabeth about the anti-disapparation jinx From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 01:43:40 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:43:40 -0000 Subject: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122552 JLV here: I definitely agree that the Patronus is the most likely candidate for being the method of communication that the Order use. I would like to add that the Patronus has a particular significance for Harry as his Patronus represents his father. Now, I believe one of the main themes of the books is parents (a subject close to JKRs heart as we know from interviews/her website) and I think that Harry's Patronus is highly symbolic of parental protection. (A bit like Lily's sacrifice, if you will.) I therefore thought it would be a shame if all these impressive pieces of magic can do is chase Dementors away (amazing as that may be). All this has led me to speculate on the role that Patroni (particularly Harry's) are likely to play in the final battle with Voldemort. I want Prongs to fight side by side with Harry - wouldn't that be a Kodak moment? vmonte responds: Maybe one of the steps Voldemort has taken to become immortal has made him very much like a dementor--a soulless creature. Perhaps Harry's patronus will push Voldemort through the veil. So Harry is saved by his mother at the beginning of the series, and by his father at the end of the series. Vivian From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 02:06:58 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:06:58 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) Message-ID: <54.3c25c7c2.2f21bdc2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122553 In a message dated 1/20/2005 5:45:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, vmonte at yahoo.com writes: JLV here: I definitely agree that the Patronus is the most likely candidate for being the method of communication that the Order use. ************************************************* Chancie: Reasons I don't believe a Patronus is the answer: 1. Harry is told that the Patronus charm is VERY difficult. Even some full grown wizards can't do it. 2. I don't remember anyone ever saying that they make sound, so how can they deliver a message? 3. How could a witch or wizard send a Patronus who knows how far, without it being seen by a muggle or possibly even a DE? 4. How would a witch or wizard beable to keep the Patronus from disapearing? Wouldn't s/he have to "hold" the spell for it to remain formed? That would take tremendous concentration It just seems to me that there has to be an easier way to send messages! If anyone can prove me wrong, please do! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Jan 21 02:30:03 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:30:03 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More on Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <41F103DB.28954.39FBE93@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122554 On 20 Jan 2005 at 17:45, leslie41 at yahoo.com wrote: > Snape is most obviously an ISTJ in the Meyers-Briggs personality > scale. Here's the link to the site which decides what personality > type you are (take the test as Snape and you will undoubtedly get > ISTJ as the type): > http://www.personalitypage.com/ISTJ.html > > Here's a link describing ISTJs in relationships (including as lovers, > parents, etc.): > > http://www.personalitypage.com/ISTJ_rel.html > > Fascinating, no? Yes, but personally I've always felt Snape to be more of an INTJ (although a rather unhealthy one) than an ISTJ (I'm an ISTJ myself... Percy comes across to me as ISTJ). So people might want to check these out as well: http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ_rel.html 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 dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 02:41:09 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:41:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. References: Message-ID: <012c01c4ff62$aaa64dc0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122555 >> Alla: >> >> Not everyone agrees with the fact that Snape is a horrible guy. >> Otherwise our Snape bashing and Snape defending sessions would have >> died out pretty fast. :o) >> >> And even if I forget my doubts whether Snape now really thinks that >> murdering people is a bad thing, I would still think that those who >> abuse children for their pleasure are not "moral" people. > > Carol responds: > Yes, I'm one of those people who doesn't think that Snape is > "horrible"--just strict, sarcastic, and occasionally unfair. > Definitely not "nice," but until and unless he betrays Harry, DD, or > the Order, I will never concede that he's evil. He is very often > *protecting* Harry. It would not be in his best interests, to say the > least, if Harry were killed. His goals are to get Harry to obey the > rules, stay out of danger, follow directions, and show respect. > Contrast the motives of the teachers we know to be evil, notably > Umbridge (impose an MOM agenda on Hogwarts at all costs) and > Crouch!Moody(kill Harry). > Charme : There's only one observation I have that I haven't seen mentioned: while Snape is strict, sarcastic, and occasionally (that's a little understated, isn't it? :)) unfair, he also can be what some would perceive as physically abusive when angered. There's only one time it occurs to the "physical" level, and that's when Harry sees Snape's "worst memory." Snape bruises Harry's arm after grabbing him, and throws him forcefully enough that Harry hits the dungeon floor. Right, wrong, or indifferent to whether Snape is evil, has his heart in the right place or not, he appears to have an anger management issue where Harry and Sirius (recall, PoA when Sirius escapes at the end and Snape is disappointed about the Dementors not getting Sirius) are concerned. Now I can tell you some of the parents I know, regardless of what their kid did, would not condone a teacher treating a student in that manner. Neither would the public or the school system. It does make you wonder what Snape's temper has caused him to do in the past. charme From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 02:46:11 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:46:11 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122556 Inkling wrote: > > In fact what bothers me about his teaching style in Occlumency > lessons is that it differs so much from his style in Potions. (Snip, > snip) > > It is in character for him to be supremely self confident and in > control. > > It is not in character for him to appear "unnerved" and "agitated." > > Now, Snape exhibits all of these strange behaviors in the first > lesson, long before Harry looks in the pensieve or flips him with > the Protego charm. Which leads me to say again (at the risk of > sounding like a broken record) that the personal drama that unfolds > between the two in the course of the lessons, while it is > compelling, does not shed light on what Snape's agenda was when he > set out to give the lessons in the first place. > > Tonks replied: > > This is why I suspect that it was not a teaching lesson at all. That > Snape was given the job to find LV in Harry and separate him out so > that whatever comes next can happen. If it was a lesson, it is > possible that it is something that can not be taught the same way as > Potions. He might be using a more Eastern approach. Also there was a > reason DD thought it would be too dangerous for Harry to be taught > by DD himself. This all points to the *lessons* as being more than > they appear to be, IMHO. Carol responds to both: Inkling, great contrasts between Snape's teaching styles in Potions vs. Occlumency. But I want to mention two things. First, it was not Snape's idea to teach Harry Occlumency. He did it because Dumbledore wanted him to. So if there's an agenda, it's Dumbledore's. And second, notice exactly *when* Snape becomes "unnerved." Harry has just remembered walking down the corridor to his hearing with Mr. Weasley and realized that it's the same place he's been seeing for months in his dream of the closed door. Snape at this point doesn't know about the dream. So Harry's question hits him like a load of bricks: "He looked up at Snape. "'What's in the Department of Mysteries?' "'What did you say?' Snape asked quietly, and Harry saw, with deep satisfaction, that Snape was unnerved" (OoP Am. ed. 537). Snape is unnerved to realize that Harry knows something that he and DD don't want him to know, something that must have been planted in his mind by Voldemort. Harry tells him about the dream and his deduction that Voldemort wants something from it. Snape is momentarily sidetracked by Voldemort's name (IMO the Dark Mark hurts him when he hears it but that's irrelevant here), but Snape's agitation as he and Harry stare at each other more likely relates to what Harry has said about the dream and Voldemort than by the name itself. He speaks again, sounding as if he's "trying to appear cool and unconcerned," telling Harry that what's in the Department of Mysteries doesn't concern him (537-38). He's lying, but clearly he *is* concerned, and as we know, he reports the dream to Dumbledore. So I think that Tonks may be right. Aside from the nature of Occlumency lessons involving the probing of the students' mind by the teacher, very different from the impersonal and methodical preparation of potions, which would require a different teaching method, I suspect that one reason DD wanted to Snape to teach Harry Occlumency is to find out how far Voldemort has succeeded in invading Harry's mind and exactly what images he has planted there. Notice his focus in the next lesson we see on the image of Rookwood kneeling in the middle of a darkened room (590), though for the moment he's in control (the Potions Master approach). Moments later he turns white and is slightly shaken when Harry breaks into his own memories with a Protego, but he remains calm and actually tells Harry that "that was certainly an improvement" and that "there is no doubt that it [the Shield Charm] was effective" (592)--praise from Snape, whose mind has just been invaded! But the next memory is the dream, which Harry makes no effort to stop--he *wants* it to continue. He gets as far as the room with the blue candles and wakes to find Snape standing over him in a fury. "POTTER! Explain yourself!" He is angry that Harry is still having the dream, not only making no effort to stop it but *willing* it to continue. So, as I see it, the anger and agitation have nothing to do with Occlumency per se or with the antagonistic relationship between Harry and Snape and everything to do with the danger in which Harry is placing himself by continuing to have the dreams. And Snape can't tell him why he's angry because Harry isn't supposed to know about the Prophecy. So Snape's agenda *seems* to be to get Harry to stop having the dreams, but DD's may be to find out what's in Harry's head. Unfortunately we don't get to find out any more about it. The next lesson we're shown is interrupted by Draco and the lessons are ended because of the Pensieve incident. At any rate, Snape is calm when we would least expect him to be and praises Harry on the rare occasions when he does it right. And if it hadn't been for the Pensieve incident, the lessons would have resumed the following evening. And again, the agenda for starting the lessons in the first place is Dumbledore's, not Snape's. As we know from the long conversation between DD and Harry near the end of the book, Snape tells DD that the lessons have been cancelled, and why. DD does not order him to resume them. Either it's too late--LV is already too far into Harry's head to be stopped through Occlumency, or the lessons have served their purpose, telling DD what he wants to know. Carol From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 02:51:05 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:51:05 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122557 Carol wrote:: I agree with Betsy that prejudice against werewolves (who are genuinely dangerous) is not racism. The entire WW classifies werewolves as beasts, not people. (Check "Fantastic Beasts.") snip It is not, IMO, irrational to fear and mistrust such people, especially when the whole WW shares your view. vmonte responds: And we all know that there is no racism in the WW, right? From: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0626-alberthall-fry.htm SF: It is one of the most horrible and brilliant inventions in the books is this snobbery this idea of pureblood and mudblood and mixed breeding which is a reflection of some of the things like racism and intolerance that we have in our world is that deliberate? I mean did it come to you in a flash again or was it something. JKR: It is deliberate that was always there from the beginning really as you saw in Draco because the first time Harry meets him he says something very rude about muggles. I was also playing with that when I created Professor Lupin who has a condition that is contagious of course and so people are very frightened of him and 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've written a teacher I loved really liked to have had because Professor McGonnagol 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. Carol, who's getting a bit tired of all the emotionalism and wishes that people would not get upset when other posters express opinions that they don't share. vmonte responds: What? Vivian From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Jan 21 02:53:14 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:53:14 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: <012c01c4ff62$aaa64dc0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <41F1094A.21817.3B4F979@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122558 On 20 Jan 2005 at 21:41, Charme wrote: > Now I can tell you some of the parents I know, regardless of what their kid > did, would not condone a teacher treating a student in that manner. Neither > would the public or the school system. It does make you wonder what Snape's > temper has caused him to do in the past. I don't want to get into a huge debate about this because it's very hard to keep it calm and rational in my experience, but as a matter of simple fact and record, a great many parents and many school systems have, until quite recently, tolerated far more severe physical treatment of children than we see in the Harry Potter books. Including many of the types of schools that Hogwarts seems to be most closely based on. Certainly many parents, and many school systems would not condone treatment like that. But quite a number would and did. Hogwarts is not a modern school with modern ideas. It's drawing on rather specific traditions. Most modern schools wouldn't tolerate detentions that require an armed teacher as escort either. 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 bleckybecs at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 01:34:23 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:34:23 -0000 Subject: Sirius Mother's Picture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122559 > Stan wrote: > > Why can't Sirius' mother transport between her > > pictures (which must exist somewhere in her extended > > families homes) and tell all of the Phoenix secrets? Jeanette: > I can see being related to them [Malfoys] there would be > another portrait somewhere. She could be a very serious > security breach unless the Order has somehow stopped her > from transporting. I had assumed that all OOTP meetings would take place in the kitchen, out of hearing of portraits. The description of the kitchen says that it has rough stone walls. No mention of pictures. Of course this doesn't prove whether there are pictures on the walls in there one way or the other, but I would also have thought that DD would have taken the possibility of one of them blabbing into account. Becky From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 03:01:35 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:01:35 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122560 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > Alla: > > Not sure if I accept this bet, Carol, since I am also pretty > confident that at the end Snape will redeem himself, BUT I am also > offering you a bet that before that happens we WILL be lead to > believe that Snape has betrayed the Order OR we will learn that > Snape has never truly changed the sides at all. > > In short, before Snape's big redemption thing, we will learn > something TRULY nasty about him. How about THAT bet? :o) Carol: Well, yes. We're almost certainly going to learn what he did as a DE, and even if it was only making potions to help LV in his quest for immortality, that's still aiding and abetting a murderous would-be tyrant. So I have to agree with you here. How about this: We'll treat each other to butterbeer when the series is over. Unless Snape turns out to be an agent of Voldemort, in which case I'll cease to be a fan. In all Siriusness, Carol From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 01:45:35 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:45:35 -0000 Subject: Filch & Mrs. Norris (was Re: The Order's means of communication...) In-Reply-To: <191.37201634.2f21aa4c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122561 > Jeanette: > Does Filtch have a wand? I thought he was a squib. > > Chancie: > Oh well, so then how do you think he finds out > what Mrs. Norris "tells" him? To the best of my knowledge, Mrs. Norris doesn't give actual facts, more kinda alerts Filch to something, just like normal cats and dogs in the muggle world. (E.g. dogs bark when they see someone approaching the house.) Still, I doubt if she's just a normal cat. How many people actually give their pet a title such as Mr or Mrs? Seems wierd to me. Becky (who is obviously prepared to change her mind when someone shows me an example to the contrary or when Mrs. Norris turns out to be the HBP or the mother-in-law of my highschool drama teacher who was also called Mrs. Norris!!) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 03:13:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:13:57 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122562 Alla earlier: Not everyone agrees with the fact that Snape is a horrible guy. Otherwise our Snape bashing and Snape defending sessions would have died out pretty fast. :o) And even if I forget my doubts whether Snape now really thinks that murdering people is a bad thing, I would still think that those who abuse children for their pleasure are not "moral" people. Carol responds: Yes, I'm one of those people who doesn't think that Snape is "horrible"--just strict, sarcastic, and occasionally unfair. Alla: I know. :o) Carol: Definitely not "nice," but until and unless he betrays Harry, DD, or the Order, I will never concede that he's evil. Alla: So, is the bet on or not? I maintain that Snape's emotions against having which he so hypocritically ranted at Harry, will lead him to if not betrayal of the Order, then at least putting Harry in a VERY dangerous situation. I am speculating of course, but somehow it fits in my mind. Carol: His goals are to get Harry to obey the rules, stay out of danger, follow directions, and show respect. Alla: We REALLY don't know what Snape's goals are yet, unfortunately he keeps them to himself in that head of his. Oh, what would I give to use Legilimency spell on Snape. :o) Carol: But what I'm interested in here is not defending Snape for the thousandth time but the idea that a person must be *nice* in order to be *good*. Harry, our hero, whom we all agree is good, is very often not nice, especially in OoP. He's rude and even cruel to Ron and Hermione, his best friends. He's definitely not nice to Seamus when Seamus wants to know what happened to Cedric. And he certainly doesn't turn the other cheek to Dudley; he bullies him in return. I can go quote hunting if you like to show mean!Harry. On those occasions, has he become temporarily evil? Alla: Ummm, yeas... it makes Harry's actions to be not the actions of the good person, IMO. Not EVIL yet, definitely, but NOT good either. I should specify though that I am conceding this assumption ONLY for Harry's actions towards Ron and Hermione. Definitely not for Dudley. For fifteen years Harry suffered from Dudley's actions. Dudley got what he deserved and actually MORE than he deserved, IMO. Sure, Harry bullied him a little, but as soon as danger came , he saved Dudley. I would say that Harry was very " nice" to him when push came to shove. The difference between Harry and Snape, IMO, is that Harry is sorry for those actions and Harry is fifteen, he has time to get it right. Hey, I will offer you another bet - we will see significantly less of "emotionally unbalanced" Harry in HBP AND Snape will be the absolute SAME Carol: Umbridge and Crouch!Moody are both "nicer"than Snape. Does that make them good? Or are meanness and evil two different things? Alla: I thought I said in the earlier post I am NOT talking about fake "niceness", only about genuine one. Just my opinion, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 03:15:04 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:15:04 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <008801c4fd52$e8cab1c0$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "justcarol67" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:20 AM > Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense > of Snape (VERY long) > > > >> And I think it *is* a given that Snape does go back to Voldemort. > > In GoF, Voldemort lists three missing Death Eaters. We know that one > > is Crouch, Jr., one is Karkaroff, and one is Snape. Voldemort calls > > one his "most faithful servant [...] He is at Hogwarts, that faithful > > servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived > >> here tonight..." Obviously - this is Crouch, Jr. > > Do we know for sure that Snape was actually missing from that meeting?! > > ~TrekkieGrrrl Carol responds: You can't apparate from Hogwarts or Hogwarts grounds. Snape would have had to escape DD's eye, run to his office to get his mask and hooded cloak, run to Hogsmeade, apparate, get through the meeting, apparate back to Hogsmeade, run to his office to put away his DE things, and run back to DD with a plausible excuse for his absence and being out of breath. Nope. Not enough time. He's not mentioned by name and LV's description of "the one I believe has left me forever" fits him perfectly. And he's not the coward; that's clearly Karkaroff, who fled after the tournament to avoid retribution from the other DEs. Snape is on hand to help DD burst into Crouch!Moody's office. And what other reformed DE would have the courage to stay away on principle rather than through cowardice like Karkaroff? So, no, we don't know for sure that he wasn't in the graveyard, but I see no plausible way for him to get there and back without being discovered and no plausible reason for him to be there. And at the end of GoF, he is clearly going into danger, almost certainly to explain his absence to either Lucius Malfoy, his contact, or Voldemort himself, and to find out whatever he can for DD. If LV still thought he was a loyal DE who had obeyed the summons and attended the graveyard meeting, there would be no danger. Carol From jmrazo at hotmail.com Fri Jan 21 02:35:16 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:35:16 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Mass Response In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122564 My respones to various posts on the thread I started follow. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca" wrote: > With that many brothers to learn from, she's bound to have had > some sort of head start. Except for her brothers at school are just as surprised about her Quiddich talents. She had to sneak around to ride the twins' brooms (brooms that the great pranksters never thought to charm against theft, yeah right). Hermione had to *explain* that to the others. We weren't shown anything. We were told about it second hand. > We never had an explanation as to why Bill and Charlie were good > enough to be head boys. I'm guessing they just had the brains and > aptitude. They are irrelevant to the story so far. I expect better from a character who accompanies Harry despite having done almost nothing in earlier books. >Seems to stand to reason that Ginny will be involved. Neville too, but his character changes arrived logically and slowly over the course of several stories. Hell, Luna's tiny bit of characterization is better handled than Ginny's. > Hickengruendler: > I don't hate Ginny. But she's also not one of my favourite > characters. She is, so far, one of those who are just there > and who don't really interest me. That said, I dislike the > term *Mary-Sue*. I think fandom uses the term way too often, > describing every female character, that dares to be likeable. First of all, I don't necessarily like the term Mary Sue either but I think it was fair to use since, if I wrote a character with every trait of Ginny's thats what she would be called. And for the record, I didn't find Ginny all that likeable. Certainly if I met Ginny I wouldn't hang out with her. Now Luna on the other hand... > Hickengruendler: > Nope. If you mean the scene in Grimmauld Place, it were Ginny, > Hermione and Ron together. All three of them were offering a part > to reassure harry, that he isn't possesed by Voldemort. Ginny in > talking about her own experiences, Ron in telling him that he > never left the dorm and Hermione in reminding him (again) that you > can't apparate into Hogwarts. It were all three of them together, > and not just one person. You could say that it was Ginny who > reminded him, that she, too, had made bad experiences, but on the > other hand it was Hermione who was able to make him leave the room > and I think Ron was the one who begged Hermione to come. Therefore > I stand by my opinion that all of them helped. Phoenixgod2000 responds: You know, I think you are the first person I've come across that's stated that particular opinion. Everyone runs through that scene through the lens of their own ships. I've certainly never thought about it quite like that. > Chancie: > Why should it be unbelievable that Ginny turns out to be a good > Quidditch player? Harry after all had never even been on a broom > in his entire life, and was made seeker the first time he had ever > flown! That IMO is more unbelievable than Ginny taking Fred and > George's brooms and getting a feel for flying and ending up as a > decent player. Phoenixgod2000: The title of the series is Harry Potter and the 'Blank'. He's the hero, of course he can do things that others can't duplicate. It's the same reason why Luke Skywalker can blow up the death star while never having flown a X-Wing. He's the flippin' hero. That's what they do. Others should not be able to do the same thing. So you find that Ginny can sneak out, away from her domineering mother, stealing the broom of one of her prankster brothers, who would never do anything like booby trap their brooms, leave the small creaking house she lives in, and then flies around their small plot of land at night in order to get good at flying? Please. Even if that was true, she could never have practiced with Quidditch balls or anything, and never played against anyone. That's no way to become good at a team sport. > vmonte responds: > There is a good essay about Ginny on the Lexicon ... That Essay seems to be more about H/G than Ginny herself. It's also a little insulting. I didn't see uberGinny coming and I am not a shallow reader. > Antosha: > Becky, I _welcomed_ Ginny's blossoming in OotP. And I disagree > that the character has gone through a sudden change. Rather > Harry's PERCEPTION of her goes through a transformation. The problem is that the change was too sudden and IMO illogical. One of the basic rules of writing is that you are supposed to show changes not explain them. All of Ginny's changes were explained second hand by Hermione or someone else. And how did Hermione even get to be such good friends with her? They are in separate years and have no classes together. They stay in separate dorms. There has never, as far as I can recall, a mention of Hermione ever even spending time with Ginny in previous books, which the boys would have noticed because you know Ron would have complained about it. Seems like sloppy writing to me. > Antosha: > It isn't until OotP that the opportunity for Harry truly to get > to know Ginny appears. It's not that _she's_ gone through a > transformation: we've been told before that she's talkative, good > with hexes, etc. Once again, told not shown. I don't care that she's good at a spell I've never heard of and never demonstrated. Where did she learn it? How did she get good at it if she can't use magic over the summer? Did her mother teach it to her in order to help keep the twins in line? Or did the twins teach it to her in order to tweak their mother's goat? See, these are the types of questions that could have helped to make her plausible. And one throw away line about not shutting up is good enough foreshadowing to me. > Antosha: > That's not the point of phoenixgod's objection, I think. Rather > s/he doesn't like the fact that all this pluck/spunk/whatever has > come from nowhere. But I don't think it did, as I've pointed out > above. To be fair, I have problems with both parts. The personality she showed was irrating and made more so by the suddenness of the transformation. And one quote, 'that she never shuts up' means nothing in terms of personality. It tells us nothing about her other than she likes to talk. So what. If she's going to be a big player there should be a lot more than that. JK's nuturing of the character Neville Longbottom was an excellent piece of transformation that I bought completely and found logical. Now I just want to see him stand up to snape with that shiny new backbone of his. Ginny's transformation was the opposite of Neville's in every way. > Antosha: > But I am sure we'll see more of her--and I am comfortable that > what we see has been set up by what has come before. I do admit that part of my problem comes from my dislike of H/G ships. I fear that JK is rushing her characterization in order to turn her into a cool chick for the boy hero to fall for. Harry and Ginny pairing up just seems...pathetic to me. Look, Wittle Harry has gone and fallen for a spunky redhead just like his dad did. It's trite and pathetic on more levels than I can possibly articulate over the computer. Of course that just IMO. Phoenixgod2000 I was glad to see so many responses to my post even if I am in the clear minority. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 03:25:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:25:59 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122565 Alla: Not sure if I accept this bet, Carol, since I am also pretty confident that at the end Snape will redeem himself, BUT I am also offering you a bet that before that happens we WILL be lead to believe that Snape has betrayed the Order OR we will learn that Snape has never truly changed the sides at all. In short, before Snape's big redemption thing, we will learn something TRULY nasty about him. How about THAT bet? :o) Carol: Well, yes. We're almost certainly going to learn what he did as a DE, and even if it was only making potions to help LV in his quest for immortality, that's still aiding and abetting a murderous would-be tyrant. So I have to agree with you here. How about this: We'll treat each other to butterbeer when the series is over. Unless Snape turns out to be an agent of Voldemort, in which case I'll cease to be a fan. In all Siriusness, Carol Alla: I will be happy to treat you to Butterbeer, Carol, but I believe you misunderstood me a little bit. I think that not only we will learn something truly nasty about Snape's past, but also that he will do something truly nasty in the present to Order or to Harry. I DON'T KNOW whether he will do it on purpose or he will be provoked by something, I don't know whether his sadistic impulses, because of which IMO he is not getting DA will get out of control for some reason, I don't know what will happen, but I believe that something bad will happen and it WILL be Snape's fault AND Snape's fault only now. Think about it and I am not asking you to agree or concede, I am only explaining my rationale. Sure, Harry still says at the end of OOP that he "will never forgive Snape, EVER", but is reader really in doubt whose side Snape on now? We still have two more books to go and I believe Jo is setting the stage for Harry to be right for once. I think that Snape will definitely struggle to correct whatever he would do because of him being "too emotional" (I don't know, maybe unwillingly helping Voldie and Co to capture Harry) and that is how his redemption will occur, sort of, because I more prefer gradul redemption, not really Bangy!one. That is definitely NOT the scenario I want to happen, I much prefer to see Snape struggle for redemption on the right side of the equation, but my belief that story may go this way. So, how did you like my trip to speculation land? Is the offer still on now? :o) By the way, are you saying that if Snape turns out to be ESE! you won't like him anymore? :o) I think we agree here, because the only way I could stop liking Sirius would be if he turns out ESE. I just don't like villains. :o) Just my opinion, Alla From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 03:26:43 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:26:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. References: <41F1094A.21817.3B4F979@localhost> Message-ID: <01c001c4ff69$07e9ac60$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122566 From: "Shaun Hately" > > On 20 Jan 2005 at 21:41, Charme wrote: > >> Now I can tell you some of the parents I know, regardless of what their >> kid >> did, would not condone a teacher treating a student in that manner. >> Neither >> would the public or the school system. It does make you wonder what >> Snape's >> temper has caused him to do in the past. > > I don't want to get into a huge debate about this because it's very > hard to keep it calm and rational in my experience, but as a matter > of simple fact and record, a great many parents and many school > systems have, until quite recently, tolerated far more severe > physical treatment of children than we see in the Harry Potter > books. > > Including many of the types of schools that Hogwarts seems to be > most closely based on. > > Certainly many parents, and many school systems would not condone > treatment like that. But quite a number would and did. > > Hogwarts is not a modern school with modern ideas. It's drawing on > rather specific traditions. > > Most modern schools wouldn't tolerate detentions that require an > armed teacher as escort either. > Charme: No worries about not being able to keep it calm and rational with me, my friend. :) I love Snape, however I think that canon is there for a reason - I've never gone to school in Britian, so I've no idea what was acceptable there, nor how long ago such discipline was commonly practiced. My next question is not meant to inflame, incite or suggest any sort of argument - are you suggesting that the reader should ignore that canon as something explicable by tradition? In my experience here in the States, I am one of the fortunate ones (danger Will Robinson, my age is about to show) to remember during my elementary and middle school years, teachers could still paddle students. I moved around a lot here, and have attended schools in more the average number of states in the Northeast and Midwest and all of them discontinued such "accepted" practices shortly after 1978 or so. Teachers here, private and parochial, cannot touch a student in the manner Snape did mainly for legal and liability reasons, and such items are as a matter of routine included in most, if not all, school district employment contracts with their employees. As far as your comment regarding an armed teacher as an escort for detentions, I am not sure what you mean. Here, school districts seperate the armed escort part by employing security people for such purposes, thereby providing that function separate from teachers. Still, for me it goes back to the main concept of Snape's ability to control his anger and it does still make me wonder what he might have done in the past (or perhaps will do in the future) as a result of his struggle to control it. It makes me go back to Snape's diatribe with Harry during one of his Occulmency lessons: paraphased, he refers to those who wear or cannot control their emotions openly being easy prey for LV. Makes me think that scene means more than meets the eye. :) Thanks - Charme From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 03:27:35 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:27:35 -0000 Subject: Snape's Meyers- Briggs type( was : More on Snape In-Reply-To: <41F103DB.28954.39FBE93@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122567 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" wrote: > On 20 Jan 2005 at 17:45, leslie41 at y... wrote: > > > Snape is most obviously an ISTJ in the Meyers-Briggs personality > > scale. Here's the link to the site which decides what personality type you are (take the test as Snape and you will undoubtedly get ISTJ as the type): > >Shaun now: > Yes, but personally I've always felt Snape to be more of an INTJ > (although a rather unhealthy one) than an ISTJ (I'm an ISTJ > myself... Percy comes across to me as ISTJ). > > Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought > Shaun Hately Tonks here; Ah, just when I thought there was nothing left to say about Snape. The Meyers-Briggs, of course! Thank you Leslie for bringing that up. I agree with Shaun as to Snape's type. I am an INFP or sometimes close to an INFJ in a work setting. I had a boss once who was an INTJ and she was a living hell to work for. Nasty... she would make Snape look like a Saint!! I like to think that Harry is an INFP too. Intuitive and Feeling meets Intuitive and Thinking. One sees the other as cold and uncaring. That one sees the other as wearing their heart on their sleeve. THAT WOMAN I worked for. I just hated her and felt guilty for it too. She was emotionally abusive. I would go home in tears or rage. One day I came up with a way to keep her from getting to me. I guess it was Occumency!! I put up a protective barrier around my heart/mind. I would not let her insults in. I turned off my feeling part when around her so she could not hurt me. And much to my shock she knew it. She said to me one day "I feel a wall, like you have put up a wall and I can not get in". How right she was!!! She could sense it I guess because she was also intuitive. An intuitive that is without feeling is a dangerous person in my option. They would make a good spy, or a good DE. They could do what ever nasty thing needed to be done without feeling bad about it. Not a feeling type. We even have compassion on Snape and Tom. When I wasn't furious with THAT WOMAN I could have some compassion even for her, but not often. Now here is another thing that THAT WOMAN and Snape have in common. Much to my surprise, in spite of her intelligence, and intuition she did not really know the impact that her behavior had on others. I discovered this one day when she told us all that she had been with her grandson and when he started to cross a street and a car was coming she grabbed him and called him Stupid!! The kid bust into tears and she just didn't understand why he would do that. Not a clue. And this woman was a psychotherapist!! Not a clue. We all hated her. And so it is with Snape. Now I really hate to admit this, but I did learn things from her. It was my first job out of college. I was so afraid of doing it wrong; I learned to do the best assessments possible. I think I would have learned it anyway, but maybe not. There is something motivating about fear, sorry to say. And the superivisors that I had later (after they fired her) did not expect as much of me. But I learned to do it to please her, and I was very good at it. So I guess in Snapes class I would have passed my OWLS with 100%, even with him in the room. Tonks_op From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 03:32:22 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:32:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) References: Message-ID: <01d601c4ff69$d24e1cc0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122568 > Alla: > > I will be happy to treat you to Butterbeer, Carol, but I believe > you misunderstood me a little bit. I think that not only we will > learn something truly nasty about Snape's past, but also that he > will do something truly nasty in the present to Order or to Harry. > > I DON'T KNOW whether he will do it on purpose or he will be provoked > by something, I don't know whether his sadistic impulses, because of > which IMO he is not getting DA will get out of control for some > reason, I don't know what will happen, but I believe that something > bad will happen and it WILL be Snape's fault AND Snape's fault only > now. > Charme: Hi Alla! If Snape does something nasty to Harry or to the Order, I'm betting it will be in a fit of anger and it will be bad enough Severus will have to blame himself completely - then we'll see a sacrifice redemption from him to atone. Charme, who'll take that bet and raise you a firewhiskey if you're so inclined - it's chilly outside :) From sherriola at earthlink.net Fri Jan 21 03:38:22 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:38:22 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Mass Response In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <01a501c4ff6a$a8c697a0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 122569 phoenixgod The problem is that the change was too sudden and IMO illogical. One of the basic rules of writing is that you are supposed to show changes not explain them. All of Ginny's changes were explained second hand by Hermione or someone else. And how did Hermione even get to be such good friends with her? They are in separate years and have no classes together. They stay in separate dorms. There has never, as far as I can recall, a mention of Hermione ever even spending time with Ginny in previous books, which the boys would have noticed because you know Ron would have complained about it. Seems like sloppy writing to me. Sherry now Actually, I got the idea in GOF that Hermione and Ginny were friends. It made perfect sense. They have spent summers at the burrow together. They shared a tent at the World Cup. There were scenes around the Yule Ball that gave me the impression that the two girls had become friends. I always have had friends older and younger than me, friends from different classes, schools, offices, whatever. That part seems perfectly feasible and logical to me. Of course, I do like Ginny and have always liked her. I think, whether she's just meant to be a friend, or being set up as a player or a love interest, she's the one who isn't intimidated by Harry's tantrums and can understand things about him that the other friends cannot. Sherry From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Fri Jan 21 03:43:50 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:43:50 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122570 On Friday, January 21, 2005, at 11:42 am, vmonte wrote: > The lucky thing about being the only girl is that all of your stuff > is always new. She cannot use any of the boy's hand-me-downs, right > (well, except for the baby clothes)? The boys on the other hand have > it rough. The oldest is guaranteed new clothes, but the rest get the > hand-me-downs. > > Vivian > Yeah, I have 2 older boys and a girl, and even when she gets hand-me-downs, the girl gets a better deal. When word got out that I was accepting hand-me-downs I got BAGS of the stuff, mostly pink, because gender-neutral stuff often went to boys and people were left with the frou-frou stuff for which they had to find a girl. And she is given cute outfits on the slightest excuse by friends and family who 'just couldn't resist'. No-one seems to have trouble resisting buying outfits for the boys! But she is the only girl on both sides of the family. Jocelyn --------- From drednort at alphalink.com.au Fri Jan 21 03:47:38 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:47:38 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: <01c001c4ff69$07e9ac60$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: <41F1160A.10330.3E6C738@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122571 On 20 Jan 2005 at 22:26, Charme wrote: > Charme: > > No worries about not being able to keep it calm and rational with me, my > friend. :) I love Snape, however I think that canon is there for a reason - > I've never gone to school in Britian, so I've no idea what was acceptable > there, nor how long ago such discipline was commonly practiced. My next > question is not meant to inflame, incite or suggest any sort of argument - > are you suggesting that the reader should ignore that canon as something > explicable by tradition? No, not exactly. What I am saying, I suppose is that we need to be rather careful when saying something like (as you said), Snape "can be what some would perceive as physically abusive when angered" (incidentally, I do think you were careful in saying it) because whether or not something is considered physically abusive can to a great extent, depend on particular cultural views. Hogwarts as a literary construct is, IMHO, (which I've enunciated at great length in an essay that can be found at: http://www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/HSWW.html - it was posted here a while back) based on the British 'Public Schools' (or at least is based on such schools as presented in a large body of children's literature written in the 19th and 20th centuries). I don't think it can be fairly assessed unless people either assess it in terms of the real practices at such schools, or are prepared to explain why they are choosing to assess it on a different basis. > In my experience here in the States, I am one of the fortunate ones (danger > Will Robinson, my age is about to show) to remember during my elementary and > middle school years, teachers could still paddle students. I moved around a > lot here, and have attended schools in more the average number of states in > the Northeast and Midwest and all of them discontinued such "accepted" > practices shortly after 1978 or so. Teachers here, private and parochial, > cannot touch a student in the manner Snape did mainly for legal and > liability reasons, and such items are as a matter of routine included in > most, if not all, school district employment contracts with their employees. > As far as your comment regarding an armed teacher as an escort for > detentions, I am not sure what you mean. Here, school districts seperate > the armed escort part by employing security people for such purposes, > thereby providing that function separate from teachers. What I was talking about with the armed escort concept was the first detention we see in 'Philosopher's Stone'. As a standard, apparently quite acceptable, disciplinary method at Hogwarts, Professor McGonagall sends Harry, Hermione, Neville, and Draco into the Forbidden Forest in the middle of the night. This is dangerous enough that Hagrid is carrying a crossbow. How many schools are there around where a detention involves 11 year olds having to do something so dangerous, the teacher has to carry a weapon? Too often, in my view, people try to ascribe modern educational ideas and modern educational practices to Hogwarts. Leaving aside whether or not these are good or bad practices (in my view, they are a mixture - some are good, some are not), most of them do not seem to be culturally relevant to Hogwarts. Judging Snape on the basis of modern pedagogy seems odd to me because we're not seeing a modern pedagogical context. It jars to me, to an extent, because I attended a very traditional school that (like I believe is the case with Hogwarts) was founded on the traditions of the British Public schools. I'm also doing an Education degree at the moment, where I'm exposed to lots of the modern ideas, and modern practices. I think both have validity - but it's difficult to compare one in light of the other. And yet, it seems to happen a lot when discussing Hogwarts. People who had very 'modern' educational experiences, sometimes seem to condemn Hogwarts (or particular practices, or particular teachers) just because they do not fit into the way experience tells them schools should be. Personally, while I think it's perfectly valid to consider that Hogwarts and particular practices, and particular teachers, has real faults, those faults should be seen in the context of the school as presented, not the context of the school as we would like it to be. > Still, for me it goes back to the main concept of Snape's ability to control > his anger and it does still make me wonder what he might have done in the > past (or perhaps will do in the future) as a result of his struggle to > control it. It makes me go back to Snape's diatribe with Harry during one of > his Occulmency lessons: paraphased, he refers to those who wear or cannot > control their emotions openly being easy prey for LV. Makes me think that > scene means more than meets the eye. :) Yes, and see - to me, Snape's ability to control his anger is disturbing. I don't see any real inherent problem with Snape grabbing Harry hard enough to bruise his arm, or even with him pushing Harry over. In the context of the type of school, Hogwarts is presented as being, those things don't strike me as major problems. But Snape being unable to control himself *does*. Because while that happened a lot in the past at such schools, it was never really considered normal or acceptable there (well, maybe a long time ago). Another example - Umbridge's quill. Personally, in the context of the type of school, Hogwarts is presented as being, the quill doesn't strike me as a majorly wrong punishment. What makes it wrong, what makes it evil, is that Umbridge uses it not to punish, but to torture. The quill itself - a punishment involving significant pain - well, that's nothing unusual in that cultural context (even though Hogwarts seems to have largely abandoned such methods) - but it's not being used as a punishment on Harry - at least not for any real and honest offence. 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 03:50:20 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:50:20 -0000 Subject: Sirius Mother's Picture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122572 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bleckybecs" wrote: > > > Stan wrote: > > > Why can't Sirius' mother transport between her > > > pictures (which must exist somewhere in her extended > > > families homes) and tell all of the Phoenix secrets? > > Jeanette: > > I can see being related to them [Malfoys] there would be > > another portrait somewhere. She could be a very serious > > security breach unless the Order has somehow stopped her > > from transporting. > > > I had assumed that all OOTP meetings would take place in the > kitchen, out of hearing of portraits. The description of the kitchen says that it has rough stone walls. No mention of pictures. Of course this doesn't prove whether there are pictures on the walls in there one way or the other, but I would also have thought that DD > would have taken the possibility of one of them blabbing into > account. > > Becky Tonks here: Well now that sounds good. Except what about Kreacher? Wouldn't he be around or listening at the door? He could not leave the house, but he could talk to the portrait. DD is very smart so this must have been taken into account. Maybe we just haven't been told. I hope that they did something to prevent Mrs. Black from going to the Malfoys. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 03:53:58 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:53:58 -0000 Subject: The Scar , Runes, and Theories of GH events. WAS ( His mothers eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122573 > > Valky to Carol: > Hi sorry for the late reply Carol, it seems that this thread is > getting close to the mark going by all the interest, don't you > think. ;D > > Like I said I am entirely dead certain that Lily's brilliance in > Charmwork relates to what she did in Godrics Hollow that night to > protect Harry. Carol responds: Yes. So am I. And I'm hoping we'll find that we're right in the first chapter of HBP. > > vmonte (responding to Valky): > This is very interesting. I had to do some research on Runes so that > I could join in on your discussion. I wanted to add another thought > to your posts. Several months ago a poster named Jen Reese came up > with a theory regarding Sirius's induction as Harry's Godfather. She > described a baptism/contract that bonded Sirius to Harry forever. Do > you think it is possible that it was during this ceremony that the > sowulo rune was applied to Harry's head? > > In Christian ceremonies the sign of the cross is made on the child's > forehead with holy water, perhaps this is when Harry's protection was > applied. > > > I've attached some great links below. > > http://www.gobiel.com/sonsofruss/runes/sowulo.jpg > > http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/ > > http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/meanings.html > > Carol responds: Thanks for the links. I still think it's an eihwaz rune, though, even though the shape is not quite right, because of Hermione's mistake on her ancient runes test (sowilu or sowulu has not been mentioned, but eihwaz has) and because of the association of eihwaz with protection and defense. Also an interesting tidbit I picked up from the site you linked us to: It's associated with the yew tree. And Voldemort's wand, which created the cut that healed into the scar and, according to the theory, released the protective charm, is made of yew wood. Interesting, eh? And ironic? I snipped Vivian's comment about Luna, but I agree that Luna could be involved here. Wouldn't it be funny if she was the one to recognize the rune and Hermione scoffed at her, rushing off to her books only to find that Luna was right? Carol, who hopes that someone will come up with an acronym for the theory but doesn't want to risk putting a ship into TBAY From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 04:06:24 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:06:24 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122574 Tammy wrote: > >Carol wrote: > > >> And I think it *is* a given that Snape does go back to Voldemort. In GoF, Voldemort lists three missing Death Eaters. We know that one is Crouch, Jr., one is Karkaroff, and one is Snape. Voldemort calls one his "most faithful servant [...] He is at Hogwarts, that faithful servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived here tonight..." Obviously - this is Crouch, Jr. Carol responds: Whoa! I didn't write this. I was quoting Betsy. I think the poster you were quoting forgot to attribute the quote so you assumed it was mine. I don't think it's a given that Snape returned to Voldemort. He may have gone to Lucius Malfoy instead. I do, however, agree with Betsy that Crouch Jr. is the "faithful servant." For what I really said, please go upthread to post 122246. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122246 Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 05:10:51 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:10:51 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122575 Pippin: > > the student must learn to fight > > back with everything he has > Eggplant: > Yes, and fighting back with everything he has was exactly what Harry > was doing when he looked into the Pensive. If you find that your > opponent has made a mistake, like being careless where you put your > memories, then the warrior must exploit that mistake. And that is > what Harry is really in training to become, a warrior. Carol responds: Looking in the Pensieve is not fighting back. It's violating Snape's privacy. Fighting back is using a stinging hex or a Protego, both of which Snape *praises* Harry for using, even though he did it involuntarily. He also tells him to fight back with his mind and he won't need a wand. But Harry isn't listening, any more than he's listening when Snape tells him to clear his mind of anger. Maybe Harry *can't* clear his mind because LV's venom has confused his thinking so that he's angry about everything. But also, he wants to continue having that dream, and he hates Snape and uses that hatred as an excuse not to follow his instructions: "'You are to rid your mind of all emotion every night before sleep--empty it, make it blank and calm, you understand?' "'Yes,' said Harry, *who was barely listening*" (OoP Am. ed. 538). In any case, putting those three memories in the Pensieve is not being unfair. It's the only protection Snape has. All of Snape's other memories are open to Harry if he follows instructions. He tells Harry to use whatever weapons he has to protect himself: "'You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me, or defend yourself in any other way you can think of,' said Snape" (534). Harry can stupefy him or petrify him or make him eat slugs and Snape won't fight back because Harry will be doing what he's told. When Harry succeeds in seeing three of Snape's childhood memories, Snape does not punish him or hex him. He praises him. "Well, Potter, that was certainly an improvement" (592). Almost certainly snape has good reasons for putting the memories in the Pensieve. The one memory we see relates to Harry's father and is therefore highly personal to *both* parties. It would have been highly disruptive had that memory come out during an Occlumency lesson. And what the other two memories are we don't know--possibly things that Snape doesn't want *Voldemort* to access through Harry--for example, his decision to spy for Dumbledore instead of working for Voldemort. We can't judge Snape's use of the Pensieve without knowing his motives. And if Dumbledore had not seen the necessity for Snape to conceal these memories, he would not have allowed Snape to borrow the Pensieve. There is no need and no excuse for Harry's violating Snape's privacy by entering the Pensieve. He should have fought back in the lessons instead, as instructed. He was not being a warrior. He was being a spy against someone fighting on his own side. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 05:32:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:32:12 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122576 Carol responds: Looking in the Pensieve is not fighting back. It's violating Snape's privacy. Fighting back is using a stinging hex or a Protego, both of which Snape *praises* Harry for using, even though he did it involuntarily. Alla: I must have missed the part,where Snape "praises" Harry for using a Stinging Hex. "Did you mean to produce a Stinging Hex?" asked Snape cooly. "No, said Harry bitterly, getting up from the floor. " I thought not," said Snape contemptuously, "You let me get in too far. You lost control" - p.535, OOP. Sounds to me that Snape is downplays Harry's success, at very least and it IS quite a success, unvoluntarily, or not. He only practices Occlumency for the first time in his life and he only allowed Snape to see "flashes of it" Shouldn't Snape be more happy about it, if he was indeed teaching in good faith? I wonder. Carrol: He also tells him to fight back with his mind and he won't need a wand. But Harry isn't listening, any more than he's listening when Snape tells him to clear his mind of anger. Alla: He does listen "I am trying, but you are not telling me how" - p.535 Do we get any explanation from Snape? "Manners, Potter" Can I say not helpful much? Carol: There is no need and no excuse for Harry's violating Snape's privacy by entering the Pensieve. He should have fought back in the lessons instead, as instructed. He was not being a warrior. He was being a spy against someone fighting on his own side. Alla: Of course, Harry was not a warrior there. He was supposedly learning a tough subject,even though war related from an instructor, who was treating him like an enemy, IMO only of course. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 05:38:37 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:38:37 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122577 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > > > > > Do we know for sure that Snape was actually missing from that meeting?! > > > The one too cowardly to return could also be Ludo Bagman. Karkaroff turned traitor and could therefore just as easily be the 'one who has left me for good. Killing traitors is a time-honoured practice after > all : ). Bagman now is the head of a department, and thus in an > excellent position to be usefull to LV. I'm also wondering, how did he manage to join the Ministry and rise to become head of a department? > He is not that bright, he must have needed some serious help. > > Gerry Carol responds: What would Bagman be afraid of? Karkaroff is afraid of retribution from the other DEs for being a snitch. Also we have no evidence that Bagman ever did anything more than unwittingly pass information to Rookwood. We *know* Karkaroff is/was a DE and that he's a coward who flees when the TriWizard Cup turns into a portkey and he feels his Dark Mark burn. Carol From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 04:01:43 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:01:43 -0000 Subject: Sirius Mother's Picture / Kreacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122578 > Becky: > > I had assumed that all OOTP meetings would take place in the > > kitchen, out of hearing of portraits. > > Tonks here: > Well now that sounds good. Except what about Kreacher? Wouldn't > he be around or listening at the door? He could not leave the > house, but he could talk to the portrait. DD is very smart so this > must have been taken into account. Maybe we just haven't been told. > I hope that they did something to prevent Mrs. Black from going to > the Malfoys. Hmmm.... there is something in the long talk at the end of OOTP where I think that the Krecher buisness is explained (pg. 732 in my copy, which is English). DD says that he was directly ordered not to give away any of the order's secret plans (and now I'm back to assuming), most probably, not to anyone outside of it. That would include Sirius's mother. It's clear that he HAS been to the Malfoy's from exactly the same talk, but he is limited in what he could tell them. Becky From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 21 06:08:48 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:08:48 -0000 Subject: Nice vs good was Re: Favorite Snape Scenes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122579 Nora: So I would say that yes, a person must be genuinely nice--that is to say, treat other people with respect for their subjectivity--to *be*a good person. Pippin: My problem here is that in some cases, consideration of other people can be so effortless that it may not be a good indication of how much someone would actually put themselves out for another person. Such people can be full of genuine warmth and helpfulness until it's going to cost them something they don't want to give; then, somehow, they don't perceive the need, or pretend that they don't. Think of Lupin, deciding that he knows nothing useful about Sirius, or Fudge deciding to believe Rita Skeeter instead of Dumbledore. On the other hand there are people who require tremendous effort to be civil, much less nice, but who are determined to use the skills they do have for others benefit. I would put Snape in that category. Pippin From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 21 07:54:33 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:54:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122580 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > But teaching *style* and teaching *ability* are two different things. > Surely there's no question that Snape knows his subject (Potions-- I'm > not getting into Occlumency here), the first criterion for teaching > ability. The question that has not yet been fully answered is whether > his students are learning what he's teaching. Geoff: You must also bear in mind that some folk have a deep knowledge of their subjects but are hopeless teachers - I can think of professional people who moved sideways into teaching in the days before it was necessary to hold a teaching qualification who were no good at imparting knowledge to others. I shoudl perhaps explain for non-UK readers that, at one time a graduate could go into teaching without having any formal teacher training; it was very common in places like grammar schools. Many of the teachers at the school I attended were in this category. Fortunately, most of them managed pretty well. It was only the occasional member of staff who dropped into the Professor Binns category and bored the pants off everyone by basically lecturing pupils rather than teaching them. In the village where I now live, we have a small computer centre where we run half day courses for absolute beginners - usually retired older folk - and offer one-to-one help. I am now the course tutor (sounds grand doesn't it!) and soon after I came, the guy who was already there handed over the reins to me because he was a retired engineer and admitted that, although he was highly trained, he hadn't got the communication skills to put things over to students. I accept that Snape has the ability, but I doubt that he has the style or the right personality to really get the learning environment which would benefit /every/ Hogwarts student. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 07:58:11 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 07:58:11 -0000 Subject: Method- communication- Patronus vs Little Birdie In-Reply-To: <54.3c25c7c2.2f21bdc2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122581 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/20/2005 5:45:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, > vmonte at y... writes: > > JLV here: > I definitely agree that the Patronus is the most likely candidate > for being the method of communication that the Order use. > > > > ************************************************* > > Chancie: > > Reasons I don't believe a Patronus is the answer: > > 1. Harry is told that the Patronus charm is VERY difficult. > > 2. I don't remember .. that they make sound, so how > can they deliver a message? > > 3. How could a witch or wizard send a Patronus ..., > without it being seen by a muggle or possibly even a DE? > > 4. How would a witch or wizard beable to keep the Patronus from > disapearing? ... > > It just seems to me that there has to be an easier way to send > messages! > > If anyone can prove me wrong, please do! bboyminn: Well, I think the Patronus Charm is a logical assumption, but I think it is wrong. The Patronus is suspected because when Dumbledore found Krum stunned, he cast a spell that sent something slivery and almost bird-like flying of to Hagrid's cabin. True, Patronus's are slivery and usually animal-like, in addition, we have been told by JKR that Dumbledore's Patronus is indeed a Phoenix, so that creates a bird connection, but I none the less think it is wrong. As Chancie pointed out, Patronus's are fleeting, they don't last long. As soon as the Dementor threat is gone, the Patronus vanishes. Also, no indication that they can talk, which would impede their ability to deliver messages. So, what's my theory? Ever heard the expression, '...a little birdie told me'? I think we are seeing a very specific Message Charm that I will dub the 'little birdie charm'. The idea of using birds to deliver messages is well represented. Owls are the most obvious, but let's not forget messenger pigeons that were frequently used in the real world to deliver messages. Just as with messenger pigeons, I think the 'Birdie' charm is limited to short and to the point messages. Anything more complicated must be delivered by some other means. Let's not forget that the Order also has ghosts and living portraits available to deliver more complex messages. Those would be very effective means. I also think ghosts would make very effective spies. So, I do agree, the spell Dumbledore used to summon Hagrid is the spell that JKR is referring to, but I'm not convinced it's a Patronus Charm. At the same time, as I acknowledged above, the Messenger Charm is somewhat Patronus like in appearance. If it was a true Patronus, then I think it operated in a limited context. It could be that if Dumbledore did indeed cast a Patronus to summon Hagrid, that the Patronus didn't actually deliver a message. It's conceivable that Dumbledore merely sent a symbol, a phoenix, that Hagrid would recognise as representing Dumbledore, and divined the location of the problem by nothing more than the direction from which the Patronus came. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) From kempermentor at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 08:38:35 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:38:35 -0000 Subject: Nice vs good was Re: Favorite Snape Scenes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122582 Nora wrote: > So I would say that yes, a person must be genuinely nice--that is > to say, treat other people with respect for their subjectivity--to > *be*a good person. > > Pippin responded: > My problem here is that in some cases, consideration of other > people can be so effortless that it may not be a good indication > of how much someone would actually put themselves out for > another person. > > Such people can be full of genuine warmth and helpfulness > until it's going to cost them something they don't want to give; > then, somehow, they don't perceive the need, or pretend that they > don't. Think of Lupin, deciding that he knows nothing useful > about Sirius, or Fudge deciding to believe Rita Skeeter instead of > Dumbledore. > > On the other hand there are people who require tremendous > effort to be civil, much less nice, but who are determined to use > the skills they do have for others benefit. I would put Snape in > that category. Kemper now: I agree with Pippin. I am reminded of a story from the Bible. I think Jesus was telling it. The gist of story is that shoppers in a market would go to very pleasant, personable merchants to buy thier goods and avoid this one particular merchant who had bad customer service. The pleasant merchants would cheat their customers and the mean merchant was honest. This got me to thinking about teachers who we like. I began reading year 5 again and had a horrible thought as I was reading "In The Hog's Head". Hermione is saying that she found nothing in the school rules for the group to meet, "we not out-of-bounds; I specifically asked Professor Flitwick if students were allowed to come in the Hog's Head..."(336, US hard). How did an eveasdropper come to be at the Hog's Head? Was it coincidence? Someone, please respond. I like Flitwick and eagerly want to be wrong. Kemper From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Fri Jan 21 08:40:23 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:40:23 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nice vs good was Re: Favorite Snape Scenes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <176C9298-6B88-11D9-BC39-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 122583 On Friday, January 21, 2005, at 07:38 pm, kempermentor wrote: > Someone, please respond. I like Flitwick and eagerly want to be > wrong. Well, where did Hermione ask him, I wonder? Probably in a school corridor or classroom, where she could be overheard. Well spotted, though! Jocelyn From olivertraldi at gmail.com Fri Jan 21 08:38:46 2005 From: olivertraldi at gmail.com (delemtri) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:38:46 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Mass Response In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122584 > Phoenixgod: > Except for her brothers at school are just as surprised about her > Quiddich talents. She had to sneak around to ride the twins' brooms > (brooms that the great pranksters never thought to charm against > theft, yeah right). Hermione had to *explain* that to the others. > We weren't shown anything. We were told about it second hand. I'm not going to respond to your whole post, but I think it's fair to use just this one piece as an example of how unfairly you're looking at the situation. Fred and George were nine when Ginny snuck out to steal their brooms. Ron didn't know *any* spells when entering school at *eleven.* Whatever your reasons are for thinking Ginny's characterization is "sloppy," "trite," and "pathetic," you're letting it distort your view of the text. I personally think the way JKR pulls off the characterization is - interesting, at least. Did you notice that one of her main methods - with Ginny much more so than any other character - is a linkage with another character? She's linked most strongly with the twins, with Tonks, and with Sirius. I can post canon examples of this if you like. In the end, there's a very good reason why we don't see much with Ginny and why her transformation seems sudden: the "elbow in the butter dish" problem. She *doesn't act the same way around Harry as she acts around anybody else* and we *never* see her without Harry. (This is another reason why being told secondhand is effective!) Oliver From jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 21 10:03:12 2005 From: jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk (jlv230) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:03:12 -0000 Subject: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) In-Reply-To: <54.3c25c7c2.2f21bdc2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122585 JLV (I) said: I definitely agree that the Patronus is the most likely candidate for being the method of communication that the Order use. ************************************************* Chancie replied: Reasons I don't believe a Patronus is the answer: 1. Harry is told that the Patronus charm is VERY difficult. JLV replies: Aha, but the Order members are not just any old wizards, are they? Also many DA members managed to produce one after much practice. And most messages won't be sent in front of Dementors which may make thing a lot easier. Chancie: 2. I don't remember that they make sound, so how can they deliver a message? JLV: Messages can be delivered without the Patronus having to make a sound (especially as sounds could be overheard), and we do know that Patroni can move. JKR could devise many wonderful ways for a Patronus to pass on information if she wanted to. In addition, my Physics degree tells me that anything that is corporeal (=of a material nature i.e. tangible) which may move is perfectly capable of producing a sound in air. Whether or not it could talk is, of course, another matter entirely! Chancie: 3. How could a witch or wizard send a Patronus, without it being seen by a muggle or possibly even a DE? JLV: Good question ? I'm not sure. The gang sure could see the bird Dumbledore sent off - perhaps they just move so fast that they don't get seen ? once they have time to accelerate out of the wand However, if we do believe that Dumbledore's bird is the method of communication, then we can't deny that it would indeed be visible at least at some part of its journey, even if it isn't a Patronus. Chancie: 4. How would a witch or wizard be able to keep the Patronus from disappearing? JLV: Ditto above if they move fast then they could deliver the message before they disappear. Alternatively, perhaps the Patronus only lasts as long as the task it has been given lasts (if it is a corporeal one, at least), hence why it disappears after driving off the Dementors ? it simply isn't needed anymore. Chancie: It just seems to me that there has to be an easier way to send messages! JLV: Couldn't agree more ? but you don't need an O in your DADA OWL to be able to suppose that the harder the way to send messages is, the less likely they are to be faked by the opposition. Just a few thoughts in favour of Patroni (or is it Patronuses ? is there any canon on the plural of Patronus) as a means of communication. JLV xx From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Jan 21 10:03:45 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:03:45 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Mass Response In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delemtri" wrote: > > In the end, there's a very good reason why we don't see much with > Ginny and why her transformation seems sudden: the "elbow in the > butter dish" problem. She *doesn't act the same way around Harry as > she acts around anybody else* and we *never* see her without Harry. > (This is another reason why being told secondhand is effective!) > > Oliver Hickengruendler: I agree with you, but on the other hand I don't agree with you *g*. I think you're right in what you're saying above, and that we can't only judge Ginny by the way she's acting around Harry. After all, imagine how pre-OotP Harry would look, if the story were told through the eyes of Cho. I'll only say *Wangoballmeme*. However, JKR decided to tell the story from Harry's point of view. And in doing so, she IMO also has to live with the problems, this way of storytelling has. She, as the author, has to make the character development believable for the readers, even if we don't know more about the characters than the protagonist does. And Ginny is the only character, with whom she failed for me. I know that she's the hardest to write, since she has a Crush on Harry and therefore acts shyer around him than she ususally does. But nonetheless the presentataion of her "new" personality does not really convince me, and IMO even very minor characters like Ernie MacMillan had a much more convincing development. Hickengruendler From Snarryfan at aol.com Fri Jan 21 10:30:58 2005 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:30:58 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122587 > Carol wrote: > Looking in the Pensieve is not fighting back. It's violating Snape's > privacy. Fighting back is using a stinging hex or a Protego, both of > which Snape *praises* Harry for using, even though he did it > involuntarily. > Alla responds: > > I must have missed the part,where Snape "praises" Harry for using a > Stinging Hex. > > "Did you mean to produce a Stinging Hex?" asked Snape cooly. > "No, said Harry bitterly, getting up from the floor. > " I thought not," said Snape contemptuously, "You let me get in too > far. You lost control" - p.535, OOP. > > Sounds to me that Snape is downplays Harry's success, at very least > and it IS quite a success, unvoluntarily, or not. > > He only practices Occlumency for the first time in his life and he > only allowed Snape to see "flashes of it" Shouldn't Snape be more > happy about it, if he was indeed teaching in good faith? I wonder. > It's further: [..you lost control] "Did you see everything I saw?" Harry asked, unsure wether he wanted to hear the answers. "Flashes of it,"said Snape, his lip curling."To whom did the dog belong?" "My aunt Marge," Harry muttered, hating Snape. "Well, for a first attempt that was not as poor as it might have been" Harry did better than what Snape expected, and he recognised it. Christelle, who still want to know why Snape didn't used the Dudley- related memories. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Jan 21 10:32:48 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:32:48 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122588 > Carol wrote:: > I agree with Betsy that prejudice against werewolves (who are > genuinely dangerous) is not racism. The entire WW classifies > werewolves as beasts, not people. (Check "Fantastic Beasts.") > snip > It is not, IMO, irrational to fear and mistrust such people, > especially when the whole WW shares your view. > Valky: Ahhhh lets get all warm and fuzzy shall we, instead. Prejudice against werewolves and prejudice against the otherwise kind good people who suffer the affliction are different things. One is fairly rational behaviour, the other is... well something different. It is understandably difficult for Sevvie to differentiate the two, given his experiences, but it is not impossible. The sad thing about the scene where Snape throws to what is IMHO a deliberate confusion between Lupin and his unfortunate affliction, is the irony. An opportunity for Snape went begging. From Snarryfan at aol.com Fri Jan 21 10:34:57 2005 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:34:57 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Mass Response In-Reply-To: <01a501c4ff6a$a8c697a0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122589 > > phoenixgod: > The problem is that the change was too sudden and IMO illogical. > One of the basic rules of writing is that you are supposed to show > changes not explain them. All of Ginny's changes were explained > second hand by Hermione or someone else. > > And how did Hermione even get to be such good friends with her? > They are in separate years and have no classes together. They stay > in separate dorms. There has never, as far as I can recall, a > mention of Hermione ever even spending time with Ginny in previous > books, which the boys would have noticed because you know Ron > would have complained about it. > > Seems like sloppy writing to me. > Sherry replied: > > Actually, I got the idea in GOF that Hermione and Ginny were friends. It > made perfect sense. They have spent summers at the burrow together. They > shared a tent at the World Cup. There were scenes around the Yule Ball that > gave me the impression that the two girls had become friends. I always have > had friends older and younger than me, friends from different classes, > schools, offices, whatever. That part seems perfectly feasible and logical > to me. > There is also the fact than Ginny was the only one to know that Krum was Hermione's date for the Yule Ball. Christelle From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Fri Jan 21 10:37:49 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:37:49 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122590 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Suiter" wrote: > > Renee (SNIPPED): > I agree. The enmity between Harry and Snape ought not to have been > ignored. But I've ceased to expect much psychological finesse from > most of the people in the Wizarding World. > > Laurie: > This has probably been posted before but...isn't the whole point of Occlumency to prevent someone (especially an enemy) from reading your thoughts? It seems to me that Dumbledore wasn't ignoring the Harry/Snape enmity at all--he was actually counting on it, hoping Harry would work that much harder to protect his thoughts from Snape. Unfortunately the plan backfired... > > Just my .02, of course. > Renee: Officially, the reason we're given for the fact that it's Snape who teaches Harry Occlumency and not DD, is that DD was afraid Voldemort would spy on him through Harry. So it appears Snape became Harry's teacher for lack of a better alternative. It could be that DD, trying to make the best of the situation, deluded himself into thinking the enmity would be a bonus, but I doubt it was part of the plan (I'm not an adherent to the Puppetmaster!DD theory). From olivertraldi at gmail.com Fri Jan 21 10:37:25 2005 From: olivertraldi at gmail.com (delemtri) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:37:25 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Mass Response In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122591 > Hickengruendler: > However, JKR decided to tell the story from Harry's point of view. > And in doing so, she IMO also has to live with the problems, this way > of storytelling has. She, as the author, has to make the character > development believable for the readers, even if we don't know more > about the characters than the protagonist does. And Ginny is the only > character, with whom she failed for me. I know that she's the hardest > to write, since she has a Crush on Harry and therefore acts shyer > around him than she ususally does. But nonetheless the presentataion > of her "new" personality does not really convince me, and IMO even > very minor characters like Ernie MacMillan had a much more convincing > development. Oliver: I'm really not sure what's unconvincing about it. There's so many possible explanations... She could have grown out of the crush. She could have grown *into* the crush, learning to deal with it and trying to make it work. And she could have made a real decision to act differently around Harry. But I'm pandering to your view of the situation. I'd like to point out that the two huge objections to Ginny's character are contradictory. First of all, people say that they don't buy Ginny becoming a major character from a minor one; then they say they don't buy Ginny's change in character. The fact is that *we didn't know much about Ginny until OOTP.* The few flashes we have involve Ginny's crush, a burning desire to attend Hogwarts, a strong bond with her entire family, and a *strong* personality (as early as PS/SS; then in COS we have Ron saying Ginny talks all the time, and Ginny standing up to Lucius Malfoy; and in GOF we have her calling Ron an idiot or some such and being, in all honesty, much less awkward around Harry). What happened in OOTP is that we learned a lot about her character. So really I don't think your objection can be that OOTP Ginny and pre- OOTP Ginny are incommensurable. I think all you can really say is that we learned more about her in one book than we really ought to have. I suppose that's a matter of opinion, but I disagree entirely. Oliver From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Jan 21 11:17:28 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:17:28 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Mass Response In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122592 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delemtri" wrote: > > But I'm pandering to your view of the situation. I'd like to point > out that the two huge objections to Ginny's character are > contradictory. First of all, people say that they don't buy Ginny > becoming a major character from a minor one; then they say they don't > buy Ginny's change in character. Hickengruendler: I'm not sure, but I think that these are two different groups. I, at least, never said that I didn't buy Ginny suddenly becoming a major character. I expected this from the very first book on. After all, she, like Ron, Hermione, Draco, Neville, Percy and the twins, got a special introduction, that puts her ahead of the other students. And she already was a major character in CoS, therefore I wasn't surprised that she got more screentime again. > The fact is that *we didn't know > much about Ginny until OOTP.* The few flashes we have involve Ginny's > crush, a burning desire to attend Hogwarts, a strong bond with her > entire family, and a *strong* personality (as early as PS/SS; then in > COS we have Ron saying Ginny talks all the time, and Ginny standing > up to Lucius Malfoy; and in GOF we have her calling Ron an idiot or > some such and being, in all honesty, much less awkward around Harry). Hickengruendler: Like I already said, "she never shuts up" is IMO not a sign of a strong personality. It's just some character trait that's neither positive nor negative and that people with strong and weak personalities can have, and I don't think that we could have assumed from this statement, that she is all cool and spunky. I knew that Jo gave it as a supposed evidence in the chat last year, but I frankly am not convinced by this "evidence". And, IMO, Ginny wasn't all that talkative in OotP. Yes, she wasn't completely silent, but she really only spoke when needed, quite in contrast to Hermione or Luna, I might add. A strong family bond does Ginny have, I don't deny this either, but I'm not sure what this has to do with her character development. Shy people can have a strong family bond, too. And I never said that Ginny has or had a weak personality. I just said that I didn't buy the spunky and sporty personality she showed in book 5. Shy people can have a strong personality as well, as Neville shows and as I thought Ginny showed in the first four books. > What happened in OOTP is that we learned a lot about her character. Hickengruendler: We also learned in OotP more about Neville's, McGonagall's, Trelawney's, Sirius', James', Dumbledore's, Trelawney's, Petunia's or Snape's character, neither of which really surprised me. The only development that I found a bit unsatisfying was Ginny's. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Jan 21 12:22:46 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:22:46 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122593 > > Renee: > Officially, the reason we're given for the fact that it's Snape who > teaches Harry Occlumency and not DD, is that DD was afraid Voldemort > would spy on him through Harry. So it appears Snape became Harry's > teacher for lack of a better alternative. It could be that DD, > trying to make the best of the situation, deluded himself into > thinking the enmity would be a bonus, but I doubt it was part of the > plan (I'm not an adherent to the Puppetmaster!DD theory). I don't think it's particularly the case of Puppetmaster!DD. The books are clearly heading towards a Harry/LV final confrontation at which point Harry will need to be able to defend himself from all of LV's powers. Occlumency, as Snape tells Harry, requires the subject to hide their emotions. DD knows Harry has a lot of anger, and knows that Harry has to practice Occlumency when these feelings are present. Harry has a severe dislike for Snape and this is therefore perfect preparation for a confrontation with LV. At this point in the story, DD has not revealed the Prophecy to Harry, so he can hardly tell him that Snape is his tutor to prepare him for LV!! Brothergib From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 12:34:27 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:34:27 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122594 Alla responds: I must have missed the part,where Snape "praises" Harry for using a Stinging Hex. "Did you mean to produce a Stinging Hex?" asked Snape cooly. "No, said Harry bitterly, getting up from the floor. " I thought not," said Snape contemptuously, "You let me get in too far. You lost control" - p.535, OOP. Sounds to me that Snape is downplays Harry's success, at very least and it IS quite a success, unvoluntarily, or not. He only practices Occlumency for the first time in his life and he only allowed Snape to see "flashes of it" Shouldn't Snape be more happy about it, if he was indeed teaching in good faith? I wonder. Cristelle: It's further: [..you lost control] "Did you see everything I saw?" Harry asked, unsure wether he wanted to hear the answers. "Flashes of it,"said Snape, his lip curling."To whom did the dog belong?" "My aunt Marge," Harry muttered, hating Snape. "Well, for a first attempt that was not as poor as it might have been" Harry did better than what Snape expected, and he recognised it. Alla: Ummm, thanks. To tell you the truth, when I read it, I absolutely did not recognise it as a praise. "not as poor as it might have been", but I suppose you are right and for Snape it IS a praise. I still would like to hear a "normal " praise from him... one day :o) JMO, Alla From mcdee1980 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 12:49:16 2005 From: mcdee1980 at yahoo.com (mcdee1980) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:49:16 -0000 Subject: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlv230" wrote: > > JLV (I) said: > I definitely agree that the Patronus is the most likely candidate for > being the method of communication that the Order use. > > ************************************************* > Chancie replied: > Reasons I don't believe a Patronus is the answer: > > Lady McBeth now: I don't think the Patronus charm is the answer either. What did come to mind, however, was that the wispy thing appearing from DD's wand was gray or silvery, right? This sounds very similar to removing a thought to put it in a Pensive. What if DD and the rest of the Order communicate by sending their thoughts. It would probably require some complex spellwork, but they could just pull the thought out of their head and "send" it to the right person. The silver wisp would implant itself in the new head and the message would never be spoken aloud. We've certainly had enough information about Pensives to know that they must be important in some way! From elanorpam at yahoo.com.br Fri Jan 21 12:53:45 2005 From: elanorpam at yahoo.com.br (Paula "Elanor Pam") Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:53:45 -0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Mass Response References: <01a501c4ff6a$a8c697a0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: <00bb01c4ffb8$40b11930$0501010a@harrypotter> No: HPFGUIDX 122596 > phoenixgod > And how did Hermione even get to be such good friends with her? > They are in separate years and have no classes together. They stay > in separate dorms. There has never, as far as I can recall, a > mention of Hermione ever even spending time with Ginny in previous > books, which the boys would have noticed because you know Ron > would have complained about it. My best friend was four years older than me and studied in my sister's class. I don't think my classmates knew we even talked to each other, and my sister took some time to find out. It's not impossible, and it's not like Harry and Ron spend as much time with Hermione as they spend time with each other. And the girls sleep in the same tower. Don't they? I don't see any problem in they being friends for a while. And Ginny was perfectly believable for me. Elanor Pam From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 13:13:44 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:13:44 -0000 Subject: Nice vs good was Re: Favorite Snape Scenes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122597 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Nora: > So I would say that yes, a person must be genuinely nice--that is > to say, treat other people with respect for their subjectivity--to > *be* a good person. > > Pippin: > My problem here is that in some cases, consideration of other > people can be so effortless that it may not be a good indication > of how much someone would actually put themselves out for > another person. Niceness, then (the genuine thing--perhaps some mutation of kindness), is a necessary but *not* sufficient condition for the ontological state of being a good person. I would argue that the maintenance of a genuine state for the consideration of other people, which means doing it even when it is hard (right but not easy), is not a casual or an easy thing, but something to be taken seriously. That said, to some extent it is attempting to describe more of how you are treating another person than the more, ummm, content-based descriptions somewhat below. > Such people can be full of genuine warmth and helpfulness > until it's going to cost them something they don't want to give; > then, somehow, they don't perceive the need, or pretend that they > don't. Think of Lupin, deciding that he knows nothing useful > about Sirius, or Fudge deciding to believe Rita Skeeter instead of > Dumbledore. Hence the comments about it genuinely being hard...but Lupin's case starts to fall over into other areas, hence the comment on content. (Although don't let me pull form/content divides into here--that's entirely too musical.) That is a tricky one, I will give you. > On the other hand there are people who require tremendous > effort to be civil, much less nice, but who are determined to use > the skills they do have for others benefit. I would put Snape in > that category. Hence the potential classification of him as someone who does things that are good, but does not obtain that ontological status in and of himself. There is also the problem that we have no idea what his actions stem from--which screws any possibility of a Kantian evaluation. That is to say, quasi-right action, wrong source of such, is Not Good by that system, for deep reasons--but we just don't know. -Nora has to run to make it to a departmental thing, but notes that civility is perhaps *the* main virtue discussed by the philosophers of liberalism...and should never be underrated... From trekkie at stofanet.dk Fri Jan 21 13:27:56 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:27:56 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) References: Message-ID: <009f01c4ffbd$04e49e90$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122598 >> >> Do we know for sure that Snape was actually missing from that meeting?! >> >> ~TrekkieGrrrl > > Carol: > He's not mentioned by name and LV's description of "the one I believe > has left me forever" fits him perfectly. And he's not the coward; > that's clearly Karkaroff, who fled after the tournament to avoid > retribution from the other DEs. Snape is on hand to help DD burst into > Crouch!Moody's office. And what other reformed DE would have the > courage to stay away on principle rather than through cowardice like > Karkaroff? But if LV thinks Snape has left him forever, how can he then continue to spy on LV? I agree that it leaves him with VERY little time if your scenario is correct. But then, perhaps his DE gear isn't in his office. He MIGHT accio it on the way too, possibly from some off-Hogwarts hidingplace. If he IS the one that "has left forever" and is still a spy, then it leads to the Animagus!Snape theory as the only solution. And if he is an animagus I'll still bet he's a bat. ~TrekkieGrrrl From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 13:38:40 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:38:40 -0000 Subject: Method- communication- Patronus vs Little Birdie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122599 > > JLV here: > > I definitely agree that the Patronus is the most likely candidate > > for being the method of communication that the Order use. > > Chancie: > > > > Reasons I don't believe a Patronus is the answer: > > > bboyminn: > > Well, I think the Patronus Charm is a logical assumption, but I think > it is wrong. > > > So, what's my theory? > > Ever heard the expression, '...a little birdie told me'? > > I think we are seeing a very specific Message Charm that I will dub > the 'little birdie charm'. Neri: I agree with Steve and Chancie, and I'll add more reasons: 1. Some wizards have birds as patroni (DD has a phoenix and Cho has a swan) but other wizards have non-bird patroni (Harry has a hart, Hermione an otter and Seamus "something furry"). These seem ill- suited for delivering messages. Would you want to wait until the otter arrived from Hogwarts to London with your message? I wouldn't. 2. When DD sends his silver bird in GoF, Harry had already seen Fawkes, who is a large and quite a distinct bird. If DD were using his patronus, Harry would have identified it as a phoenix, not merely as a bird. 3. Just think about JKR saying to herself: "Oops, I need some way for the Order members to communicate. Why won't they use the patronus for that?" Naah, this doesn't sound like our Jo at all. She'd go: "hey, the Order members need a secure way to communicate. Oh good! A reason to invent a nifty new spell!" Neri From klevasseur at earthlink.net Fri Jan 21 13:40:36 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:40:36 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122600 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > > > > > Renee: > > Officially, the reason we're given for the fact that it's Snape who > > teaches Harry Occlumency and not DD, is that DD was afraid > Voldemort > > would spy on him through Harry. So it appears Snape became Harry's > > teacher for lack of a better alternative. It could be that DD, > > trying to make the best of the situation, deluded himself into > > thinking the enmity would be a bonus, but I doubt it was part of > the > > plan (I'm not an adherent to the Puppetmaster!DD theory). > > I don't think it's particularly the case of Puppetmaster!DD. The > books are clearly heading towards a Harry/LV final confrontation at > which point Harry will need to be able to defend himself from all of > LV's powers. Occlumency, as Snape tells Harry, requires the subject > to hide their emotions. DD knows Harry has a lot of anger, and knows > that Harry has to practice Occlumency when these feelings are > present. Harry has a severe dislike for Snape and this is therefore > perfect preparation for a confrontation with LV. At this point in the > story, DD has not revealed the Prophecy to Harry, so he can hardly > tell him that Snape is his tutor to prepare him for LV!! > > Brothergib Good point Brothergib! I had wondered why DD would have Snape give Harry Occlumency lessons given that Harry didn't trust Snape and would therefore have trouble learning such an important skill from him. I had taken DD's words as *gospel*. But your explaination, *..Harry has to practice Occlumency when these feelings (anger) are present. Harry has a severe dislike for Snape and this is therefore perfect preparation for a confrontation with LV* makes perfect sense!! Ms. Luna From trekkie at stofanet.dk Fri Jan 21 13:50:35 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:50:35 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) References: Message-ID: <00cf01c4ffc0$2ee94620$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122601 ----- Original Message ----- From: "jlv230" To: Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 11:03 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) JLV (I) said: I definitely agree that the Patronus is the most likely candidate for being the method of communication that the Order use. ************************************************* Chancie replied: Reasons I don't believe a Patronus is the answer: 1. Harry is told that the Patronus charm is VERY difficult. JLV replies: Aha, but the Order members are not just any old wizards, are they? Also many DA members managed to produce one after much practice. And most messages won't be sent in front of Dementors which may make thing a lot easier. TrekkieGrrrl: At the OWL exam, the examinators were impressed that Harry could conjure up a *corporeal* patronus. Seems to me that there are two types, and that the corporeal ones are *RARE* - so rare that not even all older wizards can make them. And then again, you're apparently supposed to cincentrate all the time while making the patronus, which makes it a bad messenger. Chancie: 3. How could a witch or wizard send a Patronus, without it being seen by a muggle or possibly even a DE? JLV: Good question - I'm not sure. The gang sure could see the bird Dumbledore sent off - perhaps they just move so fast that they don't get seen - once they have time to accelerate out of the wand. However, if we do believe that Dumbledore's bird is the method of communication, then we can't deny that it would indeed be visible at least at some part of its journey, even if it isn't a Patronus. TrekkieGrrrl: Perhaps Muggles can't see a patronus? like they can't se dementors, or the Knight Bus. But Death Eaters sure can, which again makes a patronus a bad candidate IMO. I do think, however, that when we saw DD send the silvery birdlike thing to get Hagrid, we did see the thing JKR is referring to. I just don't think it's a patronus. More likely it's a special Messenger charm. ~TrekkieGrrrl From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Jan 21 13:59:57 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:59:57 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <009f01c4ffbd$04e49e90$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122602 Slightly more 'out there' theory, but could Snape be impersonating Barty Crouch Jr? I don't remember any canon that would indicate LV being aware that Crouch was caught and the Dementor's kiss administered. 1. A quick PolyJuice potion and Snape would be ready. In fact I'm sure DD went to see Crouch after the kiss had been given (was he getting some of Barty's hair??) 2. As LV's most trusted servant, Snape would be in a fantastic position to spy on his old master. 3. Snape is good enough at Occlumency to have deluded LV before One huge problem though is that I could not see Fudge keeping his mouth shut about it!! From klevasseur at earthlink.net Fri Jan 21 14:17:18 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:17:18 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <009f01c4ffbd$04e49e90$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122603 -> >> Do we know for sure that Snape was actually missing from that meeting?! > >> > >> ~TrekkieGrrrl > > > > Carol: > > He's not mentioned by name and LV's description of "the one I believe > > has left me forever" fits him perfectly. And he's not the coward; > > that's clearly Karkaroff, who fled after the tournament to avoid > > retribution from the other DEs. Snape is on hand to help DD burst into > > Crouch!Moody's office. And what other reformed DE would have the > > courage to stay away on principle rather than through cowardice like > > Karkaroff? > > But if LV thinks Snape has left him forever, how can he then continue to spy > on LV? I agree that it leaves him with VERY little time if your scenario is > correct. But then, perhaps his DE gear isn't in his office. He MIGHT accio > it on the way too, possibly from some off-Hogwarts hidingplace. > > If he IS the one that "has left forever" and is still a spy, then it leads > to the Animagus!Snape theory as the only solution. And if he is an animagus > I'll still bet he's a bat. > > ~TrekkieGrrrl Although I completely agree with your theory that Snape is not one of the missing DE's mentioned by LV in the graveyard scene, I don't believe Snape is an animagus. Being a non-registered animagus does not seem to fit with being a *trusted* Hogwarts teacher. I would think that in order to have gained DD's trust as deeply as Snape has, he would have had to have told DD ALL his secrets. I also believe that LV would notice a certain animal showing up at all the DE meetings! Although I will concede that IF Snape is an unregistered animagus and he used that to spy on LV that DD would be keeping his secret in order for Snape to remain a spy. Ms. Luna From klevasseur at earthlink.net Fri Jan 21 14:24:08 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:24:08 -0000 Subject: Method- communication- Patronus vs Little Birdie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122604 --> > > > JLV here: > > > I definitely agree that the Patronus is the most likely candidate > > > for being the method of communication that the Order use. > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Well, I think the Patronus Charm is a logical assumption, but I > think > > it is wrong. > > > > > > So, what's my theory? > > > > Ever heard the expression, '...a little birdie told me'? > > > > I think we are seeing a very specific Message Charm that I will dub > > the 'little birdie charm'. > > Neri: > > I agree with Steve and Chancie, and I'll add more reasons: > > 1. Some wizards have birds as patroni (DD has a phoenix and Cho has a > swan) but other wizards have non-bird patroni (Harry has a hart, > Hermione an otter and Seamus "something furry"). These seem ill- > suited for delivering messages. Would you want to wait until the > otter arrived from Hogwarts to London with your message? I wouldn't. > > 2. When DD sends his silver bird in GoF, Harry had already seen > Fawkes, who is a large and quite a distinct bird. If DD were using > his patronus, Harry would have identified it as a phoenix, not merely > as a bird. > > 3. Just think about JKR saying to herself: "Oops, I need some way for > the Order members to communicate. Why won't they use the patronus for > that?" Naah, this doesn't sound like our Jo at all. She'd go: "hey, > the Order members need a secure way to communicate. Oh good! A reason > to invent a nifty new spell!" > > Neri I also believe the patronus is not the way the Order communicates, it's too visible! If a DE were to see a phoenix patronus flying through the air in London, they would KNOW Dumbledore was sending a message. I believe it to be much more stealthier (is that a word?) ! Although my theory of the order communicating using the *two-way* mirrors has been dismissed, I still stand by that. Maybe the mirrors with a *nifty new spell* attached! Ms. Luna From trekkie at stofanet.dk Fri Jan 21 14:32:57 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:32:57 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) References: Message-ID: <010501c4ffc6$19ca91d0$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122605 >> >> If he IS the one that "has left forever" and is still a spy, then it >> leads >> to the Animagus!Snape theory as the only solution. And if he is an >> animagus >> I'll still bet he's a bat. >> >> ~TrekkieGrrrl > > Although I completely agree with your theory that Snape is not one of the > missing DE's > mentioned by LV in the graveyard scene, I don't believe Snape is an > animagus. Being a > non-registered animagus does not seem to fit with being a *trusted* > Hogwarts teacher. I > would think that in order to have gained DD's trust as deeply as Snape > has, he would have > had to have told DD ALL his secrets. I also believe that LV would notice > a certain animal > showing up at all the DE meetings! Although I will concede that IF > Snape is an > unregistered animagus and he used that to spy on LV that DD would be > keeping his secret > in order for Snape to remain a spy. > Ms. Luna > Oh I don't really think he's an animague either, only that it was a possibility. And there are some batlike things about him, I believe his appearance is likened with a bat on a few occasions (nourishing the Vampire!Snape theory which I absolutely do not believe in) Bats have good hearing (their sonar) - good thing for a spy. Bats are small animals - easy to hide and I don't think LV would notice a bat hanging under the cieling or in a tree Bats are cute (OK totally irrelevant here, but .. I like bats and I like Snape so if he IS an animagus I'd like him to be a bat. More than a snake. Unless he's Nagini *L*) Allthough I don't really believe in the animagus thing, I can see certain things that allows for it. First of all, it's apparently not THAT hard to become an animagus - Pettigrew has never struck me as any genius, yet he could transform. And IF Snape found out (but that's not mentioned totally in canon, is it?) that the Marauders were animagi, it would be logical for him to prove that he could be one too. Jealousy or just a need to prove himself, I don't know. HE might even be the first of them - perhaps he was an animagus allready at his arrival at school? He did know a LOT of spells, and probably not ONLY dark ones... And then there's this thing that if he wasn't present at the graveyard, I can't see any way that he could keep on spying on LV. ~TrekkieGrrrl From kempermentor at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 14:56:31 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:56:31 -0000 Subject: Nice vs good was Re: Favorite Snape Scenes In-Reply-To: <176C9298-6B88-11D9-BC39-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122606 Kemper wrote: Someone, please respond. I like Flitwick and eagerly want to be wrong. Jocelyn responded: Well, where did Hermione ask him, I wonder? Probably in a school corridor or classroom, where she could be overheard. Well spotted, though! Kemper again: I don't see Hermione as that thoughtless or reckless. She presents as rather discreet and cautious. I think she waited until after charms before asking Flitwick about students being allowed to go to the Hog's Head. Kemper From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 14:57:56 2005 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:57:56 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Mass Response In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122607 > > Hickengruendler wrote: > > I don't hate Ginny. But she's also not one of my favourite > > characters. She is, so far, one of those who are just there > > and who don't really interest me. That said, I dislike the > > term *Mary-Sue*. I think fandom uses the term way too often, > > describing every female character, that dares to be likeable. >phoenixgod2000 wrote: First of all, I don't necessarily like the term Mary Sue either but I think it was fair to use since, if I wrote a character with every trait of Ginny's thats what she would be called. And for the record, I didn't find Ginny all that likeable. Certainly if I met Ginny I wouldn't hang out with her. >Now Luna on the other hand... ********Marcela: I believe that many think of Ginny as a Mary-Sue- ish character because of their *expectations* on her character. I read the 5 books in a row during a summer vacation. My only HP knowledge before I read the first book was from an editorial in a paper that was supporting Jo's works and its impact in children's reading habits. I was surprised when this past year I found a whole fan group dedicated to HP, and one of those surprises was the high importance that some fans seemed to put on Ginny's character. I felt like I needed to read the books again, and again, to see what I had missed. IMO, Ginny became to the front stage more frequently in OoTP because Jo needed someone to *replace* the Twins as pranksters and mayhem builders and thought it good to start building her character a bit more, just look at all the times she is mentioned and paired with the Twins, telling lies with no blushing, thinking in the same wave lengths, etc. Plus, her 'Dean' hint toward the end and Ron's reaction told me that she will be Ron's fountain of discomforts in HBP, those two are going to be Jo's 'light and funny' lines in HBP. I believe that the Ginny lovers/haters feel so strongly for Ginny mainly because of the Fandon expectations and wishes, not because of Jo's bad handling of her character. IMO, a character like Ginny's, the way that Jo has handled it, will always be a secondary one, just like the Twins, Remus, Moody, etc. They help the hero, but on the sidelines. Marcela From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 15:02:44 2005 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:02:44 -0000 Subject: The Order's means of communication... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "adeptandinept" wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, > > > LisaMarie said: > >>> I am enclined to agree with Meng Yu, who stated upthread that > the > most likely means would be the Patronus *******(or something that > looks very much like a Patronus)*******, as we see it used in GoF when > DD summons Hagrid to the edge of the Forest when Crouch Sr. > appears and Krum is attacked. > > > Reason #1 It requires /only/ a wand. > > Reason #2 DD is an Order member. (obviously) > > Reason #3 We didn't know about the Order at this time, but we were > > about to find out about it. > > Reason #4 It is not vulnerable to interception or trickery > > (something else Jo mentions in the above link). > > Adept: > I dont agree with the patronus theory. > JKR said, "a chocolate frog card, or any object that would have to > be remembered and carried on the person, would always be vulnerable > to loss, destruction or trickery. The Order communicates in a way > that requires nothing but a wand. You saw the Order's method of > communication in use even before you knew about the existence of the > Order; it was employed by an Order member." > > Loss, destruction or trickery. A wand is capable of being lost > (Harry in GOF). A wand is capable of being destroyed (Neville in > OotP). I dont know of any evidence regarding trickery but why not? LisaMarie: Yes, wands can be lost or destroyed, but JKR clearly states that the Order communicates in a way that requires only a wand. So, I don't understand your arguement here, I'm afraid. Adept: > I think JKR means something else. I'm new here and am not ready to > jump into the fire, but I don't agree wholly with your > interpretation of her quote. LisaMarie: Wecome and greetings are in order, then! This list is a great place to hang out. Glad you're here. I don't mind your disagreeing -- that's what makes this place so fun! Really, I'm not 100% convinced that DD summoned Hagrid that night using a Patronus. I AM 100% sure that *whatever* DD used, that it's the Order's means of communication. It could be, as some respondents have noted, just another nifty JKR creation, a communication/messenger charm. I just think it would be cool if it did turn out to be a Patronus, as JLV said upthread, because Patroni are so impressive, and they seem to be very useful, but only in an extremely limited context (i.e., when facing a Dementor). But, again, I fail to see how the susceptibility of wands to loss or destruction negates the fact that JKR says Order members need only a wand to communicate. Help me out! From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 21 15:18:15 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:18:15 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <010501c4ffc6$19ca91d0$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122609 And IF Snape found out (but that's not mentioned totally in > canon, is it?) that the Marauders were animagi, it would be logical for him to prove that he could be one too. Jealousy or just a need to prove himself, I don't know. HE might even be the first of them - perhaps he was an animagus allready at his arrival at school? He did know a LOT of spells, and probably not ONLY dark ones...< > Pippin: If Snape were an animagus at school, he would have been in no danger from the prank. Also Sirius only says that Snape knew more curses than half the kids in seventh year -- in other words, less than the other half, or about average. The average seventh year is not an Animagus. If Snape were at the graveyard, he would know that his name had not been mentioned, so his sudden movement couldn't have been out of fear that Harry would name him. Also, since he revealed his Dark Mark to Fudge, why not go the whole hog and say that he was there and had witnessed the Dark Lord's return? Fudge is familiar with the cases of the Death Eaters who were publically tried and cleared, but seems totally nonplussed at Snape's claim to have been a Death Eater, which argues that Karkaroff's hearing was a secret session. Sirius claims Snape is Lucius's lapdog, right? I can't make an visit from lapdog to owner fit with Dumbledore's look of apprehension or Snape's pale face and glittering eyes. Pippin From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 15:18:48 2005 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:18:48 -0000 Subject: Squibs/wands/cats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122610 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jeanette" wrote:> > > Chancie: > > And also someone asked how did Mrs. Noris tell Filtch what the > > students were doing. Well Maybe a wand could give them a voice? > > Jeanette: > Does Filtch have a wand? I thought he was a squib. LisaMarie: Filch is a Squib. No question there. (It's probably the only thing that makes him interesting! ) But does he have a wand? Well, my immediate answer was "Of course not," but that may be a premature judgement. When Harry is in his office (COS), he sees the Kwik-spell information (and subsequently learns that Filch is a Squib). In order for Filch to attemt any kind of magic, including the elementary principles of the Kwik-spell course, wouldn't he need a wand? If he didn't have one, he couldn't really practice spell work, could he? So, does Filch have a wand? Where did he get it? Do all Squibs have wands, maybe, just in case? Hmmmm. Interesting. My original question was about creepy, disconcerting Mrs. Norris: How does she let Filch know what kids are up to in the corridors, etc.??? Chancie suggests that maybe a wand can give them a voice. Well, even if that was possible, could Filch manage it, being that he is a Squib? JKR's website has some information on Squibs. She says, "They still function within the wizarding world because they have access to certain magical objects and creatures that can help them." It just doesn't add up!! Anyone have a random thought or contribution? From entropymail at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 15:22:29 2005 From: entropymail at yahoo.com (entropymail) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:22:29 -0000 Subject: Method communication- Patronus vs Little Birdie vs. Mirrors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122611 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote:Just think about JKR saying to herself: "Oops, I need some way for > the Order members to communicate. Why won't they use the patronus for > that?" Naah, this doesn't sound like our Jo at all. She'd go: "hey, > the Order members need a secure way to communicate. Oh good! A reason > to invent a nifty new spell!" > > Neri My first thought was that the Order's preferred method of communication would surely be the type of mirror Sirius slipped to Harry. It seemed logical to me; otherwise, why would Sirius need to give Harry the mirror on the sly? If mirrors were commonly used in the WW for communication, then Sirius would have just wrapped it up with a big bow and presented it to Harry at dinner one night. No one at Hogwarts would have known that Harry used this Wizardian cellphone exclusively to contact Sirius. But, if the mirror were a little known, secret way for the Order members to contact each other, than Sirius would surely be in trouble if anyone found out that he had given Harry access to this top-secret method of communication (not only is he not an Order member, but he's not even of age). I think we'll see Harry discover that the broken mirror he's carrying around is not useless at all, and will prove to be an excellent means of contacting the other Order members when he least expects it. :: Entropy :: From templar1112002 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 15:24:41 2005 From: templar1112002 at yahoo.com (templar1112002) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:24:41 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122612 hickengruendler wrote: Yes, but surely you didn't use your sister's stuff to fly around the neighbourhood? ;-) The interesting thing here is, if Jo hadn't explained Ginny's QUidditch ability at all, I wouldn't have thought about it. I would have thought that she just discovered her talent during flying lessons, like Harry did. But JKR did gave us an explanation, and it was one that I don't find convicing. I do think it's in character for the twins not to lend her their broomsticks, and I also can see that Ginny would "borrow" them secretly, but that she is flying around the Burrow, without anyone noticing, doesn't make sense at all. Surely somebody would see her. > I don't want to concentrate too much on this, there are other inconsistencies in the series that have nothing to do with Ginny at all. But it's just an example, of why I find Ginny's character development not as convincing, compared to the development of other characters. I do think JKR planned spunky Ginny from the beginning, but I also think she could have presented her better and smoother. *******Marcela: Perhaps you find Ginny's character not very convincing from a 'main character' POV. I truly believe that Jo has no intention of making her more important than she got to be in OoTP. Her 'sneaking' traits that even fooled her Twin brothers is, IMO, foreshadowing that Ginny is going to be their 'substitute' in the future books. With the Twins out of Hogwarts, someone had to replace them, Ron is the 'goofy' funny character, the Twins were never goofy, and Ginny's attitude: telling white lies with no blushing, being frontal in voicing her opinions, not worrying about the company she keeps (Looney), hexing Malfoy with no remorse, etc. tell me that her character is indeed going the "Twins path". She is going to be Ron's nightmare with all her dating and a great source of 'funny' scenes. Marcela From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 21 15:34:07 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:34:07 -0000 Subject: Nice vs good was Re: Favorite Snape Scenes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122613 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kempermentor" wrote: > Kemper again: > I don't see Hermione as that thoughtless or reckless. She presents as rather discreet and cautious. I think she waited until after charms before asking Flitwick about students being allowed to go to the Hog's Head. > Pippin: There were two eavesdroppers at the Hogs Head -- Willy Widdershins on behalf of Umbridge and Mundungus Fletcher on behalf of the Order. It could be that Flitwick is a secret Order member. Good catch! According to what Umbridge says, Widdershins happened to be at the bar, bandaged (because of the accident with the toilet he was jinxing) and when he recognized Harry, he went up to the school and reported to her. I think if Umbridge had known in advance that Harry was arranging a meeting at the bar, she'd have planted a student spy in the group. Pippin From gromm at cards.lanck.net Thu Jan 20 19:59:11 2005 From: gromm at cards.lanck.net (Maria Gromova) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:59:11 +0300 Subject: GoF-Chapter Nine Message-ID: <000201c4ffd2$6094dc40$6441983e@rcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 122614 "Scares very easily himself". That's SO right! This is the pot calling the kettle black, the pathetic coward! Maria ?So you think dragons are huge, blustery monsters, good for nothing except lying around guarding a hoard of jewels, or flying around scaring the wits out of everybody with their noxious, flame-blower breath?? ?Ah, but then you haven?t met Fanuilh.? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jane_starr at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 16:17:46 2005 From: jane_starr at yahoo.com (Jane Starr) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:17:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050121161746.88122.qmail@web52404.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122615 --- Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > Yeah, I have 2 older boys and a girl, and even when > she gets > hand-me-downs, the girl gets a better deal. When > word got out that I > was accepting hand-me-downs I got BAGS of the stuff ... snip Also, even if Molly has to buy Ginny's clothes, if the Muggle world is anything to go by, the selection, quality and quantity of second hand clothing for girls is FAR better than for boys. JES (mum of 2 boys who wear most things to rags before they can be handed on and who can seldom find decent second-hand clothing for them) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 16:22:01 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:22:01 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122616 In a message dated 1/21/2005 2:04:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk writes: Chancie: 2. I don't remember that they make sound, so how can they deliver a message? JLV: Messages can be delivered without the Patronus having to make a sound (especially as sounds could be overheard), and we do know that Patroni can move. JKR could devise many wonderful ways for a Patronus to pass on information if she wanted to. In addition, my Physics degree tells me that anything that is corporeal (=of a material nature i.e. tangible) which may move is perfectly capable of producing a sound in air. Whether or not it could talk is, of course, another matter entirely! ******************************************************************* Chancie: Are you suggesting Patronus use sign/body language?? I suppose it is possible, (we are talking about magic after all) but sorry, I just can't see this one. I never disputed the fact that Patronus's can move, or that they can take orders. Harry shows that when he order's the Patronus to charge at the Dementor trying to "kiss" Duddley. But I'm just picturing Harry's stag, trying to deliver a message in a way that greatly resembles' charades. And I don't know about you, but I think I would too distracted by the pure fact that this animal (I say that because all the Patronesses that we have seen are animal's) trying to "act out" a message. I don't think I could concentrate on the message, because I'd be too busy laughing. But maybe that's just me Chancie~who is now going to teach her cat Ginxy how to play Charades [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 21 16:39:29 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:39:29 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122617 > > Hickengruendler: > > Yes, but surely you didn't use your sister's stuff to fly around the > neighbourhood? ;-) The interesting thing here is, if Jo hadn't > explained Ginny's QUidditch ability at all, I wouldn't have thought about it.< Pippin: First, why do you think Ginny was flying around the neighborhood? The Weasleys practice Quidditch in a paddock surrounded by trees, uphill from the Burrow, so as not to be seen by villagers (CoS). From that description, you couldn't see who was in the paddock from the Burrow itself, either. >From what we see of the Weasleys at home in GoF and CoS, the twins are often busy with their experiments, Percy spends his time secluded in his room, Ron would like to pretend he doesn't have a sister, Molly has her hands full cooking for seven and trying to keep the twins in line, and Arthur, when he isn't in his workshop, is working overtime to manage his understaffed department. Nobody ever pays attention to what Ginny is doing; for instance, that she is spending a lot of time scribbling in a diary that writes back. If Ginny's flying ability had not burst upon the others as a surprise, she would have been available as an alternate seeker in PoA. That would have removed a lot of the suspense, so I can see why JKR decided that Ginny needed to explain how she got to be such a good flyer. Pippin From jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 21 17:01:02 2005 From: jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk (jlv230) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:01:02 -0000 Subject: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122618 As this has sparked a number of responses I thought I'd bring this together. Just so's you've got the evidence, I am basing my conclusions on the following bits of canon: "Rumour: The Order of the Phoenix communicates using chocolate frog cards. JKR: This is such a great idea that I was in two minds whether to shoot it down; however, a chocolate frog card, or any object that would have to be remembered and carried on the person, would always be vulnerable to loss, destruction or trickery. The Order communicates in a way that requires nothing but a wand. You saw the Order's method of communication in use even before you knew about the existence of the Order; it was employed by an Order member." (Website Rumours section) Reading the books thoroughly has led me to the belief that this method is the silvery bird Dumbledore shoots out in GoF (ch. 28, p. 486, UK ed.): "`Should I go and get someone?' said Harry. `Madam Pomfrey?' `No,' said Dumbledore swiftly. `Stay here.' He raised his wand into the air and pointed it in the direction of Hagrid's cabin. Harry saw something silvery dart out of it and streak away through the trees like a ghostly bird." I believe this is the method because: 1) Dumbledore seems to be sending a message to Hagrid 2) It only required a wand 3) We saw it before we knew about the Order I find that quite a lot of people (but certainly not all) agree with me on this one. The 'wild leap' I have made is to connect this with the Edinburgh Book Day quote: "What form does Dumbledore's Patronus take? Good question. Can anyone guess? You have had a clue. There was a little whisper there. It is a phoenix, which is very representative of Dumbledore for reasons that I am sure you can guess." Now, I took this clue to which JKR refers to be *exactly the same scene* in GoF where Dumbledore sends out the silvery thing. It is only a clue because we don't get to see the form of the bird because it is moving so fast. What other clue may JKR be referring to? I assume it will be something from the books, and moreover it would be a specific incidental clue (not a general 'well, Dumbledore has a Phoenix' sort of thing). These are my own assumptions and I see that they are not universal in any way, but I note that many objections to the idea don't attack my assumptions but point out that it simply `wouldn't work' ? like this one from Neri: Neri said: 1. Some wizards have birds as patroni (DD has a phoenix and Cho has a swan) but other wizards have non-bird patroni (Harry has a hart, Hermione an otter and Seamus "something furry"). These seem ill- suited for delivering messages. Would you want to wait until the otter arrived from Hogwarts to London with your message? I wouldn't. JLV: Remember they are not animals, they just look like them. I'm sure an actual hart couldn't chase down 100(?) dementors any more than Harry alone could. There is nothing to say that Patroni (still no idea what the plural should be) *can't* do more than we first thought. Or indeed this one from Chancie: Chancie: 2. I don't remember that they make sound, so how can they deliver a message? JLV: Messages can be delivered without the Patronus having to make a sound (especially as sounds could be overheard), and we do know that Patroni can move. JKR could devise many wonderful ways for a Patronus to pass on information if she wanted to. In addition, my Physics degree tells me that anything that is corporeal (=of a material nature i.e. tangible) which may move is perfectly capable of producing a sound in air. Whether or not it could talk is, of course, another matter entirely! Chancie: Are you suggesting Patronus use sign/body language?? I suppose it is possible, (we are talking about magic after all) but sorry, I just can't see this one. I never disputed the fact that Patronus's can move, or that they can take orders. Harry shows that when he order's the Patronus to charge at the Dementor trying to "kiss" Duddley. But I'm just picturing Harry's stag, trying to deliver a message in a way that greatly resembles' charades. And I don't know about you, but I think I would too distracted by the pure fact that this animal (I say that because all the Patronesses that we have seen are animal's) trying to "act out" a message. I don't think I could concentrate on the message, because I'd be too busy laughing. But maybe that's just me. JLV: I think, my friend, you are taking the Michael out of me. I didn't suggest that Charades was the answer, just that (1) only JKR can decide what Patroni may do and they may have all sorts of uses we don't know about and (2) real things that move could make noises in theory so there is no canon contradiction. And Ginxy... it's a book ? seven words ? sixth word ? blood ? ooh not bad! And some words from Chancie and TrekkieGrrrl: Chancie: 3. How could a witch or wizard send a Patronus, without it being seen by a muggle or possibly even a DE? JLV: Good question - I'm not sure. The gang sure could see the bird Dumbledore sent off - perhaps they just move so fast that they don't get seen - once they have time to accelerate out of the wand. However, if we do believe that Dumbledore's bird is the method of communication, then we can't deny that it would indeed be visible at least at some part of its journey, even if it isn't a Patronus. TrekkieGrrrl: Perhaps Muggles can't see a patronus? like they can't se dementors, or the Knight Bus. But Death Eaters sure can, which again makes a patronus a bad candidate IMO. I do think, however, that when we saw DD send the silvery birdlike thing to get Hagrid, we did see the thing JKR is referring to. I just don't think it's a patronus. JLV: I'm sure you've contradicted yourself here ? `a thing which can be seen is a bad candidate for the communication method' plus `the thing the gang saw is the communication thing' equals `tell JKR she's chosen the wrong method' not `The patronus can't be' IMHO. And finally there's a thought from Ms Luna: I also believe the patronus is not the way the Order communicates, it's too visible! If a DE were to see a phoenix patronus flying through the air in London, they would KNOW Dumbledore was sending a message. I believe it to be much more stealthier (is that a word? [JLV: yes but no ? it's `much more stealthy' OR `more stealthy' OR `much stealthier' FYI and as a response I ditto mine to TrekkieGrrrl immediately above]) MsLuna:Although my theory of the order communicating using the *two-way* mirrors has been dismissed, I still stand by that. Maybe the mirrors with a *nifty new spell* attached! JLV: In JKR's quote, "nothing but a wand" means "*nothing* but a wand" surely? Am I being thick? I apologise. When we're past these we have more interesting objections: Neri: 2. When DD sends his silver bird in GoF, Harry had already seen Fawkes, who is a large and quite a distinct bird. If DD were using his patronus, Harry would have identified it as a phoenix, not merely as a bird. JLV: Now this is more like it. I have already admitted that connecting the bird to the Patronus is really where the shaky ground lies. I can but point out that Harry hasn't always recognised things for what they really are first time before. The description said, however, that the thing darted out of the wand and streaked away. This sounds like it was moving fast to me so Harry may have missed getting a good look. It is also possible that JKR chose to withhold this information - perhaps to keep the identity of the Order of the Phoenix under wraps or for another wicked reason of her own. Neri: 3. Just think about JKR saying to herself: "Oops, I need some way for the Order members to communicate. Why won't they use the patronus for that?" Naah, this doesn't sound like our Jo at all. She'd go: "hey, the Order members need a secure way to communicate. Oh good! A reason to invent a nifty new spell!" JLV: I don't think she ever thought 'Oops' on this one either - remember she said "You saw the Order's method of communication in use even before you knew about the existence of the Order; it was employed by an Order member." This suggests to me that the method of communication was planned a long way in advance. As for inventing a new spell, she may do, but in GoF Polyjuice Potion reappeared after being used in CoS. Why are you so convinced that Jo would choose to use a new spell here rather than expand on an old one? Lady McBeth now: I don't think the Patronus charm is the answer either. What did come to mind, however, was that the wispy thing appearing from DD's wand was gray or silvery, right? This sounds very similar to removing a thought to put it in a Pensive. JLV: I like this idea, but does a thought from the Pensieve (a silvery- white liquid) fit the description of the darting silver thing any more than Dumbledore's Patronus. I think the Patronus is a better fit. But that is only my opinion. Chancie: 1. Harry is told that the Patronus charm is VERY difficult. JLV replied: Aha, but the Order members are not just any old wizards, are they? Also many DA members managed to produce one after much practice. And most messages won't be sent in front of Dementors which may make thing a lot easier. TrekkieGrrrl: At the OWL exam, the examinators were impressed that Harry could conjure up a *corporeal* patronus. Seems to me that there are two types, and that the corporeal ones are *RARE* - so rare that not even all older wizards can make them. And then again, you're apparently supposed to concentrate all the time while making the patronus, which makes it a bad messenger. JLV: I believe you only need to concentrate hard while conjuring the Patronus, not once it is already made. Also, I believe that the examiners were just impressed that someone so young could produce a corporeal Patronus, not that he could do it at all. And, I reiterate that the Order is built up of a number of very powerful wizards. After all, Mrs Figg can't use a wand so there may be other ways to send messages for the more magically challenged. I don't know what would happen to Hagrid if he was caught using that brolly by the MoM All in all an excellent debate - I'm having fun! JLV xx From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 21 17:01:23 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:01:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Harry (13) Message-ID: <20050121170123.24619.qmail@web25109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122619 Harry meets Buckbeak at the beginning of his third year at Hogwarts. Buckbeak is a hippogriff, a creature that is half horse, half griffin. In my opinion the griffin gives us the clue to what Buckbeak symbolises. The griffin is an ancient mythical creature occurring in the tales of many nations. It is also mentioned in "The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross". The front half is eagle and the back half lion. The lion symbolises divine love while the eagle symbolises the spirit. The mighty wings of the eagle symbolise the heights to which this mythical creature can rise, while the lion has its feet on the ground. Here we see a beautiful symbol of an animal that connects heaven and earth. The Christ! When the sons and daughters of the Potter descended into matter millions of years ago they started a process of severance from the original spirit which lived as the king in the microcosm, next to the soul as queen, with the personality as their precious child. The original spirit never forsakes his children, and so right from the beginning there was a plan to enable the human being to return the way he had come. It is not possible just simply to open oneself to the original spirit again. The unimaginably high vibrations of the spirit would destroy the human being instantly. There has to be an intermediary between the fallen human being and the spirit. There has to be a guardian of God's compassion who can descend to the earth, even to hell if necessary, to answer the cry of the seeker when he realises there is no point in life in the fallen universe and his heart longs for the return to the spirit. This intermediary we call the Christ. His rays of hope and comfort can reach right down to us and give us the strength and hope to turn around and go the long, long way back to where we once came from. He will lift us up onto his back and carry us upwards, ever upwards towards the heights of the spirit, for the reunion with the Father. That is the griffin. For some reason not clear to me Jo has chosen the hippogriff as the symbol. Perhaps she doesn't want to be too obvious. Or perhaps a griffin is to come later. It is, of course, the name of Harry's House: Griffin d'or - Golden Griffin. At any rate, it is obvious that the hippogriff is nearly the same symbol. Beware! The hippogriff has very sharp claws! It is necessary to approach him with great respect and caution. The griffin is also the symbol of the protective power of the body of Christ. The body of Christ is the Brotherhood of the Masters of Compassion. In the past millennia many people have successfully gone the path of liberation. As I have stated repeatedly, these people do not forsake humanity but help to send the rays of hope and comfort down to earth. When Christian Rosycross was freed from the pit he helped to pull the next load of people up. Hagrid is the example Jo gives us of a master of compassion. In past posts I have indicated that it was he who introduced Harry to the magical world. And so it is only natural that he works with the body of Christ. When Hagrid tells Harry to sit on the hippogriff's back, naturally the new soul enters the body of Christ and this takes him upwards immediately. And Harry and Buckbeak become instant friends. As an aside I must say I love this scene in the film. It has become my all-time favourite scene. The symbolism comes out so well! But then Malfoy approaches Buckbeak. Malfoy represents the type of person who is on the path of liberation for the self rather than the new soul that needs to be born. It is not possible for the earthly self to be liberated as it is an integral part of this universe. It's an emergency measure to enable the microcosm to express itself in this world. Without it the human being could never be liberated. The spirit has left the microcosm many thousands of years ago and the soul has died. The earthly human being has the task of restoring the microcosm to its former glory, but he can do so only if he is willing to sacrifice himself as Ron did in the chess game, and as we will see in one of the books to come. It is natural for the human being to seek liberation for the natural self, or the "Self of matter" as "The Voice of the Silence" calls it. But that is impossible. Nevertheless many people do try. Malfoy in my opinion symbolises such a person. At Hogwarts he belongs to Slytherin, the House of Lucifer. He approaches the Body of Christ with irreverence and disdain. He says, "I bet you're not dangerous at all, are you? Are you, you great ugly brute?" As we know, Malfoy gets slashed by the sharp claws. The body of Christ is a force-field of intensely high spiritual energy and supremely beneficial only when it is approached by the immortal soul, but when the seeker for liberation for the self approaches it, he will be harmed. The high vibrations of the Christ will cause damage to the astral body of such a person. Malfoy goes to hospital and later he and his father organise the trial and fix the condemnation of Buckbeak. Meanwhile Harry discovers that Sirius, his God-Father, is innocent and has spent 12 years in prison as a victim of Peter Pettigrew's treachery. I will explain exactly what force Sirius personifies as soon as I've finished this series on Harry. Just for now let's just say he is the new soul's guardian and guide, a source of inspiration and spiritual power. He is in the microcosm, close to the new soul. By means of a time-turner Harry and Hermione (note: Ron is absent) go back in time and save Buckbeak from the executioner. Then they fly up to the cell where Sirius is imprisoned and help him to escape. Sirius flies off on Buckbeak. Harry has saved two innocent lives. Harry Potter is the story of a candidate for liberation through alchemical transformation. All the characters are forces, influences or entities the apprentice alchemist meets along the way. Dementors are forces which try to rob the new soul of the candidate of its soul-power. Harry is able to drive these away through his mighty longing for liberation, as we saw in Harry (12). Buckbeak has been condemned to death. The influence of the Body of Christ, the Brotherhood of Compassion, is contrary to the purposes of the powers of darkness in and around the seeker. They want to get rid of this influence as soon as possible. Christ is dangerous! He upsets world order. Look at what he's done to poor old Malfoy! Exterminate! The same with Sirius. He has been taken by Snape and locked up. Snape is our dark side, our shadow. He hates Sirius and Harry. I will deal with Snape later. Suffice to say for now that he is the black king in "The Alchemical Wedding". Although Snape is to join the Order of the Phoenix later, as we know, and will sacrifice himself for Harry in the end, he is bound by his past to hate the Divine Light. However Harry bows to the hippogriff, and he and Hermione fly off to save Sirius. The new immortal soul defies the powers of this world and enters the Body of Christ with great respect. He surrenders himself to it and the Christ-force lifts him up and enables him to liberate Sirius. Harry has completed another phase in the Divine Plan of Redemption. He has become free of the astral world. He has liberated the Power of Christ within himself and has brought up into his firmament the new Bright Morning Star, Sirius. Jo is not writing fiction, you know. Hans PS well, maybe flobberworms are fiction. ===== 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 chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 17:05:23 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:05:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Method communication- Patronus vs Little Birdie vs. M... Message-ID: <7e.618091a5.2f229053@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122620 In a message dated 1/21/2005 7:31:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, entropymail at yahoo.com writes: Entropy wrote: My first thought was that the Order's preferred method of communication would surely be the type of mirror Sirius slipped to Harry. ************************************* Chancie: I think it could be possible, except for 2 points. 1. It requires a wand 2. We saw it being used before we even knew there was an order. Both points from JKR., and since the mirrow came into play in OOP, I don't think that's it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 17:21:03 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:21:03 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Method- communication- Patronus vs Little Birdie Message-ID: <128.54a2daf2.2f2293ff@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122621 In a message dated 1/20/2005 11:59:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: bboyminn: Well, I think the Patronus Charm is a logical assumption, but I think it is wrong. The Patronus is suspected because when Dumbledore found Krum stunned, he cast a spell that sent something slivery and almost bird-like flying of to Hagrid's cabin. So, what's my theory? Ever heard the expression, '...a little birdie told me'? I think we are seeing a very specific Message Charm that I will dub the 'little birdie charm'. I think the 'Birdie' charm is limited to short and to the point messages. Anything more complicated must be delivered by some other means. So, I do agree, the spell Dumbledore used to summon Hagrid is the spell that JKR is referring to, but I'm not convinced it's a Patronus Charm. If it was a true Patronus, then I think it operated in a limited context. It could be that if Dumbledore did indeed cast a Patronus to summon Hagrid, that the Patronus didn't actually deliver a message. It's conceivable that Dumbledore merely sent a symbol, a phoenix, that Hagrid would recognise as representing Dumbledore, and divined the location of the problem by nothing more than the direction from which the Patronus came. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn) ************************************************** Chancie: Good idea Steve! I like it! But just so that this doesn't end up as a "me too" post (which we all know those House Elves love *waves to House Elves*), I'll add a little. Just for the record here is the quote from the book: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Stunned," he said softly. His half-moon glasses glittered in the wand light as he peered around at the surrounding trees. "Should I go get someone?" said Harry. "Madam Pomfrey?" "No," said Dumbledore swiftly. "Stay here." He raised his wand into the air and pointed it in the direction of Hagrid's cabin. Harry saw something silvery dart out of it and streak away through the trees like a ghostly bird. Then Dumbledore bent over Krum again, Pointed his wand at him, and muttered, "Ennervate" The sound of thunderous footfalls reached them, and Hagrid came panting into sight with fang at his heals. He was carrying his crossbow. "Professor Dumbledore" he said, his eyes widening. "Harry? what the??" Page 560, Chapter 28- The of Mr. Crouch, Goblet of Fire, American ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OK, so obviously Hagrid didn't know what was going on, so I would venture to say that this wasn't a message but a signal for help or danger because Hagrid came out with his crossbow. And also Neri pointed out that Harry knows what a phoenix looks like and wouldn't describe it as a "ghostly bird". Despite that Hagrid was unaware of the situation, perhaps when more time is allowed the bird-like being could deliver a message. But now that I am typing, the thought occurs to me that a silvery object is still easily seen. I think that for important messages they would want something more discreet. Thoughts anyone? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 17:26:53 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:26:53 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) Message-ID: <1f9.45d3316.2f22955d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122622 In a message dated 1/21/2005 4:50:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, mcdee1980 at yahoo.com writes: > Lady McBeth now: I don't think the Patronus charm is the answer either. What did come to mind, however, was that the wispy thing appearing from DD's wand was gray or silvery, right? This sounds very similar to removing a thought to put it in a Pensive. What if DD and the rest of the Order communicate by sending their thoughts. We've certainly had enough information about Pensives to know that they must be important in some way! ********************************************************************** Chancie: This thought ocured to me as well, but my problem with it, is that this too could fall into the wrong hands. And with a memory, I think that it would be far more detrimental to the Order if it did fall into the wrong hands than a letter from an OWL, simply because of the fact that it's an exact memory. I do think it's a good idea, if only there were a way to code them, but then that would kind of defeat the purpose of using a memory huh... I do agree that there will be something important to come of the Pensive, I just don't think that this is it. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 17:33:26 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:33:26 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122623 ustcarol67 Wrote: > Looking in the Pensieve is not fighting back. > It's violating Snape's privacy. You know, I think that's one of the main reasons Harry is so angry throughout book 5, it's OK for Snape to treat him like dirt but it's not OK if Harry shows the slightest irritation over it; it's OK if Snape violates Harry's privacy but it's not OK if Harry violates Snape's privacy. > Fighting back is using a stinging hex or a Protego So you say, but that's not what Snape said, he said "You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me or defend yourself in any other way that you can think of". If Snape didn't understand the full ramifications of his own words that's just tough. > which Snape *praises* Harry for using, I don't want my enemy to praise my fighting tactics, I want him to be angry surprised and horrified over them. > He should have fought back in the > lessons instead, as instructed. You're saying you should fight an enemy in ways he is expecting, well, I really don't think they teach that at West Point. > putting those three memories in the > Pensieve is not being unfair. It's > the only protection Snape has. So what protection does Snape give Harry over his own most secret memories? None, zero, goose egg, zip. Snape was being a coward and Harry was a victim once again to the old double standard. > Harry can stupefy him or petrify him > or make him eat slugs and Snape won't > fight back because Harry will be > doing what he's told. Snape won't fight back? I have no idea where you got that idea and it's contrary to everything we know about the character's personality. > The one memory we see relates to Harry's > father and is therefore highly personal > to *both* parties. It would have been > highly disruptive had that memory come > out during an Occlumency lesson. The idea that Snape tried to hide his memories because he didn't want to upset Harry stretches credulity to the breaking point. > He was being a spy against someone > fighting on his own side. Actually I think that's probably true, Snape is on his own side, not Voldemort's not Dumbledore's and certainly not Harry's; Snape is on Snape's side. Eggplant From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Fri Jan 21 18:00:46 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:00:46 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: <010501c4ffc6$19ca91d0$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122624 TrekkieGrrrl: And then there's this thing that if he wasn't present at the graveyard, I can't see any way that he could keep on spying on LV. Casey: You can get information without being at LV's side. Snape is a Slytherin so he probably knows quite a few people that are on the darker side of things. Gossip is a wonderful way to find out news and trends. A friendly conversation with an old friend or acquantence could give you lots of details, especially if that person was a friend of a friend, so to speak. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 18:07:35 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:07:35 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122625 justcarol67 Wrote > if Dumbledore had not seen the necessity > for Snape to conceal these memories, he > would not have allowed Snape to borrow the > Pensieve. After a series of colossal blunders I no longer much care if Dumbledore thinks it's a good idea or not and strongly suspect Harry feels the same way. However I do think Dumbledore was right when he told Harry " you are not nearly as angry with me as you should be". Eggplant From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 18:15:33 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:15:33 -0000 Subject: I hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122626 Pippin writes: >Eh, you've never been a little sister, have you? Don't let the name fool you, I'm the third girl! > I can just imagine what my brother would have done to me if I'd laid a finger on his >electric trainset, or his baseball glove, let alone a valuable racing >broom. Sheesh! My oldest sister had nothing I wanted and my next oldest sister could have given Voldemort a run for the title of Most Evil. I'd be missing fingers if I touched her stuff. I'm sure the Weasley brothers were just as protective of their brooms, but if Ron had one to practice on, why wouldn't Ginny? And if she did "borrow" one, when did she? At night? There were so many siblings it's difficult to imagine her using one unseen. I just wish JKR hadn't mentioned the secret flying at all. >Isn't it odd though, that Ginny always seems to get what she >needs? Where *did* her broom come from? It can't be Ron's old >one that was overtaken by passing butterflies. And where did >she get dress robes for the Yule Ball? Exactly. They managed to cough up a broom for her only when she started exhibiting talent? The robes thing is easy to explain - girls don't mind borrowing from each other! "Your robes look fine, Ginny, but these are getting too small for me and the color would just look gorgeous on you, will you take them?" Nicky Joe, who admits she stole whatever she could from her sister whenever there was a chance of getting away with it From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 18:57:19 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:57:19 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Message-ID: <20.3cd481a1.2f22aa8f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122627 In a message dated 1/21/2005 10:23:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, xcpublishing at yahoo.com writes: My oldest sister had nothing I wanted and my next oldest sister could have given Voldemort a run for the title of Most Evil. I'd be missing fingers if I touched her stuff. I'm sure the Weasley brothers were just as protective of their brooms, but if Ron had one to practice on, why wouldn't Ginny? And if she did "borrow" one, when did she? At night? There were so many siblings it's difficult to imagine her using one unseen. I just wish JKR hadn't mentioned the secret flying at all. **************************************************** Chancie: Ok, Ginny is the ONLY girl in her family for generations and she's the BABY! Being that she was "lucky" (please note the sarcasim!) enough to be blesed with that postition in the family she is/was very sheltered, and protected by all her brothers. Just look at Ron's reaction to her dating if you need canon to back that up! I being the oldest child on my mothers side got away with nothing! I actually even remember once getting in trouble because my little brother, and of my cousins were playing with matches in the house while I was outside playing dolls with my other 2 cousins. (I was only 7, so it wasn't like I was babysitting or put in charge of anything. And also if your wondering where the adults were my mom, aunt, and dad were get food for a bbq, and my uncle was feeding his dogs down the hill). My point is, when you are the older sibling/family member, parents tend to look at you for help in keeping the younger ones safe whether it's fair or not, it's the truth. Mrs. Weasley is a VERY protective mother, and I could definatly see her going on a rampage had Ginny asked the twins for the use of their brooms, and them giving it to her, and her ending up hurt. That's definatly a day I wouldn't like to be in the Burrow! Also, the WW is very traditional, it wouldn't be hard for me to see them having an old look on things like girls should play with dolls, not brooms. Again I'm not saying it's fair, but it's how things work. Just a thought. Chancie~who remembers last year when she and her hubby out they were going to have a baby girl, and the first words out of his mouth were, "She's not dating 'til she's 80!!". And knows that wouldn't have been his words had she been a boy! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 18:59:07 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:59:07 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122628 Carol wrote:: I agree with Betsy that prejudice against werewolves (who are genuinely dangerous) is not racism. The entire WW classifies werewolves as beasts, not people. (Check "Fantastic Beasts.") snip. It is not, IMO, irrational to fear and mistrust such people, especially when the whole WW shares your view. Alla: I fail to see how the fact that whole WW shares your POV, makes it not racism. Does the fact that jews in Soviet Union were despised more or less by all "good folks" ( and it was more or less officially approved by the government) make such ideology less antisemitic? If whole WW shares fear and mistrust of people, who suffer from lycanthropy, well than yes, whole WW has racist point of view in this matter, IMO. Valky: Ahhhh lets get all warm and fuzzy shall we, instead. Prejudice against werewolves and prejudice against the otherwise kind good people who suffer the affliction are different things. One is fairly rational behaviour, the other is... well something different. It is understandably difficult for Sevvie to differentiate the two, given his experiences, but it is not impossible. The sad thing about the scene where Snape throws to what is IMHO a deliberate confusion between Lupin and his unfortunate affliction, is the irony. An opportunity for Snape went begging. Alla: Word of agreement, Valky. I do see how Snape will be afraid of werewolf. It is understandable. What I DON'T see as rational is Snape DEFINING Remus as werewolf. About the irony, did you mean that comparison can be drawn between the fact that Dumbledore chose NOT to define Snape as "former deatheater" only and Snape is uncapable of doing the same thing for Remus? Could you clarify please if you meant something different? Just my opinion, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 19:25:27 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:25:27 -0000 Subject: Method- communication- Patronus vs Little Birdie In-Reply-To: <128.54a2daf2.2f2293ff@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122629 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > > "Should I go get someone?" said Harry. "Madam Pomfrey?" > > "No," said Dumbledore swiftly. "Stay here." > > He raised his wand into the air and pointed it in the direction of Hagrid's cabin. Harry saw something silvery dart out of it and streak away through the trees like a ghostly bird. Then Dumbledore bent over Krum again, Pointed his wand at him, and muttered, "Ennervate" > > > The sound of thunderous footfalls reached them, and Hagrid came panting into sight with fang at his heals. He was carrying his crossbow. "Professor Dumbledore" he said, his eyes widening. "Harry??" what the??"?" Tonks here: Ennervate. In English only one N. Enervate. At first I thought this is the name of the spell. But it is an English word take from Latin. The on-line dictonary says: It comes from Latin nervus, "sinew." Thus enervate means "to cause to become `out of muscle'," that is, "to weaken or deplete of strength." So it seems that the message to Hagrid was that someone was injured. No details, just a quick call for help. I think it is clear that the Order does use their wands to communicate with each other. Now how the message knows who to go to and how no one else can see it or interfer with it, well that is another mystery. Tonks_op From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 19:41:02 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:41:02 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Method- communication- Patronus vs Little Birdie Message-ID: <76.4b0f6724.2f22b4ce@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122630 In a message dated 1/21/2005 11:30:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, tonks_op at yahoo.com writes: > "Should I go get someone?" said Harry. "Madam Pomfrey?" > > "No," said Dumbledore swiftly. "Stay here." > > He raised his wand into the air and pointed it in the direction of Hagrid's cabin. Harry saw something silvery dart out of it and streak away through the trees like a ghostly bird. Then Dumbledore bent over Krum again, pointed his wand at him, and muttered, "Ennervate" > > > The sound of thunderous footfalls reached them, and Hagrid came panting into sight with fang at his heals. He was carrying his crossbow. "Professor Dumbledore" he said, his eyes widening. "Harry??" what the??"?" Tonks here: Ennervate. In English only one N. Enervate. At first I thought this is the name of the spell. But it is an English word take from Latin. The on-line dictonary says: It comes from Latin nervus, "sinew." Thus enervate means "to cause to become `out of muscle'," that is, "to weaken or deplete of strength." ******************************************************* Chancie: It is the name of a spell. But not the spell for the "ghostly bird" It is the spell to revive Krum from unconcousness. If you noticed, the silvery being came out of his wand prior to his muttering "Ennerviate". I don't understand what you mean by "in english only one N" though. Please elaborate! Chancie~ who doesn't know how the symbols "??" ended up in her post when she wrote in a long dash as it appears in her copy of GOF. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 19:55:52 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:55:52 -0000 Subject: Method- communication- Patronus vs Little Birdie In-Reply-To: <76.4b0f6724.2f22b4ce@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122631 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, chnc1024 at A... wrote: > In a message dated 1/21/2005 11:30:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, > tonks_op at y... writes: > Ennervate. In English only one N. Enervate. At first I thought this is the name of the spell. But it is an English word take from Latin. The on-line dictonary says: It comes from Latin nervus, "sinew." Thus enervate means "to cause to become `out of muscle'," that is, "to weaken or deplete of strength." > > > ******************************************************* > Chancie: > > It is the name of a spell. But not the spell for the "ghostly bird" It is the spell to revive Krum from unconcousness. If you noticed, the silvery being came out of his wand prior to his muttering "Ennerviate". I don't understand what you mean by "in englishonly one N" though. Please elaborate! Tonks here: oops. Can I blame it on my bifocals? As to the word. It is spelled with only one N. Enervate. Unless in England they spell it differently. Anyway.. I goofed. But still I agree that the Order uses their wands. Maybe the little birdie disappears when it gets going as isn't seen again till it gets to the intended receiver. But why don't all the wizards use that all the time instead of those messy owls?? Tonks_op From ejblack at rogers.com Fri Jan 21 19:59:04 2005 From: ejblack at rogers.com (Jeanette) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:59:04 -0000 Subject: Sirius Mother's Picture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122632 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > > Becky > > I had assumed that all OOTP meetings would take place in the > > kitchen, out of hearing of portraits. The description of the > kitchen says that it has rough stone walls. No mention of pictures. Even if they held all their meetings in the kitchen, wouldn't the very fact of this very "interesting" group of people been worthy of notice by Lucius Malfoy. Especially wouldn't the Malfoys been interested in the fact Snape keeps popping in and out. Also, the portraits in Hogswort can talk to each other. One wonders what Phineas (may be wrong spelling, I don't have my book with me) and Sirius' mother have to say to each other. Jeanette Jeanette From deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 21 13:25:16 2005 From: deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk (deatheaterjames) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 13:25:16 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Mass Response In-Reply-To: <00bb01c4ffb8$40b11930$0501010a@harrypotter> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122633 > phoenixgod: > And how did Hermione even get to be such good friends with her? > They are in separate years and have no classes together. They stay > in separate dorms. There has never, as far as I can recall, a > mention of Hermione ever even spending time with Ginny in previous > books, which the boys would have noticed because you know Ron > would have complained about it. In GoF and OotP Hermione spends a lot of her summer holidays with the Weasleys, we could probably assume she shares a room with Ginny. Not to mention all the times Hermione, Harry and Ron are in the common room where they could spend time with Ginny. Also they're in the DA together. Plenty of time together. "deatheaterjames" From deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 21 15:33:52 2005 From: deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk (deatheaterjames) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:33:52 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > Slightly more 'out there' theory, but could Snape be impersonating > Barty Crouch Jr? > > I don't remember any canon that would indicate LV being aware that > Crouch was caught and the Dementor's kiss administered. > 1. A quick PolyJuice potion and Snape would be ready. In fact I'm > sure DD went to see Crouch after the kiss had been given (was he > getting some of Barty's hair??) > 2. As LV's most trusted servant, Snape would be in a fantastic > position to spy on his old master. > 3. Snape is good enough at Occlumency to have deluded LV before > > One huge problem though is that I could not see Fudge keeping his > mouth shut about it!! I like this theory. The problem I've always had with Snape spying on LV under the pretense that he isn't on DD's side is that Snape was aquitted of being a DE with help from DD. If he did return to LV he would either tourture the truth out of Snape or use legilimency to get it, which I imagine LV could do no matter how powerful an occlumens Snape is (unless he's the best wizard in the world at it???). However if Snape was posing as Barty Crouch it's likely that LV would not go to extreme lengths to discover if he was telling the truth, he would just take it for granted. Small problem though, why Snape? Again, assuming that Snape is not best occlumens in the world but only the best at Hogwarts save perhaps DD. Why not an auror with special training? Perhaps Snape knows the procedure of the DE meetings but I'm sure it's nothing he couldn't tell someone else. I'm still not sure anyone has got it yet with what Snape is up to, but I like this theory. "deatheaterjames" From nienna_anwamane at ntlworld.com Fri Jan 21 16:42:15 2005 From: nienna_anwamane at ntlworld.com (joanne) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 16:42:15 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! References: Message-ID: <003801c4ffd8$50490cc0$f5606b51@talyn> No: HPFGUIDX 122635 For me Ginny's personality in OOTP was sudden and felt as if it was being justified throughout the book. Characters telling us how wonderful this sparkly new Ginny is and my gosh she's always been this way, didn't you notice? The personality shift needed foreshadowing; nothing major, just something as simple as Harry walking into the Burrow kitchen and while she doesn't realise he's there Ginny talking animatedly and than clamping up and blushing when she realised he was there or even at school. If Ginny is going to be a more significant character the differences between Crush Ginny and normal Ginny needed to be highlighted. Neville and Ginny are perfect examples of character development done well and not so much. "nienna_anwamane" From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 20:15:40 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:15:40 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Method- communication- Patronus vs Little Birdie Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122636 In a message dated 1/21/2005 11:59:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, tonks_op at yahoo.com writes: Tonks here: oops. Can I blame it on my bifocals? As to the word. It is spelled with only one N. Enervate. Unless in England they spell it differently. Anyway.. I goofed. But still I agree that the Order uses their wands. Maybe the little birdie disappears when it gets going as isn't seen again till it gets to the intended receiver. But why don't all the wizards use that all the time instead of those messy owls?? Tonks_op ************************************************************* Chancie: I'm an awful speller ( when I was in elementary school, I stoped doing my spelling work in like 2nd grade when I found out it wasn't required for us to pass it to pass to the next grade, and I didn't see the point of doing the extra work for no reason, that was of course until I realized I'm one of the worst spellers I know. Thank GOD for spell check!) but, I copied the quote verbatum (and letter for letter) from the GOF text. So if "Ennervate" is indeed the incorrect spelling I am happy to say that this time it isn't my fault, but Schoolastic's! On another note, it is possible that the "bird" becomes invisible until it's arival in the reciver's presence, but my thoughts against that are that it seems that Harry watches the "bird" travel through the forest towards Hagrid's cabin until it is blocked by view due to the tree's. Chancie~who is enjoying her small break from her daughter (my hubby says I need to have a break because I'm driving him crazy, so is playing blocks with her in her bed room), but thinks that they are having WAY too much fun with out her, and is going to go play too! she's going to have to [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Fri Jan 21 17:55:27 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:55:27 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122637 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > You're saying you should fight an enemy in ways he is expecting, > well, I really don't think they teach that at West Point. Well, they probably teach their pupils to master the subject which is being taught, I hope. As I said before, peeping into the pensieve does not help Harry at all in mastering Oclumency. Which is what everybody, DD, Sirius, Lupin, tells him he absolutely must do. He does not. He does not want to. Now, we can argue about Snape teaching methods (which I agree are not really good, mildly expressed), but the pensieve scene has nothing to do with Harry learning to defend his mind. Eggplant, this scene is not about a war, not about an enemy, this is about Harry learning a very valuable skill. It is even explained to him by Snape, that LV might try to influence his mind. Even a nitwit (which Harry is not) should have been able to see that learning to defend himself agains LV might have been a good idea. But, because of his own actions, he has no defence at all against the real enemy, he is lured to the Department of Mysteries, and Sirius dies. Maybe this still would have happened if he had practiced, but then at least he would have had the consolation for himself that he had tried. No he will know for the rest of his life, that he did not even try to prevent LV using him, though people almost begged him to take his lessons serioulsy. Gerry From olivertraldi at gmail.com Fri Jan 21 17:57:56 2005 From: olivertraldi at gmail.com (delemtri) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:57:56 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Mass Response In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122638 > Hickengruendler: > And I never said that Ginny has or had a weak personality. I just > said that I didn't buy the spunky and sporty personality she showed > in book 5. Shy people can have a strong personality as well, as > Neville shows and as I thought Ginny showed in the first four books. Oliver: Well, what personality did you see from her beforehand? Did you see a shy personality or just one that didn't know how to deal with a huge crush? I'm really not sure how you could have pegged her as a "shy person" - except perhaps from COS. And COS reminds me of another point that I made earlier but that needs reiterating. *People can decide to change.* I truly believe that Ginny decided to make some changes regarding her own personality after the events of COS, because she really doesn't do much blushing and stammering in POA and GOF either - feel free to post canon to contradict this, but I'm pretty sure it's not there. (At least for GOF. POA I'm not too sure about.) > Hickengruendler: > > We also learned in OotP more about Neville's, McGonagall's, > Trelawney's, Sirius', James', Dumbledore's, Trelawney's, Petunia's or > Snape's character, neither of which really surprised me. The only > development that I found a bit unsatisfying was Ginny's. Oliver: I realize this. I'm trying to satisfy you on it! From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 19:27:20 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:27:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050121192720.48940.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122639 I think the Patronus makes a very interesting option as a means of communication between Order members. But a Patronus is very powerful and advanced magic, and not a whole lot of people know how to produce one. Even Lupin, a DADA teacher and Order Member can't produce one (remember during the train ride to Hogwarts during PoA?), Sirius seems to be able to do it (in OoP he tells Harry that he would have enjoyed a fight with dementores over his soul), and I can't even imagine Hagrid producing a Patronus. It has to be something much simpler and at the same time more complex, something that travels really fast and is accurate, what it may be I have no idea. Juli From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 17:45:14 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:45:14 -0000 Subject: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122640 > Neri: > 2. When DD sends his silver bird in GoF, Harry had already seen > Fawkes, who is a large and quite a distinct bird. If DD were using > his patronus, Harry would have identified it as a phoenix, not > merely as a bird. > > JLV: > I have already admitted that connecting the bird to the Patronus > is really where the shaky ground lies. I can but point out that > Harry hasn't always recognised things for what they really are first > time before. The description said, however, that the thing darted > out of the wand and streaked away. This sounds like it was moving > fast to me so Harry may have missed getting a good look. I've been following this for a while now (it makes interesting reading!), and I'm inclined to agree that this thing which comes out of DD wand is the way they communicate. However, I see no reason why it should be something we already know about, such as a patronus. If this were the case, then its appearance would depend entirely on the person who sent it. I think it's more likely that it's always a phoenix. I also think that it will be only something an order member can do. My main thinking point for this is the dark mark. It takes the same form whichever DE conjures it, but only DE know how to do it. Seems to follow that the order would have something the same but opposite. (Hmm...... did that make sense?) JMO Becky From jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 21 20:50:22 2005 From: jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk (jlv230) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:50:22 -0000 Subject: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) In-Reply-To: <20050121192720.48940.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > > > I think the Patronus makes a very interesting option > as a means of communication between Order members. But > a Patronus is very powerful and advanced magic, and > not a whole lot of people know how to produce one. > Even Lupin, a DADA teacher and Order Member can't > produce one (remember during the train ride to Hogwarts > during PoA?), Sirius seems to be able to do it (in OoP > he tells Harry that he would have enjoyed a fight with > dementores over his soul), and I can't even imagine > Hagrid producing a Patronus. It has to be something > much simpler and at the same time more complex, > something that travels really fast and is accurate, > what it may be I have no idea. > > Juli JLV: I'm sorry Juli, but Lupin can produce a Patronus: "'And Professor Lupin stepped over you, and walked towards the Dementor, and pulled out his wand,' said Hermione. 'And said, 'None of us is hiding Sirius Black under our cloaks. Go." But the Dementor didn't move, so Lupin muttered something, and a silvery thing shot out of his wand at it, and it turned round and sort of glided away...'" I think almost all order members can produce one, except Mrs Figg (a sqib) and Hagrid (who isn't even allowed to have a wand). Note that in the above quotation, Hermione doesn't mention a look of concentration on Lupin at all. I know it is a difficult bit of magic, but I'm sure most wizards will be able to get the hang of it if you practise (like playing the piano). Some people, like Harry, are just better at picking it up than others. My two knuts, JLV xx From featheringstonehaugh at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 20:51:40 2005 From: featheringstonehaugh at yahoo.com (A Featheringstonehaugh) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:51:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: Squibs/wands/cats In-Reply-To: <1106328847.29345.97250.m14@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20050121205140.61580.qmail@web52401.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122642 I really can't recall canon on this (and don't have the books with me to research) but I doubt that Squibs would have wands. Squibs aren't wizards after all, and if Hagrid - a wizard - was not permitted a wand when he was expelled from Hogwarts, why would non-wizards be permitted to have them? Again, I can't remember details, but I believe Filch's wizard-improvement books were simply geared for those with poor wizarding abilities, not non-wizards. Alas, (for him!) I suspect he ordered them in hopes of stimulating some dormant wizard-ness. Can you imagine the havoc that would ensue if non-wizards were able to use, let alone possess wands? Privet Drive would have been a battleground. 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? Ann F __________________________________________________ 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 bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 21:02:19 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:02:19 -0000 Subject: Method- communication- Two-Way Mirror In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122643 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ms_luna_knows" wrote: > > --> > > > > JLV here: > > > > I definitely agree that the Patronus is the most likely candidate > > > > for being the method of communication that the Order use. > > > > > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > > > Well, I think the Patronus ... is ... logical ..., but ... > > > wrong. > > > > > > So, what's my theory? > > > > > > Ever heard the expression, '...a little birdie told me'? > > > > > > I think we are seeing a very specific Message Charm that I will > > > dub the 'little birdie charm'. > > Neri: > > > > I agree with Steve and Chancie, ... > ms_luna_knows: > > I also believe the patronus is not the way the Order communicates, it's too visible! ... Although my theory of the order communicating using the *two-way* mirrors has been dismissed, I still stand by that. Maybe the mirrors with a *nifty new spell* attached! > > Ms. Luna bboyminn: I think JKR made a mistake when she invented the Two-Way Mirrors. When the idea came to her, she probably only saw it in the context in which she needed it, but when you think about it, the Two-Way Mirror /should/ be the wizard world equivalent to the Cell Phone. In fact, it is even more advanced that the Cell Phone, since it would be the equivalent to the real-time VIDEO Cell Phone. If the Two-Way Mirror worked as well as it seems, then I speculate, as should be obvious, that the entire wizarding world would be using them. Since they are not using them, I can only further speculate that there is a reason for it. Perhaps the Mirrors can only be paired. That is, you can make one SPECIFIC mirror talk to another specific mirror but you can't create mirrors that have universal coverage like a cell phone. Maybe there are only two mirror, and maybe they can only be programmed to talk to each other. That would certainly explain their lack of common use. However, even if that limitation is true, it really could be an effective communcation method for the Order. One that is likely not well known in the wizard world. Sirius or Remus could have mentioned the mirror to Dumbledore, who liked the idea, and they helped him enchant a few mirrors for the Order. A pair for Communication between Hogwarts and Grimmauld Place, and perhaps another pair for communication between Grimmauld Place and an Order member on assignment somewhere; guarding the Ministry or guarding Harry, etc.... But you would think that if that was true, then certainly someone as critically important as Mrs. Figg would certainly had one in case of emergency. However, when Harry faced the Dementors near Private Drive, Mrs. Figg incidate that she doesn't have a way to inform Dumbledore; Harry offers to let her use Hedwig. One small problem, a general problem, certainly mirrors are muggle objects and therefore are forbidden from being enchanted lest a muggle stumble across one. I think the risk is somewhat low. A muggle would be unlikely to call out the name of someone who had the other mirror, but some one could try to contact the mirror that is now in the possession of a muggle, and that could get a bit sticky. So, given all this, my conclusion is that the Order is not using the Mirrors now, but they will realize just how good and effective they are, and they will start using them. They certainly have high potential as communcation devices even if they are somewhat illegal. Maybe that's how Harry will make his fortune after Hogwarts, he figures out away to create universal service for the Mirrors and starts his own telcommunications empire. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn. From jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 21 21:20:00 2005 From: jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk (jlv230) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:20:00 -0000 Subject: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122644 Neri: 2. When DD sends his silver bird in GoF, Harry had already seen Fawkes, who is a large and quite a distinct bird. If DD were using his Patronus, Harry would have identified it as a phoenix, not merely as a bird. JLV: I can but point out that Harry hasn't always recognised things for what they really are first time before. Becky: I've been following this for a while now (it makes interesting reading!), and I'm inclined to agree that this thing which comes out of DD wand is the way they communicate. However, I see no reason why it should be something we already know about, such as a Patronus. If this were the case, then its appearance would depend entirely on the person who sent it. I think it's more likely that it's always a phoenix. I also think that it will be only something an order member can do. My main thinking point for this is the dark mark. It takes the same form whichever DE conjures it, but only DE know how to do it. Seems to follow that the order would have something the same but opposite. (Hmm...... did that make sense?) JMO Becky JLV: Let's make this clear. You agree that even if it was a Phoenix- shaped thing, Harry may not have recognised it. Excellent. But you think that it needn't be a Patronus even if it was Phoenix-like. If that is the case, then I can't argue, Becky. As I said before, the *only* reason I have to think it is a Patronus is the Edinburgh Book Day quote: "What form does Dumbledore's Patronus take? Good question. Can anyone guess? You have had a clue. There was a little whisper there. It is a phoenix, which is very representative of Dumbledore for reasons that I am sure you can guess." It is the "You have had a clue." bit that I picked up on and believed to mean that there was a specific clue in the books which we may have overlooked. It is indeed a very tenuous connection, but this is the only time I can find where Dumbledore ever shoots anything which could possibly be his Phoenix Patronus out of his wand. Hence I came to this conclusion. As for the appearance depending entirely on the sender, I can only think it is an advantage, security-wise. Like a fingerprint, everyone's messenger will be different and is very difficult to fake. As for `the same but opposite' ? it does make sense! It would be a good reason to call a group the Order of the Phoenix, for one. I like your idea lots. I also, however, like the idea that Patroni have loads of uses other than the ones JKR has told us about. I refer you to message 122513 for my mad idea there. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122513 All the best, JLV xx From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 21 21:30:57 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:30:57 -0000 Subject: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122645 Musing over this and associated threads, one or two thoughts come to mind: (1) It has been suggested that Steve's "little birdie" is a sort of mini-Patronus which just has the ability to alert the receiver to the need for his/her presence and help. I was reminded of the situation around where I live. In the local town 6 miles away, there is a lifeboat station. In the case of an emergency, the current method is for the volunteer crew to have a bleeper which is activated. They rush to the lifeboat station to get kitted up before launching and they often do not know precisely where they are going - or why - until they are under way and in more direct contact with the Coastguard. Until a few years ago, it was even more vague because they would be summoned by a maroon - assuming they were within hearing range. Perhaps Dumbledore launched the Wizarding World equivalent of a bleeper.... (2) Thinking about the word "enervate". It seems that the Scholastic edition may have a misprint; Bloomsbury certainly spells it with one "n". This in turn brings up something which has always puzzled me and I have never previously commented on. The English word means "to cause to be drained of energy". If someone is enervated, they are weakened and frail. This seems to be the direct opposite meaning of the spell which is used to rouse victims from stunning or similar mishaps. Anyone got any thoughts on this? Geoff http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com Enjoy a virtual visit to the Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 21:43:40 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:43:40 -0000 Subject: I hate Ginny Weasley!!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122646 Jocelyn writes: >Maybe her brothers made fun of her if she expressed an interest and her >parents couldn't afford the extra broom anyway? Ron was really >embarrassed at being seen to try for the team, even if the twins had >used him as a practice keeper (as a convenience for THEM, you note!) >He was afraid of making a fool of himself in front of everyone, and it >wouldn't be surprising if Ginny felt the same. With a house full of brothers, especially two as obnoxious and Fred and George, I'm sure she's plenty used to be being made fun of. If anything, it would make her more determined to prove herself. I just wish JKR had shown us THAT Ginny, instead of having her sneak around. It could have been handled better, say: Ginny sits down at the table with the Weasley brothers. "Fred, I took your broom out yesterday for some practice. Took me a bit to disable the booby trap you put on it. I think I'll try out for the quidditch team next year." And from what JKR has told us in OoP, SuperGinny wouldn't be embarrassed by much. Oliver writes: >In the end, there's a very good reason why we don't see much with >Ginny and why her transformation seems sudden: the "elbow in the >butter dish" problem. She *doesn't act the same way around Harry as >she acts around anybody else* and we *never* see her without Harry. >(This is another reason why being told secondhand is effective!) Sorry, Oliver, but with the exception of Voldemort, we don't see ANYONE unless they are with Harry. JKR has done an amazing job characterizing secondary characters like Neville (and who wasn't fooled by Crouch!Moody?) and we only see them through Harry's eyes. I don't think she really intended Ginny to be a major character. Even in CoS, though she's a major part of the plot, we rarely see her. I really hate the secondhand thing, also - when are we ever "told" that Neville did this or Fred and George did that? JKR hasn't done that with any of the other characters. Nicky Joe From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 21:53:24 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:53:24 -0000 Subject: Ennervate & Innervate and Birdies in the Sky (was Method- comm...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > Tonks here: > > Ennervate. In English only one N. Enervate. At first I thought this > is the name of the spell. ... enervate means ... "to weaken or > deplete of strength." > > So it seems that the message to Hagrid was that someone was injured. > No details, just a quick call for help. > bboyminn: I have mentioned this before, but that's never stopped me from mentioning again. I think 'Ennervate' is a mispelling of the word 'Innervate'. Enervate - en?er?vate 1. To weaken or destroy the strength or vitality of: "the luxury which enervates and destroys nations" (Henry David Thoreau). See Synonyms at deplete. 2. Medicine. To remove a nerve or part of a nerve. --en?er?vate (?-n?r"v?t) adj. Deprived of strength; debilitated. [Latin ?nerv?re, ?nerv?t- : ?-, ex-, ex- + nervus, sinew; Innervate- in?ner?vate tr.v. in?ner?vat?ed, in?ner?vat?ing, in?ner?vates. 1. To supply (an organ or a body part) with nerves. 2. To stimulate (a nerve, muscle, or body part) to action. Also, Ennervate is the counter-curse to the Stunning Curse. It's the spell that wakes someone who is stunned. It wasn't the incantation that sent the 'ghostly bird' flying to Hagrid. Since JKR makes up a lot of words, although those words usually have a vaild and meaningful foundation, the copy editors in charge of correcting mistakes in the manuscripts missed this one. It's not a very common word, and when spoken 'Enervate' and 'Innervate' sound a lot alike, so the confusion is understandable. I also suspect that people subconsciously made a reasonable association between 'Ennervate' and 'Energize'. The '...nerv...' aspect of, most likely, both these words is related to the word 'nerve'. I suspect the prefex 'En...' implies a contraction or containment of, and 'In...' implies the expansion of. Therefore, 'En'-nerve would be a deminishing of nerve energy or ability, and 'In'-nerve would imply and expansion of nerve energy or ability. The suffix '..ate' would imply 'the immediate process of' as in communicate being 'the immediate process of' communing. Justifiable I think this should be corrected in all editions (Ennervate->Innervate), but I seriously doubt that it will be. > Tonks continues: > I think it is clear that the Order does use their wands to > communicate with each other. Now how the message knows who to go to > and how no one else can see it or interfer with it, well that is > another mystery. > > Tonks_op bboyminn: I think those details are contained in the intent of the caster of the Messenger Spell. Illustration, when Dumbledore creates the Portkeys, he doesn't speak any long complex incantations to program the details of the journey into the Portkey. He simply creates the Portkey and his intended use it transferred to it. So to, one merely casts the Messenger Charm with specific intent, and the charm carries that intent with it. As far as seeing it, Harry doesn't imply that it is an unusually large 'ghostly bird', and birds are very very common. Seeing a silvery bird streaking over the skys of London would be nothing, but seeing a large silvery ghostly stag stalking the streets of London would not be likely to go unnotice. If someone caught a glimpse of the bird they would probably mistake it for a dove or pigeon. Also, note that the bird is somewhat ghostly, I take that to mean it is semi-transparent which would make for very good camouflage. Somewhat like the Disillusionment Charm, the ghostliness would make it difficult to see as it would somewhat blend with any background. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Fri Jan 21 21:56:54 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:56:54 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nice vs good was Re: Favorite Snape Scenes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5CFBCB40-6BF7-11D9-BC39-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 122648 On Saturday, January 22, 2005, at 01:56 am, kempermentor wrote: > I don't see Hermione as that thoughtless or reckless. In retrospect it looks reckless, but at the time they were just putting together a club. Sure, it was in defiance of Umbridge, but she hadn't yet really established her reign of terror at this point. They talked about their plan where Zacharias could overhear them, and were only mildly annoyed about it. Asking a teacher if they were allowed to go to the Hogs Head on their day out would not have seemed to be that big a deal, because at that point they had really not grasped how far this was going and how paranoid Umbridge truly was. JMO Jocelyn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 22:17:22 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:17:22 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122649 >>Betsy wrote: >But if Snape is not redeemed, then he is still a Death Eater. He is ESE!Snape, and his constant saving of Harry's life is part of some evil complex plot of... evil complexity? >No, Snape is definitely redeemed. He's just not sweet and fuzzy. I don't think he'll ever be sweet and fuzzy (thank goodness). I do hope there is development of his and Harry's relationship. There is so much similarity between those two that it'd be a shame if they didn't finally see each others good sides.< >>Alla countered: >NO, Betsy. That is the fundamental difference between how you and me see the character of Snape. To me not a DE anymore does not equal "being redeemed". >Snape as sadist, who enjoys the sufferings of Harry and Neville needs redemption, IMO. >>Carol responds: >Possibly you two are using the word "redeem" in different but equally valid senses. Betsy seems to be using it to mean reform, and I would agree that Snape, for all his numerous faults, is "redeemed" in that sense, a reformed Death Eater who has no intention of going back to Voldemort and is actively fighting against him. But I think Alla is using it in the sense of atone or expiate, IOW not just repenting and opposing Voldemort but somehow extinguishing his guilt, paying for his sins in some painful way, in which case I can see why she doesn't think he is yet redeemed. Am I right, or close to right? If not, can you both clarify your concept of redemption? >I'm not quite sure how Snape could redeem himself in that second sense except by dying to save Harry or some similar self-sacrifice, a la Boromir. Anyone have any Snape redemption theories that don't involve his death? Would saving Harry from deadly peril without dying in the process count? (*I* think it would, but I also confess that that's what I hope will happen.)< >>Alla: >Hmmmm, not exactly Carol. My concept of "redemption" includes both "to reform" AND " to atone". >Let's forget for a second that as of today, which can totally change tomorrow and back again, I am having my doubts as to whether Snape is truly REFORMED DE. >Let's pretend that he is truly loyal to the Dumbledore and accordingly to the Light. >Even if I will be sure that he is truly loyal to the Light, I will never believe that he is completely reformed yet, because I think he still has DE mentality ( enjoying to see another human being in pain and enjoying causing such pain) >True, IF Snape is truly loyal to the Light he does not want to kill anymore, but I believe that he still likes to hurt other people and his students make for nice subjects for his exercise. >Accordingly, I think that Snape still needs to undergo reformation and well, atonement will be nice too.< Betsy: Excellent question Carol! I'm leaving Alla's answer in because I'm coming to this a little late in the game and I think the difference between our two views may help illuminate some of the fundimental differences between those who like Snape and those who do not. First off, you're right, Carol, "redemption" and "reformation" are fairly interchangable for me. Though I also think that a complete redemption includes definitive action to demonstrate the change of thought. I don't know that I'd catagorize that action as "atonement" necessarily. Maybe more a sense of putting your money where your mouth is? I think that Snape, for some unknown reason, had a moral epiphany (to borrow a phrase used earlier in this thread) and realized that the Death Eater philosophy was wrong. Putting action to thought, he went to Dumbledore and effectively changed sides. He became Dumbledore's spy. A very important point to me is that this happened *before* Voldemort's downfall at GH (and I know this is a contested point - but it's how I read canon). This meant that he changed sides when the Death Eaters were at their most powerful and joined what appeared to be the loosing side. This was Snape's redemption, or his reformation. In my opinion, another act of "redemption" would be redundent. However, I do not think that the act of redemption, in and of itself, creates a perfect person. Snape still has his issues and the bulk of them (that we the readers have seen anyway) revolve around his interactions with the Mauraders. That he was humiliated and ganged up on by this group of boys (Sirius and James in particular) has been shown to us within canon. That he was no easy meat has also been shown (the slash at James' face suggests that Snape rarely went down easily and most probably sought revenge whenever possible), but the fact remains that what was done to him still haunts him to this day. We have *tons* of canon for that. Snape definitely needs to get beyond his hate and rage over what he suffered while a student if he and Harry will ever work together. But I don't think Snape needs to be redeemed and I don't think he needs to atone. I think what Snape most needs to learn is how to forgive (which, granted, could be seen as a form of redemption). At this point in the story I think Snape is no more a Death Eater than McGonagall. He does have personal issues with Harry and, when Harry behaves in particularly James-like ways those issues are exasperated. But there hasn't been any behavior on Snape's part that I think demands reformation or redemption. I *do* think Harry's *view* of Snape needs to be redeemed and I'm really hoping the next book will start us down that path. As I've said previously, Harry's anger at Snape at the end of OotP strikes me as illogical (Snape did not cause Sirius' death), and I'm hopeful that it forshadows a drastic turnaround in Harry's attitude towards Snape. Snape, I think, may have already started to reassess his view of Harry based on what he saw in the pensieve (though I admit, I'm reaching a bit on that hope - the mildness of his final interaction with Harry is one bases for it), so I think things may be ripe for change. Of course, how that will affect Snape's role as Order spy, I can only guess. Betsy, who loves the idea of Snape and Sirius being half-brothers by the way, though is not holding her breath on that one. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 22:36:03 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:36:03 -0000 Subject: Birdies in the Sky (was Method- comm...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122650 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > Tonks continues: > > I think it is clear that the Order does use their wands to > > communicate with each other. Now how the message knows who to go to and how no one else can see it or interfer with it, well that is > > another mystery. > > > > Tonks_op > > bboyminn: > > I think those details are contained in the intent of the caster of the Messenger Spell. Illustration, when Dumbledore creates the Portkeys, he doesn't speak any long complex incantations to program the details of the journey into the Portkey. He simply creates the Portkey and his intended use it transferred to it. So to, one merely casts the Messenger Charm with specific intent, and the charm carries that intent with it. > > As far as seeing it, (snip) Seeing a silvery bird streaking over the skys of London would be nothing,(Snip)> > If someone caught a glimpse of the bird they would probably mistake it for a dove or pigeon. Also, note that the bird is somewhat ghostly, I take that to mean it is semi-transparent which would make for very good camouflage. Somewhat like the Disillusionment Charm, the ghostliness would make it difficult to see as it would somewhat blend with any background. > > Steve/bboyminn Tonks here: Yes I was mistaken about the spell that DD used. And apparently I have forgotten everything I learned in Spell Casting 101 also. Intention, of course, is a very important part of casting a spell along with faith without fear and power. I like the semi-transparent birdie thing. How do they keep it from being intercepted by the enemy? And why do they use all of those messy owls if they can send messages that way? Tonks_op Maybe I'll go have a butterbeer and party with the elves. Mind is addled today anyway. From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Fri Jan 21 22:38:43 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:38:43 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122651 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: Alla: > I do see how Snape will be afraid of > werewolf. It is understandable. What I DON'T see as rational is Snape > DEFINING Remus as werewolf. > > About the irony, did you mean that comparison can be drawn between > the fact that Dumbledore chose NOT to define Snape as "former > deatheater" only and Snape is uncapable of doing the same thing for > Remus? Renee: I'm suddenly reminded of the New Testament parable of the ungrateful servant, whose huge debt is canceled by his master but who throws the man who owns him a small amount into prison when this man can't pay it back. Snape, a former Death-eater, saved from Azkaban by Dumbledore, wants to deliver Lupin (whose personal debt to him is relatively small compared to the crimes committed by the average Death-eater) to the Dementors, possibly to be Kissed. In the parable, the ungrateful servant's fate is not happy. For Snape's sake, I really do hope the analogy isn't intentional. From olivertraldi at gmail.com Fri Jan 21 22:13:57 2005 From: olivertraldi at gmail.com (delemtri) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:13:57 -0000 Subject: I hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122652 > Nicky Joe: > Sorry, Oliver, but with the exception of Voldemort, we don't see > ANYONE unless they are with Harry. JKR has done an amazing job > characterizing secondary characters like Neville (and who wasn't > fooled by Crouch!Moody?) and we only see them through Harry's eyes. > I don't think she really intended Ginny to be a major character. > Even in CoS, though she's a major part of the plot, we rarely see > her. I really hate the secondhand thing, also - when are we > ever "told" that Neville did this or Fred and George did that? JKR > hasn't done that with any of the other characters. Oliver: You led straight back into the point I already made: the secondhand thing is *necessary* to some degree because of Ginny's crush. That's been my contention all along. From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 22:18:28 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:18:28 -0000 Subject: Sirius Mother's Picture In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122653 Jeanette: > Even if they held all their meetings in the kitchen, wouldn't the > very fact of this very "interesting" group of people been worthy of > notice by Lucius Malfoy. Especially wouldn't the Malfoys been > interested in the fact Snape keeps popping in and out. > > Also, the portraits in Hogswort can talk to each other. One > wonders what Phineas (may be wrong spelling, I don't have my book > with me) and Sirius' mother have to say to each other. Ok. I have no real idea of an answer to this. Only that with having curtains in front of her and the darkness of the hall, there's a small chance she isn't aware of exactly who comes and goes. She'd certainly be aware of Tonks!!! You've definately come up with something I hadn't thought of. (This site makes me think too much sometimes!!) Becky From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 22:26:18 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41 at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 22:26:18 -0000 Subject: Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122654 Hey all: Sorry if I've forgotten any details--I've scoured the Lexicon and can't come up with an answer. I know squibs seem to have an affinity for cats--but is there any evidence that squibs can/do use owl post? Do they use floo powder? Leslie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 23:15:46 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:15:46 -0000 Subject: Birdies in the Sky & Other Comm Methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > > Tonks continues: > > > I think it is clear that the Order does use their wands to > > > communicate with each other. Now how the message knows who to > > > go to and how no one else can see it or interfer with it, well > > > that is another mystery. > > > > > > Tonks_op > > bboyminn: > > > > I think those details are contained in the intent of the caster of > > the Messenger Spell. ... So to, one merely casts the Messenger > > Charm with specific intent, and the charm carries that intent with > > it. > > > > As far as seeing it, (snip) Seeing a silvery bird streaking over > the skys of London ... they would probably mistake it for a dove or > pigeon. Also, ... the bird is somewhat ... semi-transparent which > would make for very good camouflage. .... > > > > Steve/bboyminn > > Tonks here: > Yes I was mistaken about the spell that DD used. And apparently I > have forgotten everything I learned in Spell Casting 101 also. > Intention, of course, is a very important part of casting a spell > along with faith without fear and power. > bboyminn: Well, perhaps you did, but that's not the way I read your post. In the books it's 'eNNervate' but that is a word that doesn't actually exist. The closest word in my American Heritage Dictionary is 'eNervate'. Which I assumed as the same word you found in your dictionary. I expanded that aspect by pointing out the real word 'Innervate' which in real-life means exactly what JKR seems to intend; to energize or invigorate. > Tonks Continues: > > I like the semi-transparent birdie thing. How do they keep it from > being intercepted by the enemy? And why do they use all of those > messy owls if they can send messages that way? > > Tonks_op bboyminn: My feeling is that the 'birdie' isn't fully tangible. Being semitransparent and Ghostly, it does not have a completely solid physical form. Therefore obsticals like walls, windows, and door do not effect it. Since, it is not effected by physcial containment, how can you capture it? You can't store it in a box because the physical limitations of the box are meaningless to it. Although, I do suspect that there might be some advanced spell that could contain it, but first you have to see it then catch it. However, even in the unlikely event that you did contain it, how would you force it to give you the message. It's not like you can threaten a insubstantinal ghostly birdie. In another part of this thread, I speculated that the 'Birdie' Messenger Charm has some limitation. I personally suspect that you can't send long complex messages with it; the messages have to be brief and to-the-point, not long and rambling. So far, we have these methods of communication- -Owls (have we seen any owls arrive at Grimmauld Place?) -Floo Talking (we know the fireplace at Grimmauld Place works) -Living Portraits (very effective assuming you can get the portrait subject to cooperate) -Flying memos (implies that letters can be charmed to seek out the recipient. I suspect they also have limitation, or we would see more of them. They certainly are the least secure method of communcation.) -Ghosts (yet to be seen as messengers but I suspect they would be very effective as such, and indeed very effective spies as well) -'Birdie' Messenger Charm (as I specualated, for brief messages only) -Fawkes-the Phoenix (very powerful multifunctional bird that doesn't seem to be hindered by barriers like walls, windows, doors, distance, or charms) -Two-Way Enchanted Mirrors (no details, but I suspect they must have some limitations or they would be in much wider use. None the less, I think we will see greater use of them in future books.) Various Colored Wand Sparks (very basic limited signal capability) Legilimency - (not specifically for communcation, but could be used as such as when Harry tried to mentally will Snape to understand his vague message about Sirius) Patronus (I suspect if Dumbledore used a his Patronus to signal Hagrid, that it indeed was nothing but a signal, an unmistakable /symbol/ that represented Dumbledore which Dumbledore would never have sent unless there was trouble. I don't see the Patronus being used as a complex communication devise. More like person specific wand sparks.) Wizard's Wireless (limted to entertainment and general news type communication. I have to wonder though, why they haven't expaned beyond the limited medium of one-way radio-like communication.) So, what have I forgotten? Steve/bboyminn From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 23:26:46 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:26:46 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder? Message-ID: <7a.6b51c1ee.2f22e9b6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122656 In a message dated 1/21/2005 2:52:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, leslie41 at yahoo.com writes: Hey all: Sorry if I've forgotten any details--I've scoured the Lexicon and can't come up with an answer. I know squibs seem to have an affinity for cats--but is there any evidence that squibs can/do use owl post? Do they use floo powder? Leslie ************************************************** Chancie: I see no reason why Squibs couldn't use Owl Post. It's not as though any spell work is involved. Besides, I believe (but not certain) that Filch got his Kwik Spell stuff by owl, and when Harry offers to let Mrs. Figg use Hedwig, her only comment was that Dumbledore needed to be notified immediately to head off the MoM. As for floo powder, that's harder. I don't know if that really involves magic ability, or if the powder is categorized as being enchanted. I know in FBWTFT, they say something about a magic snake that comes from "magical fires", but again, I don't know if it's got to do with the powder, or actual magic. Sorry I'm not much help, but great question! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 23:29:33 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:29:33 -0000 Subject: Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122657 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, leslie41 at y... wrote: > Hey all: > > Sorry if I've forgotten any details--I've scoured the Lexicon and > can't come up with an answer. > > I know squibs seem to have an affinity for cats--but is there any > evidence that squibs can/do use owl post? > > Do they use floo powder? > > Leslie bboyminn: I speculate... as I often do... I think Post Owls are enchanted owls. I'm not saying that they have been enchanted by someone, but that they are born magical just like some people are born magical. It's this internal magic that allows them to be such effective messengers. How does that relate? Well, it means that Enchanted Owls have self-contained magic; magic doesn't have to be apllied from the outside or by the message's creator. Therefore, I conclude that, yes indeed, Squibs and Muggles can use Owls. Note: Hedwig shows up every Christmas with a (very pathetic) present from the Dursleys. So the Dursleys are able to use Hedwig. Floo Powder is a little more complex. It requires that you are connected to the Magical Floo Network, and it requires that you have a supply of Magical Floo Powder. But, I personally don't see any need for the person using it to be magical. On the other hand, it does seem very dangerous for muggles. As I type this, I am imagining a muggle finding some Floo Powder, and failing to discover what it is, he simply throws it into the fireplace to get rid of it. Then, when he is suddenly engulfed in a ball of roaring green flame, in shock, he screams, 'Bloody Hell!'. Not a journey he really wanted to take I'm use. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 23:42:14 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:42:14 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Birdies in the Sky & Other Comm Methods Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122658 In a message dated 1/21/2005 3:21:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: Steve/bboyminn wrote: In another part of this thread, I speculated that the 'Birdie' Messenger Charm has some limitation. I personally suspect that you can't send long complex messages with it; the messages have to be brief and to-the-point, not long and rambling. ********************************** Chancie: That defiantly how I see it too, because as I showed before in my quote of GOF, Hagrid knew that it was something important, and apparently dangerous as he was carrying his crossbow, and running, but he seemed shocked at what he was seeing. I see the mystery bird as just a simple warning of "need help come quick". ********************************** Steve/bboyminn also wrote: -Ghosts (yet to be seen as messengers but I suspect they would be very effective as such, and indeed very effective spies as well) ********************************* Chancie again: I have wondered about this before as well. Are ghosts free to move around as they please? How come we haven't seen NHN or the Fat Friar anywhere other than hallways, or the Great hall. I don't ever recall seeing them out on the grounds. ******************************* Steve/bboyminn also wrote: So far, we have these methods of communication- So, what have I forgotten? ******************************* Chancie (yes again): -Kneazles!!! Mrs. Norris is a great example, Filch would have a much harder time finding students to punish without her. I assume you omitted the obvious: Quibber, and Daily Prophet, but I thought I'd include those too. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Fri Jan 21 23:56:13 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:56:13 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder? Message-ID: <102.58fb6392.2f22f09d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122659 In a message dated 1/21/2005 3:32:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: On the other hand, it does seem very dangerous for muggles. As I type this, I am imagining a muggle finding some Floo Powder, and failing to discover what it is, he simply throws it into the fireplace to get rid of it. Then, when he is suddenly engulfed in a ball of roaring green flame, in shock, he screams, 'Bloody Hell!'. Not a journey he really wanted to take I'm use. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn ************************************************* Chancie: I definatly would hope that wouldn't the words I happend to say at a time like that! It reminds me of a really bad joke my father told me once about a burning building and you could turn into the first word you said as you jumped. One said Spider-man, one said Superman, and the other said another "S" word, but unfortuantly for the last person it didn't turn out to be very helpful! Anyway, I did have a point when I started this post......Oh yea, ************************************************* Steve/bboyminn also wrote: Note: Hedwig shows up every Christmas with a (very pathetic) present from the Dursleys. So the Dursleys are able to use Hedwig. ************************************************* Chancie: 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. Perhaps there is more to thing than meets the eye. JKR said we would be learning more about Petunia. Perhaps she doesn't dislike Harry as much as we think and it's more of a show for Vernon? Who knows? Thoughts anyone? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 00:04:13 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:04:13 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122660 Betsy: Why do I like Sirius Black? Well... he *is* sexy, but also there's that whole, suffering for a crime he didn't commit, and risking everything to get his bloody vengence. And he's all haunted and broken and dark, dark, hair and pale staring eyes and he really, really needs to be held and rocked and bathed and fed. Which I guess brings it back to the sexy in that twisted hurt/comfort sort of way. Of course, he's so incredibly loyal to his friends. And he so quickly transfers that loyalty to Harry - who really needs that kind of unquestioning support that only a parent can give. Though, Sirius is still too broken to be a parent, rustling around in that house he hates, full of reminders of that family he defied. And so there's his nobility in choosing the side of light when he's been groomed for darkness. And maybe that brings it back to the sexy in a tragic fallen prince kind of way. And then there's the horror of Snape's memory, and the realization that Sirius is that golden boy, with the Judd Nelson hair (from the Breakfast Club days when he was still The Hot), full of brashness and sunlight and king of all he surveys, and it's like college all over again during the Feminist Literature course when "all men are pigs" went up against the rugby club with the golden boys and the mud, and Fem. Lit. lost, lost, lost, as did Saturday morning sleep-ins. And we're right back to the sexy in a straight forward alpha-male sort of way. So. Yeah. That's why I like Sirius Black. For his mind. Betsy, who's really appreciative of the rugby club memories. ;) From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sat Jan 22 00:08:54 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:08:54 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor,... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122661 In a message dated 1/21/2005 2:44:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, R.Vink2 at chello.nl writes: Renee: I'm suddenly reminded of the New Testament parable of the ungrateful servant, whose huge debt is canceled by his master but who throws the man who owns him a small amount into prison when this man can't pay it back. Snape, a former Death-eater, saved from Azkaban by Dumbledore, wants to deliver Lupin (whose personal debt to him is relatively small compared to the crimes committed by the average Death-eater) to the Dementors, possibly to be Kissed. In the parable, the ungrateful servant's fate is not happy. For Snape's sake, I really do hope the analogy isn't intentional. *************************************************** Chancie: You weren't the only one who was reminded of that parable! But I am starting to notice that Snape seems to have this problem with all the Marauders and Harry too! Dumbledore forgave his DE status, for reasons unknown, but Snape can't seem to forgive ANYONE in return. If nothing else it would seem Snape would at least TRY to be civil to the other Order members, knowing that they haven't ever been on the "dark side" (although I know Pippin would disagree on that account), at least that we know of. If anything it seems Snape should be grateful for his second chance, but it seems that he's not too worried about sharing the wealth of forgiveness so to speak. Chancie~ who can't wait for HBP, to (hopefully) find out what makes Dumbledore so willing to accept Snape and trust him so completely! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Fri Jan 21 23:38:30 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:38:30 -0000 Subject: Birdies in the Sky & Other Comm Methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122662 Steve/bboyminn: > So far, we have these methods of communication- > -Owls > -Floo Talking > -Living Portraits > -Flying memos > -Ghosts > -'Birdie' Messenger Charm > -Fawkes-the Phoenix > -Two-Way Enchanted Mirrors > Various Colored Wand Sparks > Legilimency > Patronus > Wizard's Wireless >(examples were snipped from all of the above) > So, what have I forgotten? So far as I can see, only things which wouldn't be useful as methods of communication for the OOTP and minor things at that. Elves (who can dissapperate inside of Hogwarts) Bad attempts at use of muggle communications (post and phone) Hermione's charm on the coins (extremely restrictive) Becky From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 22 01:22:11 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:22:11 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122663 > Renee: > I'm suddenly reminded of the New Testament parable of the ungrateful servant, whose huge debt is canceled by his master but who throws the man who owns him a small amount into prison when this man can't pay it back. Snape, a former Death-eater, saved from Azkaban by Dumbledore, wants to deliver Lupin (whose personal debt to him is relatively small compared to the crimes committed by the average Death-eater) to the Dementors, possibly to be Kissed. In the parable, the ungrateful servant's fate is not happy. For Snape's sake, I really do hope the analogy isn't intentional.< Pippin: I think the analogy is intentional, and is supposed to enhance our idea of Snape as an ungrateful wretch who wants to have Lupin Kissed for taunting him with Neville's boggart, or for having taken part in a cruel joke some twenty years before. But Snape believes that Lupin has been helping Black get into the castle, ie that he is a Death Eater. "I've told the headmaster again and again that you're helping your old friend Black into the castle, Lupin, and here's the proof." You have to admit, the fact that Snape found the map activated on Lupin's desk after Lupin claimed that it was a Zonko's product has got to look pretty damning in Snape's eyes. On that basis the threat of dementors doesn't seem so outrageous. Plenty of people think that killing DE's on sight is the right thing to do. Sirius and Lupin, for example, who also have to be stopped by Harry from killing the man they believe is guilty. I think ultimately the NT reference is to another passage...let him who is without sin... Pippin From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sat Jan 22 01:30:33 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:30:33 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Birdies in the Sky & Other Comm Methods Message-ID: <140.3c6a17c9.2f2306b9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122664 In a message dated 1/21/2005 5:23:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, bleckybecs at yahoo.com writes: So far as I can see, only things which wouldn't be useful as methods of communication for the OOTP and minor things at that. Elves (who can dissapperate inside of Hogwarts) Bad attempts at use of muggle communications (post and phone) Hermione's charm on the coins (extremely restrictive) Becky *********************************************** Chancie: I don't see those as un useful! Especially if Dobby were the Elf in question. Unless of course he was too busy crying from joy of helping his Harry Potter, and couldn't get the message out. Hermione's coin charm, could be useful at times as well, because she made sure that no one could figure out that they were fake, and wouldn't matter if they fell into different hands, because only those who knew about the charm could interpret them correctly. Besides she did get the idea from the DE's and it seems to work well for them! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 01:39:48 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:39:48 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122665 Alla wrote: > I expect Snape to teach Harry Occlumency, the task in which he > failed magnificently, IMO only. > > Sticking in Dumbledore's business? Snape is either Dumbledore > trusted leutenant and then he is ALREADY quite deep in Dumbledore's > business, or he is not which raises some other evil possibilities, > but that is not the point now, > > And may I disagree about Snape ... respecting Dumbledore? He was > given a task, he gave in to his emotions, old wounds, whatever and > did not do such task. > > I called it unsubordination at best. > > > > Betsy: > I don't see how Snape's behavior has weakened Harry. I don't even > see how it's weakened Neville. Both boys did quite well in the MoM > battle. I'm not sure what it is you feel Snape should do for them. > > > Alla: > > I'd like to speculate for a second. It is a possibility that if > Snape performed better as a teacher, there would be NO battle at > MOM, don't you think? > > Too bad we'll never know. :o) > > JMO, > > Alla Carol responds: I don't think even a teacher Harry likes and respects could have kept him from having that dream *because Harry wanted to have it.* And consequently, he would have had the vision and jumped to the same conclusions. If that teacher (Dumbledore or McGonagall, if she knew Occlumency, which she evidently doesn't) were present at the school when he had the vision and he had gone to them for help, he *might* have been prevented from going to the MoM. But McGonagall couldn't stop him from going after the Philosopher's Stone, and I doubt if she could have stopped him from "rescuing" Sirius. Only if he had gone to Dumbledore and DD had fully explained the reason that LV was trying to lure Harry to the MoM and *proven* that Sirius was safe could Harry have been stopped. It is not entirely Snape's fault (IMO) that the Occlumency lessons failed. It's also Harry's because he didn't empty his mind or practice and Dumbledore's because he didn't explain why they were needed. I hope that all parties involved learn from the experience. Oh, and Snape kept his emotions under remarkable control most of the time, as I've illustrated in previous posts. It's only in the Pensieve scene that he lost it--and that, too, is mostly Harry's fault, as you have conceded in other posts. And as I've said elsewhere, if Harry hadn't made any progress after three months of lessons, cancelling them at that point, when he was already on the verge of completing the dream, would have made no difference whatever. Harry was determined to have the dream, and no one was going to stop him. Carol From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 01:51:12 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:51:12 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122666 "festuco" wrote: > peeping into the pensieve doesnot help Harry at > all in mastering Oclumency. It will if his opponent is Snape, a few comments reminding him of the incident, say a crack about his dirty underpants, should break his concentration. > It is even explained to him by Snape, that LV > might try to influence his mind. Harry already knew that, but he couldn't see the urgency and at the time neither could we the readers because as Harry said it may not be much fun but without it Mr. Weasley would be dead. Nobody explained exactly why it was important, they just said it was. > he is lured to the Department of Mysteries, and Sirius > dies. Maybe this still would have happened if he had > practiced, but then at least he would have had the > consolation for himself that he had tried. And maybe he would have been even weaker if he had practiced. Harry complained up to the last page of the book that Snape's lessons make him weaker not stronger but nobody pays the slightest attention. So let's review, the lessons are very unpleasant, no clear reason is explained why its important to learn the subject, he doesn't trust his teacher and his lessons make him weak. I wouldn't work very hard under those circumstances either, would you? Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 01:51:41 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:51:41 -0000 Subject: Gryffindor and Ravenclw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122667 Jay wrote: > We know that Harry (and the rest of the Gryffindors in Harry's year) > have classes with the Slytherins and the Hufflepuffs, but do they > have ANY classes with the Ravenclaws? Carol responds: For some reason, the Gryffindors in Harry's year don't seem to share any classes with the Ravenclaws. But Ginny appears to be acquainted with Luna Lovegood, so maybe the mix of classes is different for her year. Or maybe she's just more observant than Harry, who doesn't know anyone outside his house except his personal enemies (Draco and cronies), a few Hufflepuffs in his Herbology class, and a few Quidditch players whom he knows only by name. Anyway, I have a feeling that the Ravenclaws in Harry's year have Herbology with the Slytherins and Potions and Care of Magical Creatures with the Hufflepuffs. Or that's how I'd arrange it if I were JKR so that everything evens out. Carol From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 02:11:23 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:11:23 -0000 Subject: Birdies in the Sky & Other Comm Methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122668 Steve/bboyminn snipped heavily: -Ghosts (yet to be seen as messengers but I suspect they would be very effective as such, and indeed very effective spies as well) Snow: The only apparitions that came from the end of a wand and yet were useful in delivering messages were the priori incantatem figures in the graveyard scene. Cedric's request, Frank and Bertha's words of encouragement, Harry's mother and basically his father telling him what to do next. So it looks to me like there has been a precedent for this to be used as a form of communication. The ghostly bird that came from Dumbledore's wand may in fact be the ghost of a phoenix they do die they are only reborn when placed in their ashes right? Steve/bboyminn: Various Colored Wand Sparks (very basic limited signal capability) Snow: Those colored wand sparks have been very useful before when the advance guard were waiting for the signal that it was all clear to leave the Dursley's with Harry: "Mount your brooms, that's the first signal!" said Lupin sharply, pointing into the sky. Far, far above them a shower of bright red sparks had flared among the stars. Harry recognized them at once as wand sparks. >Little snip< "Second signal, let's go!" said Lupin loudly, as more sparks, green this time, exploded high above them. Very interesting possibilities. Snow From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 02:38:28 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:38:28 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122669 Carol: huge snip Oh, and Snape kept his emotions under remarkable control most of the time, as I've illustrated in previous posts. It's only in the Pensieve scene that he lost it--and that, too, is mostly Harry's fault, as you have conceded in other posts. Alla: I must have been REALLY unclear in my previous posts if you made such conclusion and for that I apologise. I don't remember conceding ANYWHERE that the only time Snape lost it was the Pensieve scene. In fact, I think he kept his emotions under quite poor control during Occlumency lessons. I remember saying that Harry's nose did not belong in the Pensieve, that is true, but from that I did not make the conclusion that it was mostly Harry's fault that Snape went crazy. I blame that solely on Snape's anger management issues. How about saying " Get out" and be done with it? No, I'd say Snape still has plenty of "inner DE" to get under control. Just my opinion, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 22 02:44:40 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:44:40 -0000 Subject: I Hate Ginny Weasley!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122670 Nicky Joe: > > I thought the "secret" quidditch skills to be somewhat > > ludicrous. Why on earth would she need to be sneaky about it? Pippin: > Eh, you've never been a little sister, have you? I can just > imagine what my brother would have done to me if I'd laid a finger > on his electric trainset, or his baseball glove, let alone a > valuable racing broom. Sheesh! SSSusan: Count me in as another who understands -- I'm the only girl with three big brothers. :-| Pippin: > Isn't it odd though, that Ginny always seems to get what she > needs? Where *did* her broom come from? ... wondering if Ginny has > a fairy godmother or just a talent for larceny SSSusan: How 'bout Crookshanks?? Doesn't Ginny have a way with cats? Maybe ol' Crookshanks purchased *two* brooms with Sirius' money that day? Ha ha! Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 03:07:41 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:07:41 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Quirrell In-Reply-To: <20050119024750.17548.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122671 Juli wrote: > We all know that during PS/SS Professor Quirell had > Voldemort in his body, sharing it. Voldemort was > trying to get Quirell to steal the Philosopher's > stone, he tried to steal it out of Gringotts and > failed by only a few hours (or minutes), then as > punishment he decided to "join" him in order to keep a > close watch on him. Carol responds: My question here has nothing to do with Snape (surprise). It has to do with Voldemort and Quirrell. Voldemort was not yet inside Quirrell's head when Quirrell tried to steal the Philosopher's Stone. He entered it when Quirrell failed in order to supervise and punish him. So how did Quirrell get past the goblins, dragons, and enchantments in Gringotts without Voldemort inside his head to help him overcome the obstacles and increase his power? Where *was* Vapormort, anyway, and how could he control Quirrell without possessing him? I know he had obtained his loyalty, mentally seducing him, but how? Was he possessing an animal or did he have the form of a monstrous infant as he did later with Peter Pettigrew? I just don't get it. Juli wrote: > We all know what happens at the end, Harry realizes > it's Quirell who's after the Stone, and he learns that > Voldemort is hiding behind his turban, and Snape was > actually trying to save the Stone -and Harry. > > 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 > conversations, right? So how come Snape does not know > that Snape has changed sides? that he is actually > working for the Order and Dumbledore? > > Juli- always obsessing about Severus Snape Carol responds: First, Snape is an Occlumens. The whole point of his learning Occlumency is to conceal his thoughts. And I think, given the scenes where his eyes resemble tunnels, that he often uses Occlumency to conceal his thoughts and emotions even when he's not in danger of being seen by Voldemort. Obviously he doesn't do so *all* the time, but in a situation where he sensed danger--Quirrell as an agent of a Voldemort who is regaining power and attempting to return--that he would use Occlumency to make it appear that he suspected only Quirrell. It may be that he really thought Quirrell was trying to obtain the Stone for himself, but I don't think so. Quirrell is a bit young to be concerned with immortality, and Snape's "where your loyalties lie" remark suggests a Voldemort/Dumbledore dichotomy rather than Dumbledore or Quirrell himself. As I see it, the incident planted a seed of doubt about Snape in Voldemort's mind, but as he doesn't know that Snape is an Occlumens, he wouldn't know that Snape was blocking certain thoughts from reaching the conscious level. That doubt, IMO, was increased when Snape failed to show up for the DE meeting in the graveyard (and perhaps by messages from Barty Jr. that led to Voldemort's belief that snape had left him forever). As I've said before, Snape must have explained to him (possibly through Lucius Malfoy) that you can't apparate from Hogwarts and it was impossible for him to attend the meetings. Either Voldemort's doubts have been partly alleviated or he finds Snape useful in some way. (Those who believe in the double agent theory think he's passing information about Dumbledore to Malfoy--with Dumbledore's full knowledge and permission. I'm not sure I believe that, but I don't know of any plausible alternative. Fortunately for Snape, he's clever and he understands the Slytherin mentality. But if Voldemort starts to suspect that he had anything to do with sending the Order members to save Harry, he may be in very grave danger.) Carol From olivertraldi at gmail.com Sat Jan 22 01:43:33 2005 From: olivertraldi at gmail.com (delemtri) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:43:33 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122672 Oliver: I don't really understand what there is *not* to like about Sirius. As JKR has said, he still had some growing up to do... but out of every character in the story save Harry, he had the most hardship. Nearly twelve years in Azkaban coupled with the agony of his best friend's death and the knowledge of his own innocence... And when he leaves Azkaban, what does he do? He doesn't try to heal himself. He doesn't recover. He doesn't even leave for his own sake. He leaves to find Wormtail and takes Harry under his wing. Why do I like Sirius? Because I'm supposed to. We as readers are supposed to. He gave his all for Harry, and then he gave his life. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sat Jan 22 04:36:40 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:36:40 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122673 > Valky: > Ahhhh lets get all warm and fuzzy shall we, instead. > Prejudice against werewolves and prejudice against the otherwise > kind good people who suffer the affliction are different things. One is fairly rational behaviour, the other is... well something > different. > It is understandably difficult for Sevvie to differentiate the two, given his experiences, but it is not impossible. > The sad thing about the scene where Snape throws to what is IMHO a > deliberate confusion between Lupin and his unfortunate affliction, > is the irony. An opportunity for Snape went begging. > > > Alla: > > Word of agreement, Valky. I do see how Snape will be afraid of > werewolf. It is understandable. What I DON'T see as rational is Snape DEFINING Remus as werewolf. > > About the irony, did you mean that comparison can be drawn between > the fact that Dumbledore chose NOT to define Snape as "former > deatheater" only and Snape is uncapable of doing the same thing for Remus? Could you clarify please if you meant something different? > Valky: Yes, thats what I meant. Snape has longed to take the high ground from Sirius and his opportunity to really do that here went begging. My keyboard isn't working right I have to leave it there. :( From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 04:40:29 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:40:29 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122674 >>festuco wrote: >peeping into the pensieve does not help Harry at all in mastering Oclumency.< >>Eggplant: >It will if his opponent is Snape, a few comments reminding him of the incident, say a crack about his dirty underpants, should break his concentration.< Betsy: So I just want to be clear, Eggplant, you feel that Snape is Harry's enemy - not Voldemort, and that therefore the entire reason for the Occlumency lessons was for Harry to figure out a way to defeat Snape? Also, after Snape has gained control of Harry's mind (easily done because Harry refused to learn how to keep an unwanted intruder *out* of his mind) how exactly was Harry supposed to make a crack about dirty underpants? >>festuco (I think?): >It is even explained to him by Snape, that LV might try to influence his mind.< >>Eggplant: >Harry already knew that, but he couldn't see the urgency and at the time neither could we the readers because as Harry said it may not be much fun but without it Mr. Weasley would be dead. Nobody explained exactly why it was important, they just said it was.< Betsy: You may speak for yourself, but this particular reader thought Harry was being a complete dumb-ass thinking that he could match wits with a powerful wizard like Voldemort. Dumbledore's worry and Snape's worry had me convinced from the get go. >>festuco (again, I think): >he is lured to the Department of Mysteries, and Sirius dies. Maybe this still would have happened if he had practiced, but then at least he would have had the consolation for himself that he had tried.< >>Eggplant: >And maybe he would have been even weaker if he had practiced. Harry complained up to the last page of the book that Snape's lessons make him weaker not stronger but nobody pays the slightest attention. So let's review, the lessons are very unpleasant, no clear reason is explained why its important to learn the subject, he doesn't trust his teacher and his lessons make him weak. I wouldn't work very hard under those circumstances either, would you?< Betsy: How about this review: You're number one on the hit list of the most powerful dark wizard around. Everyone and their house elf flinches at the man's *name* and he's got link into your *mind*. You're offered lessons that could help you regain control of your own head, and the most powerful light wizard tells you that it is *imperative* you learn this skill. You decide that you'd rather figure out what's behind door number 2. How is this the fault of your teacher, again? Betsy From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 02:30:44 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:30:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: The method of communication / Lupin's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050122023044.12331.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122675 > JLV: > I'm sorry Juli, but Lupin can produce a Patronus: > "'And Professor Lupin stepped over you, and walked > towards the Dementor, and pulled out his wand,' said > Hermione. 'And said, 'None of us is hiding Sirius > Black under our cloaks. Go." But the Dementor didn't > move, so Lupin muttered something, and a silvery > thing shot out of his wand at it, and it turned round > and sort of glided away...'" Juli: I know he produced some sort of Patronus to make the dementores leave, but was it a Corporeal Patronus? Did it have a specific shape? I thought of it just like Harry's first attempts at the Patronus, just some silvery thingy without shape. JMO From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 04:52:27 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:52:27 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122676 >>Alla: >I remember saying that Harry's nose did not belong in the Pensieve, that is true, but from that I did not make the conclusion that it was mostly Harry's fault that Snape went crazy. I blame that solely on Snape's anger management issues. >How about saying " Get out" and be done with it? No, I'd say Snape still has plenty of "inner DE" to get under control.< Betsy: But if Snape had just said "get out," Harry wouldn't have heard him because he had his nose *buried* in Snape's private memories!!! I honestly think Snape was *very* controlled in his treatment of Harry. And seriously, if Snape had "inner DE" issues - Harry would've had far deeper things to worry about then a bruised arm. It was *entirely* Harry's fault that Snape got angry. There was absolutely no excuse for Harry's behavior, and though I still like Harry, I was disappointed with him. Betsy From minervakab at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 02:51:42 2005 From: minervakab at yahoo.com (minervakab) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:51:42 -0000 Subject: Petunia, Dudley, magical ability? (was Re: Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder?) In-Reply-To: <102.58fb6392.2f22f09d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122677 > Chancie: > And why since Uncle Vernon hates Hedwig to begin with, would > he attach a present for Harry whom he also hates? Something > just doesn't add up to me. Perhaps there is more to thing > than meets the eye. JKR said we would be learning more about > Petunia. Perhaps she doesn't dislike Harry as much as we think > and it's more of a show for Vernon? Who knows? Thoughts anyone? Minervakab: I think Petunia treats Harry the way she does so that Vernon won't find out about her own magical background. She knows more about magic that any muggle should. She seems to me to be over-compensating much as reformed (prostitutes, drug addicts, fill in your own word) do when they "find" god. Can you choose to be a muggle? I read a prediction once, written by a little girl before one of the previous books was published, that Petunia gave in to Dudley all the time and gave him everything he wanted because she didn't want him to get angry and show that he also is magical like Harry. When magical children are frightened or angry, they do magic without thinking so she kept Dudley from anger just so he would never do accidental magic. It made perfect sense to me at the time. I still think the theory is valid and could play out in book six or seven. This prediction still makes sense with the new information we have been given such as Dudley being attacked by the dementors. Would a muggle even know a dementor was in the vicinity? Yet Dudley definitely felt them if he did not see them. And we do know from a JKR interview that someone becomes magical late in life. This could be Dudley and if so then he is a possiblility for the HPB. In this case "prince" would be used in a derogatory manner rather than a royal title. I wonder if the note from Dumbledore "Remember my last" was reminding Petunia that Dudley's name was written on the Hogwarts list at his birth and Dumbledore agreed to not send a letter to Dudley when he turned eleven only if Petunia kept Harry at her home. Dumbledore could have made a deal with her to keep quiet about Dudley being magical in exchange for her keeping Harry safe. Maybe Petunia is keeping the house safe with her own magic. I think magical Petunia dislikes Harry because she has to work even harder at appearing to be pure muggle with him around. It would be easier to blend into the muggle world if she kept away from all contact with the wizarding world. Harry is a reminder of what she left behind and also a reminder of the deal she made with Dumbledore. It also has to be irritating to look at Harry and see your "perfect" sister's eyes staring back at you. Of course, none of this theory works if you cannot choose to be a muggle. So if someone can show me that it is impossible to turn your back on the wizarding world, please let me know. Minervakab From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 04:53:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 04:53:47 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122678 Eggplant: And maybe he would have been even weaker if he had practiced. Harry complained up to the last page of the book that Snape's lessons make him weaker not stronger but nobody pays the slightest attention. So let's review, the lessons are very unpleasant, no clear reason is explained why its important to learn the subject, he doesn't trust his teacher and his lessons make him weak. I wouldn't work very hard under those circumstances either, would you? Betsy: How about this review: You're number one on the hit list of the most powerful dark wizard around. Everyone and their house elf flinches at the man's *name* and he's got link into your *mind*. You're offered lessons that could help you regain control of your own head, and the most powerful light wizard tells you that it is *imperative* you learn this skill. You decide that you'd rather figure out what's behind door number 2. How is this the fault of your teacher, again? Alla: Well, Betsy, I would add your "review" AND Eggplant's review and then we will get complete picture, IMO. I am not sure I am in complete agreement with Eggplant's position in general in this thread, but I am in agreement with this paragrapth he wrote. Betsy, you asked how it is the fault of the teacher? Well, Eggplant described nicely, IMO, what KIND of teaching was given to Harry. Harry has not simply decided that he did not want to learn Occlumency. He did NOT trust Snape after years of hostility ( initiated by Snape), he WAS feeling weaker after the lessons, NOBODY told him that Snape was not hurting him by breaking his mental defenses, so I am frankly not quite sure how is it NOT Snape's fault ( and again let me repeat, I do feel that Harry was at fault too, just in signifcantly smaller percentage). JMO, Alla From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 02:57:46 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:57:46 -0000 Subject: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122679 > JLV: > Let's make this clear. You agree that even if it was a Phoenix- > shaped thing, Harry may not have recognised it. Excellent. But you > think that it needn't be a Patronus even if it was Phoenix-like. > If that is the case, then I can't argue, Becky. As I said before, > the *only* reason I have to think it is a Patronus is the Edinburgh > Book Day quote: > "What form does Dumbledore's Patronus take? > Good question. Can anyone guess? You have had a clue. There was a > little whisper there. It is a phoenix, which is very representative > of Dumbledore for reasons that I am sure you can guess." > > It is the "You have had a clue." bit that I picked up on and > believed to mean that there was a specific clue in the books which > we may have overlooked. It is indeed a very tenuous connection, > but this is the only time I can find where Dumbledore ever shoots > anything which could possibly be his Phoenix Patronus out of his > wand. Hence I came to this conclusion. > > As for the appearance depending entirely on the sender, I can only > think it is an advantage, security-wise. Like a fingerprint, > everyone's messenger will be different and is very difficult to > fake. > > As for `the same but opposite' ? it does make sense! It would be a > good reason to call a group the Order of the Phoenix, for one. I > like your idea lots. I also, however, like the idea that Patroni > have loads of uses other than the ones JKR has told us about. I > refer you to message 122513 for my mad idea there. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122513 Ok. Here goes! I do agree that Harry may not have noticed exactly what he saw. I've walked past friends in the street and looked right at them and not noticed who they were until they've said hello! (I feel the situation is different to that in the MoM when Harry *actively* looked for the DEs) Just to clear that up first. Then my reasons as to why I think that it's not a patronus. My reason comes from the same place you read to mean it *is* a patronus, JKR's Edinbourgh interview. She said we'd been given a clue, rather than we had actually *seen* his patronus. It does depend on interpretation of course. My other reasons are that, as has been discussed, the patronus charm / spell / whatever is is difficult. Also, it is described as 'a positive force, a projection of... hope, happiness, the desire to survive' (pg.176 in bloomsbury copy of PoA). It disappears too fast. That doesn't sound to me like something capable of giving a message, no matter how short. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that that is *not* what the OOTP use to communicate. I think that JKR's comments that we have seen their means of communication used allows for something that we don't understand as yet. Just because we've seen something doesn't mean that we *do* understand it, so that's my reason for thinking it could well be something other than a patronus. Also, as I have already pointed out (thank you for thinking my whole same but different thing made sense!!!), my main point of thinking was a sort of positive interpretation of the dark mark. Something *unique* (in the true sense of the word. I have a pet loathing of the misuse of that particular word!!) to OOTP members. As a result, the chances of it being sent by someone untrustworthy are very slim. I take on board the point about a fingerprint being useful, but I think a fingerprint of OOTP is possible enough... Please feel free to expand and point out mistakes! Becky - saying thanks to whoever pointed out that my post on methods of comm wasn't useless and thinking that I've babbled on long enough for nearly 3am! Must sleep!!!! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 05:00:47 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 05:00:47 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122680 Betsy But if Snape had just said "get out," Harry wouldn't have heard him because he had his nose *buried* in Snape's private memories!!! I honestly think Snape was *very* controlled in his treatment of Harry. And seriously, if Snape had "inner DE" issues - Harry would've had far deeper things to worry about then a bruised arm. Alla: Well, I am trying to think better thoughts, right? So, I am thinking that his anger does not show in a form of doing say Crucio! on his students. I am specificaly talking about his inability to control his anger. Betsy: It was *entirely* Harry's fault that Snape got angry. There was absolutely no excuse for Harry's behavior, and though I still like Harry, I was disappointed with him. Alla: Well, all of us had dissapointments in one or another character's behaviour in OOP. Snape for example was my biggest disapointment of OOP, especially by careless disregard of Dumbledore's orders to teach Harry, IF he is on the Light side. Harry's act, no matter how wrong it was, I felt was final response to the adults leaving him in the Dark all year, so while I did not like what he did, I was not dissappointed, I understood why he did and do think that he will not do something like that again. JMO, Alla From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 03:23:59 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:23:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape vs Quirrell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050122032359.36412.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122681 Juli earlier: > > 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 conversations, right? So how come Voldemort does not know that Snape has changed sides? That he is actually working for the Order and Dumbledore? < < > > Carol responds: > As I see it, the incident planted a seed of doubt about Snape in Voldemort's mind, but as he doesn't know that Snape is an Occlumens, he wouldn't know that Snape was blocking certain thoughts from reaching the conscious level. That doubt, IMO, was increased when Snape failed to show up for the DE meeting in the graveyard (and perhaps by messages from Barty Jr. that led to Voldemort's belief that Snape had left him forever). As I've said before, Snape must have explained to him (possibly through Lucius Malfoy) that you can't apparate from Hogwarts and it was impossible for him to attend the meetings. < Juli again: I get your point Carol, but my question remains, if Snape *knew* that Quirrell was after the stone for Voldemort who was trying to regain his power, he shouldn't have been so obvious about his dislike for Quirrell!Mort. What I'm trying to explain is that during PS/SS Snape was working for DD and being loyal to him, then comes Quirrell searching for the stone for LV (I'm sure Snape knew it wasn't for himself, mainly because I think he's also a legimens) and Snape tries to stop him, and by doing so he stops LV from returning. So, LV must have known for sure that Snape had left him for good. What Snape could have told him later (during GoF-OoP) is an absolute mystery, he must have done some serious convincing arguments in order to get into LV's good side again. Maybe Lucius had something to do with that, specially since Lucius seems to be really close to LV, almost second in command. JMO Juli __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From bree4378 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 03:39:41 2005 From: bree4378 at yahoo.com (Sabrina) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:39:41 -0000 Subject: GoF - Second Task Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122682 I just wanted to say WOW! I am reading GoF for the first time, and when I got to the Second Task chapter, I was absolutely taken by surprise. The way Rowling has written this chapter to make you feel like you are actually there with Harry experiencing the adventure is amazing. How she thinks of these scenes and situations, is beyond me. I used to praise the HP stories as being great fun to read, but I can honestly praise Rowling herself as a talented, creative author with an immagination that works overtime. Which is not a bad thing! *WARNING* GOF SPOILER BELOW!! The fact that Ron was what had been taken down into the lake for Harry to find (Ron being what Harry would miss most) completely took me by pleasant surprise. I was also wondering that since Hermione was taken as what Victor Krum had to find, does this mean she is what he would miss the most? I'm thinking this is a way of foreshadowing some sort of friendship (or more) that is going to develop between Victor and Hermione. "Sabrina" From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 05:13:00 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:13:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) References: Message-ID: <00ae01c50041$0b5e4990$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122683 >>>Alla: > >>I remember saying that Harry's nose did not belong in the Pensieve, > that is true, but from that I did not make the conclusion that it was > mostly Harry's fault that Snape went crazy. I blame that solely on > Snape's anger management issues. >>How about saying " Get out" and be done with it? No, I'd say Snape > still has plenty of "inner DE" to get under control.< > > Betsy: > But if Snape had just said "get out," Harry wouldn't have heard him > because he had his nose *buried* in Snape's private memories!!! I > honestly think Snape was *very* controlled in his treatment of > Harry. And seriously, if Snape had "inner DE" issues - Harry > would've had far deeper things to worry about then a bruised arm. > > It was *entirely* Harry's fault that Snape got angry. There was > absolutely no excuse for Harry's behavior, and though I still like > Harry, I was disappointed with him. > Charme here: I'm chuckling because I wonder if JKR intended all the debates about Snape :) : I still think, based on canon and how JKR describes Snape's facial, vocal, and physical reactions in that scene, he wasn't controlling his anger at all. In the words of my Potterhead teenage niece: "woooo, Snape just freaked out and lost it, didn't he?" (And no, I didn't provoke her either - that was her honest to goodness reaction when I asked the simple question of what she thought of Snape in that scene - no leading or mention of anger, nada.) He barely contains his anger with Dumbledore about Siruis' escape in PoA - maybe that's because he has to, since DD is his headmaster. I don't think any other teacher has man-handled a student when angry and the closest to come to that would be Umbridge with her enchanted quill, as Shaun rightly points out in another exchange on another thread. I don't think we should ignore Snape's reaction as depicted in canon in either case - I think Snape's anger is his own worst enemy(independent of Harry,) and it's possibly foreshadowing things to come, part of the explanation about Snape's past, or maybe both. Charme From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 05:21:48 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 05:21:48 -0000 Subject: SHIP! Re: GoF - Second Task In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122684 Sabrina: snip. *WARNING* GOF SPOILER BELOW!! The fact that Ron was what had been taken down into the lake for Harry to find (Ron being what Harry would miss most) completely took me by pleasant surprise. I was also wondering that since Hermione was taken as what Victor Krum had to find, does this mean she is what he would miss the most? I'm thinking this is a way of foreshadowing some sort of friendship (or more) that is going to develop between Victor and Hermione. Alla: Well, she did continue to write him in OOP, didn't she? I AM curious to whether anything will develop out of it, or not. It will be very pleasant surprise for me if JKR decides not to do romance "within" the Trio, although I don't think that that is where she is headed. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 05:36:53 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 05:36:53 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Quirrell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122685 >>Juli wrote: >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 conversations, right? So how come Snape does not know that Snape has changed sides? that he is actually working for the Order and Dumbledore?< Betsy: I agree with Carol, that Snape would have concealed his thoughts through his skill in Occlumens, especially when dealing with Quirrell, who he suspects is or is becoming a Death Eater. But I also think Snape was *very* careful about what he said to Quirrell. I think that his fellow Death Eaters still think Snape is one of them, based on the behavior of Lucius Malfoy throughout the five books. So Snape would have approached Quirrell in his position as a higher ranked Death Eater. I think, because of Quirrell's youth (young enough for an eleven year old to describe him as a young man) Snape would have assumed that he was being assisted or commanded by an older, more powerful Death Eater. (Which in a way, he was. Voldemort was commanding him. Snape just didn't think high enough.) So Snape would have appeared to be a Death Eater telling Quirrell that he should be loyal to Snape - fellow teacher, etc. - rather than the unknown Death Eater running him. I think Snape's goal was to find out who Quirrell was working for. I think Voldemort would have seen this as normal Death Eater behavior, being aggressively jealous of rank and position. He'd be less than pleased with Snape for hiding out rather than trying to search down his master, but all of the free Death Eaters did this, so I don't think Snape would have stood out in his mind for that. And I don't think Snape was there when everything went pear shaped for Voldemort at the end of PS/SS, so again, Snape would not stand out. The interesting thing to me is it seems like Snape didn't share his suspicions regarding Quirrell with Dumbledore. I wonder if he hoped to figure out who was running Quirrell, turn him over to Dumbledore, and perhaps save Quirrell from becoming a Death Eater himself. Something to ponder, anyway. Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 06:02:17 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:02:17 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122686 >>Betsy >But if Snape had just said "get out," Harry wouldn't have heard him because he had his nose *buried* in Snape's private memories!!! I honestly think Snape was *very* controlled in his treatment of Harry. And seriously, if Snape had "inner DE" issues - Harry would've had far deeper things to worry about then a bruised arm.< >>Alla: >Well, I am trying to think better thoughts, right? So, I am thinking that his anger does not show in a form of doing say Crucio! on his students. I am specificaly talking about his inability to control his anger.< Betsy: See, I think Snape *did* control his anger. He was furious, but he got Harry out of the room before he did anything to him. That, to me, shows control. >>Betsy: >It was *entirely* Harry's fault that Snape got angry. There was absolutely no excuse for Harry's behavior, and though I still like Harry, I was disappointed with him.< >>Alla: >Well, all of us had dissapointments in one or another character's behaviour in OOP. Snape for example was my biggest disapointment of OOP, especially by careless disregard of Dumbledore's orders to teach Harry, IF he is on the Light side. >Harry's act, no matter how wrong it was, I felt was final response to the adults leaving him in the Dark all year, so while I did not like what he did, I was not dissappointed, I understood why he did and do think that he will not do something like that again.< Betsy: Except that Harry is always snooping around and poking his nose into things. This isn't the first time he's had his head in someone elses pensieve. I do agree that he's been kept in the dark too much, and I *hope* he'll develop some empathy and respect for other people. The reason I haven't totally given up on Harry is that Snape is a special case, and Harry's dislike and lack of respect for Snape has been brought about by Snape's own behavior. But Snape is totally in his right to be furious at Harry for snooping. Betsy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 06:17:05 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:17:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's Eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122687 I know we have discussed this before. But I don't remember if anyone found this part from the book. I was rereading SS/PS on p.27 the scene with the snake. "Harry moved in front of the tank and looked intently at the snake. He wouldn't have been surprised if it had died of boredom itself-" etc. (Harry is thinking here not talking and then the Snake) "raised it head until it eyes were on a level with Harry's. It winked." After that Harry hears the snake and talks to it. But notice the words. He LOOKED INTENTLY at the snake. I think that this is our clue. Yes he can speak Parseltongue, but he wasn't speaking then. He was only looking at the snake. But no ordinary look. Does he do this anywhere else?? Tonks_op From lexical74 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 06:23:16 2005 From: lexical74 at yahoo.com (Brian Brinkman) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:23:16 -0000 Subject: Ginny comes out of nowhere, but how about Ron? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122688 Sure enough, Ginny is in the spotlight much more in OOTP. Some of her traits might come as a surprise. Her behaviors seem realistic, though, for somewhat who is the youngest in a family of males. Her brothers seem to fill out a good range of potential personality types as far as males are concerned, so it seems Ginny would be hard to surprise. Yeah, she's going to take some getting used to, unless you are automatically comfortable around high-intensity people. Most of us are not (at least at first). I once read a book about personality types that discussed the difference between levelers and (non) levelers (I think the "non" term might have been different). Anyway, the levelers tend to like things to be easygoing and predictable. The non-levelers tend to provoke conflicts, even seek conflicts. Ginny's behavior in OOTP shows her potential as a "high strung," non-leveler person. For example, when Neville, in the early part of OOTP responds to Luna with "I'm nobody," Ginny contradicts him and sets the record straight with, "Your Neville Longbottom." Now, that's a very positive, value-affirming response, but it's still a contradiction and an assertive one at that. She's not afraid to set things right and she doesn't care who is embarrassed. The people in the world who are more reticent will find actions like this noticeable. Not everyone is comfortable in such a role. Quite a few people notice when someone around them is like that (that is, a non-leveler). So it's possible to decide whether or not you like or dislike such a person. A fairer (and less value-laden) discussion could be, "How much do I enjoy being around such a person, regardless of his or her "good" value? Onto Ron... I had a hard time taking in what I perceived as Ron's "new" persona. When Ron re-enters the scene in OOTP, he seems different. In fact, he seems more life Steve Irwin from "Crocodile Hunter" than the Ron I came to know in the first four books. Since when did he begin speckling his addresses to Harry with "mate"? Or is this simply an example of my misunderstanding of British English. I was aware of the "mate" designation, but its relative infrequency in GOF vs. its frequency in OOTP had me wondering, "What does it mean?" Is JKR attempting to show Ron employing a strategy in dealing with Harry's new emotional state? What do you think? Brian B. From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 22 07:50:31 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:50:31 -0000 Subject: The method of communication / Lupin's Patronus In-Reply-To: <20050122023044.12331.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122689 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > Juli: > I know he produced some sort of Patronus to make > the dementores leave, but was it a Corporeal Patronus? > Did it have a specific shape? I thought of it just > like Harry's first attempts at the Patronus, just some > silvery thingy without shape. > JMO Geoff: I did string some thoughts together about Patronuses/Patroni in message 122032 which might be relevant to this discussion. From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 22 07:56:23 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 07:56:23 -0000 Subject: Ginny comes out of nowhere, but how about Ron? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122690 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brian Brinkman" wrote: snip > Onto Ron... > I had a hard time taking in what I perceived as Ron's "new" > persona. When Ron re-enters the scene in OOTP, he seems different. > In fact, he seems more life Steve Irwin from "Crocodile Hunter" than > the Ron I came to know in the first four books. Since when did he > begin speckling his addresses to Harry with "mate"? Or is this > simply an example of my misunderstanding of British English. I was > aware of the "mate" designation, but its relative infrequency in GOF > vs. its frequency in OOTP had me wondering, "What does it mean?" Is > JKR attempting to show Ron employing a strategy in dealing with > Harry's new emotional state? > > What do you think? > > Brian B. imamommy: I think that, barring editing differences between US and UK versions, it's one of those teenage things. Like, you know, like when your, like daughter, um, like starts to, like...well, you get the idea. These kids are teenagers now, and Ron especially personifies some of the dumb jock variety of cliches. Just my two knuts! imamommy From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 22 09:04:38 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:04:38 -0000 Subject: Ennervate & Innervate and Birdies in the Sky (was Method- comm...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122692 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > bboyminn: > Innervate- in?ner?vate tr.v. in?ner?vat?ed, in?ner?vat?ing, > in?ner?vates. 1. To supply (an organ or a body part) with nerves. 2. > To stimulate (a nerve, muscle, or body part) to action. > > > Also, Ennervate is the counter-curse to the Stunning Curse. It's the > spell that wakes someone who is stunned. It wasn't the incantation > that sent the 'ghostly bird' flying to Hagrid. > > The '...nerv...' aspect of, most likely, both these words is related > to the word 'nerve'. > > I suspect the prefex 'En...' implies a contraction or containment of, > and 'In...' implies the expansion of. Therefore, 'En'-nerve would be a > deminishing of nerve energy or ability, and 'In'-nerve would imply and > expansion of nerve energy or ability. The suffix '..ate' would imply > 'the immediate process of' as in communicate being 'the immediate > process of' communing. > > Justifiable I think this should be corrected in all editions > (Ennervate->Innervate), but I seriously doubt that it will be. Geoff: Interesting that I'd never come across innervate before. It is not listed in the two modern dictionaries I often consult - Heinemans and Readers' Digest Word Power but it is in my old Concise Oxford. The prefix "en-" to me can also inply an expansion rather than a contraction - "enfranchise" and "ennoble" spring to mind - compared with "enervate" and "enfeeble" for example. And, as I pointed out yesterday, the Bloomsbury edition do use the correctly spelt "Enervate" with only one "n". Geoff (having a pedantic moment) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 09:25:36 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:25:36 -0000 Subject: Ennervate & Innervate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122693 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > Geoff: > Interesting that I'd never come across innervate before. It is not > listed in the two modern dictionaries I often consult - Heinemans > and Readers' Digest Word Power but it is in my old Concise Oxford. > > The prefix "en-" to me implies an expansion rather than a > contraction - "enfranchise" and "ennoble" spring to mind. > > And, as I pointed out yesterday, the Bloomsbury edition do use the > correctly spelt "Enervate" with only one "n". > > Geoff > (having a pedantic moment) bboyminn: Certainly, Innervate is not a common word, I don't think I've ever heard any one use it in speaking or writing in my entire substantially long life. I have an American Heritage CD-ROM dictionary that I use most often. Since I reply and post using the group's web interface, and therefore don't have a spelling checker, it comes in handy. It was there that I found 'enervate' while looking for 'enNervate'. I saw that the meaning was the opposite of what I thought it should be, then started looking for alternate spellings to see what I could find. Sure enough, I stumbled across 'innervate'. When the words are so close in sound, using an 'E' instead of an 'I' would be a common mistake. Also, one could subconsciously compound the mistake by making an association between the 'en' in ennervate and the 'en' in energy. As I said before, given that JKR makes up words, and that these particular words are somewhat obscure, I can see how the Editors missed it. As far as the Bloomsbury editions using 'enervate' with one 'N', I suspect that was a Auto-Spell Checker correction. An editor running an initial spell check may have taken it for a spelling error, whereas the US Scholastic editors may have left it 'as is' assuming it was a made up word. Regardless of all that, I still think the correct word is 'Innervate'. To be a little pedantic myself regarding your examples, could one say that to 'enfranchise' is to become contained within a fanchise. Example, you get a McDonalds fanchise, while your businesss is independant, you are none the less now contain within the McDonalds organization. To be 'ennoble' could be interpreted as being contained within the class of nobility. Really it means more like 'to become' or 'to make', as in 'enraged' meaning to become or to make (in a state of) rage. But one could equally say that to be enraged is be be contained or consumed by the emotion of rage. I guess to some extent, it's a matter of perspective. Just a few rather pointless thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 10:34:00 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:34:00 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122694 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > > I do agree that he's been kept in the dark too much, and I > *hope* he'll develop some empathy and respect for other people. > The reason I haven't totally given up on Harry is that Snape is a > special case, and Harry's dislike and lack of respect for Snape has > been brought about by Snape's own behavior. But Snape is totally > in his right to be furious at Harry for snooping. On the other hand, isn't there an interesting theme going on here...as I've argued before (at length) (but sans post numbers--it's 5:30 AM for goodness' sake), fear and trust are mutually exclusive (in a more theoretical capacity--see Shklar for details). Harry does not fear Snape himself per se, but he has had ample occasion to learn that Snape is capricious towards him (in the classroom, and a few occasions elsewhere), and ironically...much as Snape says that Dumbledore can refer to Voldemort as he likes, being as he is powerful, so Dumbledore has made the mistake (IMO) of forgetting what it is like to deal with a Snape-like person from a position of inferiority. Snape can do things to Harry, while Harry cannot to him, and that is what, combined with the unfairness of Snape's actions, destroys the possibility of trust. You cannot trust someone when you are worried about what they can and may do to you. Everyday actions, the lesson goes as I see it, have effects on the larger realm of getting things done. Being as there was no trust there *because* of the mode of daily interaction, it really isn't/wasn't possible to say "Oh, well this is a completely different occasion and we can thus play with completely different rules"-- because it *isn't*. How you treat people all the time matters in how things are going to work out in more special circumstances. Harry has good reason to not be trusting of Snape; he cannot trust Snape because Snape often operates on what seems to Harry as a certain element of whim--and that idea has never been disproven to him. [Not to mention that I think on the everyday basis, that's really what Snape is *doing*; some things we misperceive and there is official direction behind, some things are Snape being nasty and variable on his own initiative, without being reined in.] And that manifests itself in Harry's behavior. It's not *good* behavior by any means, but it's really rather understandable. -Nora and her alter-ego, Alto Elf From trekkie at stofanet.dk Sat Jan 22 11:15:53 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:15:53 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) References: Message-ID: <004601c50073$bcbf2650$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122695 >>>Betsy >>But if Snape had just said "get out," Harry wouldn't have heard him > because he had his nose *buried* in Snape's private memories!!! I > honestly think Snape was *very* controlled in his treatment of > Harry. And seriously, if Snape had "inner DE" issues - Harry > would've had far deeper things to worry about then a bruised arm.< > >>>Alla: >>Well, I am trying to think better thoughts, right? So, I am thinking > that his anger does not show in a form of doing say Crucio! on his > students. I am specificaly talking about his inability to control his > anger.< > > Betsy: > See, I think Snape *did* control his anger. He was furious, but he > got Harry out of the room before he did anything to him. That, to > me, shows control. Trekkiegrrrl: Indeed did Snape show tremendous control here. If I had found anybody snooping in my private diaries (or memories, given that was a possibility) I would have gone absolutely postal. But then, you may argue, I too have an anger management problem, except for the fact that I normally manage very well *G* I do have a volatile temper though and given that Snape apparently has that too, I'd say he managed fantasticaly well in that situation. He got Potter out before he REALLY hurt him. And a bruised arm? Boo-hoo. He should be glad it wasn't broken IMO. And the glass of cockroaches was thrown ABOVE his head, NOT intended to hit. Like when someone (mostly in movies and cartoons) takes a pile of plates and smashes them into the floor in fury... Not intended to HARM anyone, but a way to let out steam. > >>>Betsy: >>It was *entirely* Harry's fault that Snape got angry. There was > absolutely no excuse for Harry's behavior, and though I still like > Harry, I was disappointed with him.< > >>>Alla: >>Well, all of us had dissapointments in one or another character's > behaviour in OOP. Snape for example was my biggest disapointment of > OOP, especially by careless disregard of Dumbledore's orders to teach > Harry, IF he is on the Light side. >>Harry's act, no matter how wrong it was, I felt was final response > to the adults leaving him in the Dark all year, so while I did not > like what he did, I was not dissappointed, I understood why he did > and do think that he will not do something like that again.< > > Betsy: > Except that Harry is always snooping around and poking his nose into > things. This isn't the first time he's had his head in someone elses > pensieve. I do agree that he's been kept in the dark too much, and I > *hope* he'll develop some empathy and respect for other people. > > The reason I haven't totally given up on Harry is that Snape is a > special case, and Harry's dislike and lack of respect for Snape has > been brought about by Snape's own behavior. But Snape is totally in > his right to be furious at Harry for snooping. TrekkieGrrrl: I was furious with Harry during all those Occlumency lessons. I don't CARE if he "understood" the reason for them. The mere fact that Dumbledore - of all people - told him they were important ought to be enough. Harry was behaving very much like a spoiled child in those classes, no doubt enhancing Snape's view of him AS a spoiled brat. And since Snape doesn't cope well with dunderheads in the first place, I can surely understand his frustration and anger when he finds out that Harry hasn't even been practising. YES, it would have been a VERY good idea if Dumbledore had told Harry WHY the Occlumency lessons were so important, and why it was imperative that he stopped having that dream. But at that point I doubt it would have mattered much. Harry was determined to see what was behind that door in his dream, and thereby disregarded any sane thought about the purpose of the dream. As far as I remember, Harry knew the dream was sent to him, so he should have been vary of why. But Harry was acting selfish - not for the first time - and decided not to take the Occlumency seriously, blaming it more or less on the pain in his scar and on Snape, which he can't stand (and yes, he has valid reasons for dislikeng Snape of course, I'm not putting white fluffy wings and a halo on Snape in any way, but the fact remains that Snape IS the only one who can help him in this case.) I wonder why people in general aren't blaming Dumbledore more than they are. To me, he's totally the Puppetmaster!Dumbledore. Pulling strings and making everybody jump to his will. Without even telling them why. Sorry but I just don't like manipulating people. ~TrekkieGrrrl From jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 22 12:36:30 2005 From: jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk (jlv230) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:36:30 -0000 Subject: The method of communication / Lupin's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122696 Geoff: I did string some thoughts together about Patronuses/Patroni in message 122032 which might be relevant to this discussion: JLV: Thanks Geoff. I had no idea I was walking into a school of thought on this one let's see: >From message 122032: Pippin: You did notice, perhaps, that Lupin didn't actually teach Harry to produce a corporeal patronus? He stopped the lessons while Harry was still only able to produce a silver vapor -- not enough to drive a dementor away. Geoff: I'm not entirely sure that you are taught to produce a "corporeal" Patronus; it may depend on your own ability. And I'm also not sure I agree with your last statement. Let's look at canon: 'The witch with the monocle cut across him in a booming voice. "You produced a fully-fledged Patronus?" "Yes," said Harry. "because -" "A corporeal Patronus?" "A - what?" said Harry. "Your Patronus had a clearly defined form? I mean to say, it was more than vapour or smoke?" "Yes," said Harry, feeling both impatient and slightly desperate, "it's a stag, it's always a stag." "Always?" boomed Madam Bones. "You have produced a Patronus before now?" "Yes," said Harry, "I've been doing it for over a year." "And you are fifteen years old?" "Yes, and -" "You learned this at school?" "Yes. Professor Lupin taught me in my third year, because of the -" "Impressive," said Madam Bones, staring down at him, "a true Patronus at his age... very impressive indeed."' (OOTP "The Hearing" p.129 UK edition) Now, what can we infer from this? Madam Bones seems to imply that not everyone can produce a corporeal Patronus. JLV: I read this to say that Madam Bones was impressed because he is so young , "a true Patronus *at his age*." Not because it is very rare for a wizard to produce a Corporeal Patronus at all, but rare for one so young. I accept that there are some wizards who will never be able to produce one, but a reasonably good wizard should be able to produce one with enough practice and, crucially, time. But that is just the way I read it, and I think your interpretation is just as valid as mine so we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Geoff: "'And Professor Lupin stepped over you, and walked towards the Dementor, and pulled out his wand,' said Hermione. 'And said, 'None of us is hiding Sirius Black under our cloaks. Go." But the Dementor didn't move, so Lupin muttered something, and a silvery thing shot out of his wand at it, and it turned round and sort of glided away...'" (POA "The Dementor" p.67 UK edition) It would appear that even Lupin doesn't seem to produce a recognisable Patronus or Hermione would have given a clearer description of it - and his silver vapour, or whatever, did drive the Dementor away. JLV: Hermione doesn't describe this as silver vapour at all, but a silvery "thing". Surely if it was mist/vapur she wouldn't have called it a thing? And to say that "Hermione would have given a clearer description of it" if it was corporeal rather than mist is rather unjustified. JKR could be concealing the form of Lupin's patronus *at this stage* in POA ? it may, after all, be a wolf and would have given part of the game away! JKR is never that careless, so could have decided to make Hermione not quite see what she was seeing if you catch my drift. JMO, JLV xx From jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jan 22 12:57:24 2005 From: jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk (jlv230) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:57:24 -0000 Subject: The method of communication (Harry's patronus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122697 JLV: Let's make this clear. You agree that even if it was a Phoenix- shaped thing, Harry may not have recognised it. Excellent. But you think that it needn't be a Patronus even if it was Phoenix-like. If that is the case, then I can't argue, Becky. As I said before, the *only* reason I have to think it is a Patronus is the Edinburgh Book Day quote: "What form does Dumbledore's Patronus take? Good question. Can anyone guess? You have had a clue. There was a little whisper there. It is a phoenix, which is very representative of Dumbledore for reasons that I am sure you can guess." It is the "You have had a clue." bit that I picked up on and believed to mean that there was a specific clue in the books which we may have overlooked. It is indeed a very tenuous connection, but this is the only time I can find where Dumbledore ever shoots anything which could possibly be his Phoenix Patronus out of his wand. Hence I came to this conclusion. Becky: Ok. Here goes! I do agree that Harry may not have noticed exactly what he saw. I've walked past friends in the street and looked right at them and not noticed who they were until they've said hello! [JLV:Me too!] (I feel the situation is different to that in the MoM when Harry *actively* looked for the DEs) Just to clear that up first. Then my reasons as to why I think that it's not a patronus. My reason comes from the same place you read to mean it *is* a patronus, JKR's Edinburgh interview. She said we'd been given a clue, rather than we had actually *seen* his patronus. It does depend on interpretation of course. JLV: But we didn't actually see it, Harry "may not have noticed exactly what he saw" so we only got a hint of it. It is never described as a Patronus, we can't even detect its form. We see but don't see. That is what I would call a clue, but I respect your point. There is nothing conclusive here (either way I think). Becky: My other reasons are that, as has been discussed, the patronus charm / spell / whatever is difficult. JLV I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as can't and try try try again so I can't accept that something is `too hard' as a reason for it not to be done. But that is just my opinion, and may not be JKR's (although I hope it is!). Becky: Also, it is described as 'a positive force, a projection of... hope, happiness, the desire to survive' (pg.176 in bloomsbury copy of PoA). JLV: That it is a positive force shouldn't prevent something doing something, should it? I can't follow this at all I'm afraid. Becky: It disappears too fast. That doesn't sound to me like something capable of giving a message, no matter how short. JLV: Does it? Really? Harry's Patronus in the alley in OotP lasts long enough for Harry to turn it round. Nothing in the books says they couldn't last longer than that. Perhaps they only last as long as they are needed. Becky: Therefore, I come to the conclusion that that is *not* what the OOTP use to communicate. I think that JKR's comments that we have seen their means of communication used allows for something that we don't understand as yet. Just because we've seen something doesn't mean that we *do* understand it, so that's my reason for thinking it could well be something other than a patronus. Also, as I have already pointed out (thank you for thinking my whole same but different thing made sense!!!), my main point of thinking was a sort of positive interpretation of the dark mark. Something *unique* (in the true sense of the word. I have a pet loathing of the misuse of that particular word!!) to OOTP members. As a result, the chances of it being sent by someone untrustworthy are very slim. I take on board the point about a fingerprint being useful, but I think a fingerprint of OOTP is possible enough... JLV: And I come to the conclusion that the Patronus as a means of communication shouldn't be ruled out yet. I wouldn't be surprised (or upset) if it wasn't true, but I don't think anything cited so far is any more probable. Plenty of ideas that are as probable (like the unique-to-OotP-Phoenix-ghost-type-messengers), but none more so, IMHO. Take care, JLV xx From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Jan 22 13:27:33 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:27:33 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122698 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Renee: > > I'm suddenly reminded of the New Testament parable of the > ungrateful servant, whose huge debt is canceled by his master > but who throws the man who owns him a small amount into > prison when this man can't pay it back. Snape, a former > Death-eater, saved from Azkaban by Dumbledore, wants to > deliver Lupin (whose personal debt to him is relatively small > compared to the crimes committed by the average Death-eater) > to the Dementors, possibly to be Kissed. In the parable, the > ungrateful servant's fate is not happy. For Snape's sake, I really > do hope the analogy isn't intentional.< > > Pippin: > > I think the analogy is intentional, and is supposed to enhance > our idea of Snape as an ungrateful wretch who wants to have > Lupin Kissed for taunting him with Neville's boggart, or for having > taken part in a cruel joke some twenty years before. > > But Snape believes that Lupin has been helping Black get into > the castle, ie that he is a Death Eater. "I've told the headmaster > again and again that you're helping your old friend Black into the > castle, Lupin, and here's the proof." You have to admit, the fact > that Snape found the map activated on Lupin's desk after Lupin > claimed that it was a Zonko's product has got to look pretty > damning in Snape's eyes. Renee: Snape apparently doesn't trust DD's judgement concerning others, though it's DD's judgement of him that kept him out of trouble after the first Voldemort war. He's only too eager to think the worst of others, even though DD apparently never thought the worst of him. > On that basis the threat of dementors doesn't seem so > outrageous. Plenty of people think that killing DE's on sight is the > right thing to do. Sirius and Lupin, for example, who also have to > be stopped by Harry from killing the man they believe is guilty. > > I think ultimately the NT reference is to another passage...let him > who is without sin... > Renee: That one's also applicable to Snape, yes. But you omit that Sirius and Lupin ultimately listened to Harry, while Snape wasn't only completely unwilling to do so, but also belittled Harry (and James Potter again, but I'm willing to cut him some slack there.) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 22 13:39:12 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:39:12 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122699 Geoff: > It would appear that even Lupin doesn't seem to produce a recognisable Patronus or Hermione would have given a clearer description of it - and his silver vapour, or whatever, did drive the Dementor away. > > JLV: > Hermione doesn't describe this as silver vapour at all, but a > silvery "thing". Surely if it was mist/vapur she wouldn't have > called it a thing? And to say that "Hermione would have given a > clearer description of it" if it was corporeal rather than mist is > rather unjustified. < Pippin: Especially since Hermione doesn't give a clear description of Dumbledore's patronus either. Here's what she says about Dumbledore driving the dementors away from the Quidditch match: "Dumbledore was really angry," Hermione said in a quaking voice. "I've never seen him like that before. He ran onto the field as you fell, waved his wand, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground. Then he whirled his wand at the dementors. Shot silver stuff at them. They left the stadium right away...." --PoA ch 9 JKR has confirmed that Dumbledore's patronus is a phoenix. It sounds here like Dumbledore generated several at once. One could argue, of course, that Dumbledore, though capable of the corporeal patronus, did not produce one here. However the dementors did leave immediately. Hermione was panicky herself when she witnessed Lupin's patronus and Dumbledore's -- she may not have been the most accurate observer. Canon is not conclusive, but there are indications that only the corporeal or "true" patronus will drive a dementor away. : "I thought a Patronus would --charge the dementors down or something, " said Harry dispiritedly. "Make them disappear--" "The true Patronus does do that," said Lupin. PoA ch 12 But the indistinct patronus only hovers and drains the caster of energy. It blocks the dementors advance as long as it lasts, but can't dismiss it: Ch 12: PoA p 242 US hardcover: --and then a huge, silver shadow came bursting out of the end of Harry's wand, to hover between him and the dementor... Ch12 PoA p 245 Several sessions on he was able to produce an indistinct silvery shadow every time the boggart-dementor approached him, but his Patronus was too feeble to drive the dementor away. All it did was hover, like a semi-transparent cloud, draining Harry of energy as he fought to keep it there. Ch 20 PoA A thin wisp of silver escaped his wand, and hovered like mist before him. Ch 1 OOP A silvery wisp of vapor shot from the tip of his wand and the dementor slowed, but the spell hadn't worked properly; tripping over his feet, Harry retreated farther as the dementor bore down upon him, panic fogging his brain--*concentrate*-- Although Lupin says he has confidence that Harry will be able to handle a real dementor attack with just the wisp of a patronus, Harry tells his own class they should practice with a boggart even after some of them can produce a true patronus. In fact, he varies his technique from Lupin's by having the class learn without a mock dementor at first. I wonder if Harry feels he would have made faster progress himself if he had been allowed to do this. I also wonder whether Lupin had some ulterior motives, like wanting to find out who was at Godric's Hollow besides Voldemort. "You heard James?" But then I have my suspicions, you see. Pippin From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jan 22 10:32:33 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:32:33 -0000 Subject: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122700 > Dungrollin: > Now that story sounds oddly familiar... Substitute "tortured to > insanity" with "murdered by Voldemort" and "grandmother" with "aunt > and uncle"... So why doesn't Harry fear Snape more than anything > else? Well, maybe because he has a different character? Had different parents, so a different genetic make-up, in which fear genes do not play such a big part? Even siblings, raised in the same circumstances can have hugely different ways to react to the same things, see Percy and the twins... Gerry From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 14:17:21 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:17:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: All about Lupin replies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050122141721.43987.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122701 --- pippin_999 wrote: > You see the difference, I hope. Lupin not only fails to > acknowledge the actual damage he did, leaving Harry to blame > himself (so much for Lupin's vaunted sensitivity to Harry's > unspoken needs), he also fails to acknowledge any personal > responsibility. He blames the whole business on being a > werewolf, which of course he can't help, and fails to > acknowledge, unlike Dumbledore, that his job is to manage his > condition, not use it as an excuse. And of course, through implication he also manages to put the blame on Snape for "outing" him to the Slytherins over breakfast, as if that's the only reason he has to leave and he's just being big about the whole thing. Managing his condition through the wolfsbane potion was a requirement of his getting the job at Hogwarts, it would have been impossible for Dumbledore to have hired him otherwise considering the very real danger he would pose to students and villagers if he transformed. Regardless of the circumstances that resulted in his forgetting to take the potion, the agreement was broken. Lupin had to go. More and more I think the "band of brothers" that was the Marauders was an unhealthy one. James was saved by getting himself a girlfriend with both feet on the ground and a good brain. Had Remus and Sirius found themselves a couple of good sound intelligent girls, they wouldn't have fallen into the trap of mutual distrust over who was the spy in the Order or done the SK switch. I'm betting a hundred galleons that we'll find out that Lily had Pettigrew pegged right from Day One and that she thought he was a little creep. That's why he insisted on sitting between James and Lily in the Order photo: to show devotion to James and because it gave him a secret kick to bug Lily. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 14:28:38 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:28:38 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <004601c50073$bcbf2650$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122702 TrekkieGrrrl: I was furious with Harry during all those Occlumency lessons. I don't CARE if he "understood" the reason for them. The mere fact that Dumbledore - of all people - told him they were important ought to be enough. Harry was behaving very much like a spoiled child in those classes, no doubt enhancing Snape's view of him AS a spoiled brat. Alla: Well, I DO care whether Harry knew the reasons for the lessons. I think it would made tremendous difference for his mindset. I doubt anything would change Snape's view of Harry at that point, but that's just me and if you think that complaining of the fact that lessons made him weaker is spoiled brat's behaviour, then honestly I am glad that Harry did complain, because then we realise that Snape was indeed purposefully opened Harry's mind to Voldemort, we'll at least remember that we did have hints and our suspicions were not for no reason. :o) Trekkiegrrl: I wonder why people in general aren't blaming Dumbledore more than they are. To me, he's totally the Puppetmaster!Dumbledore. Pulling strings and making everybody jump to his will. Without even telling them why. Sorry but I just don't like manipulating people. Alla: Dumbledore expressed remorse for his mistakes in OOP, that is why I do forgive him... when I am in the good mood. HIs mistakes come from having too much trust in people, from having too much good in him. I understand such mistakes easily. When Snape apologises to Harry (IF that ever happen) for all he put the boy through, I'll forgive him too... maybe. :o) Just my opinion, Alla From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 14:32:57 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:32:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and Sirius (was Re: Harry and Boggarts) In-Reply-To: <20050120185009.97173.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050122143257.30287.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122703 --- Juli wrote: > There's only one time when Sirius expressed any > disappointment on Harry (During OoP when Sirius > suggests they meet at Hogsmeade and Harry, too > concerned says NO). All other times when Sirius looks > at Harry you can see pride in his eyes. Perhaps. The only time I remember Sirius saying something "proudly" was when Snape commented "surely you've noticed how like his father he [Harry] is?" (not exact quote) and Sirius agreed. Whether Sirius ever really looked at Harry and SAW him is a moot point. I don't think he really saw him as James; that's a little too obvious and Sirius (nor Snape, for that matter) is THAT dumb. But Sirius and Snape both assume that Harry has the same reflexes, the same emotions, the same way of looking at things, the same feelings. Obviously Snape thinks this a bad thing that must be squashed and Sirius thinks this a good thing that should be encouraged. But otherwise they're in agreement. Does Harry actually see Sirius when he looks at him? Or does he see his first real chance to have a family, sometime in the future when he can leave the Dursleys and come live with him? Does Sirius really see Harry? Or does he see the son of his best friend who'd still be alive if he hadn't comeup with the SK idea? Or does he see a second chance to get things right? Or - like Snape, of all people - does he look at Harry and see a chance to square things with James? Because for two people supposedly so close and loving, Harry and Sirius don't exactly spend a lot of time together, quality or otherwise. Harry doesn't feel close enough to him to pursue the issue of his scar and the vision after the Arthur incident at Christmas, and he knows that Sirius is depressed and spending long hours with Buckbeak and does NOTHING to do things with him, to jolly him out of his sullens. In short, they don't act like people who are close act. On the other hand, when Harry is prevented from communicating with Sirius, he feels closer to him than ever. For all these reasons I think it was the IDEA of the other that each really cherished, not the present situation but some abstract future time when they could be godfather and godson, once the uncomfortable present was got over with. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 22 15:01:36 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:01:36 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122704 > Renee: > Snape apparently doesn't trust DD's judgement concerning others, though it's DD's judgement of him that kept him out of trouble after the first Voldemort war. He's only too eager to think the worst of others, even though DD apparently never thought the worst of him. < Pippin: I'm not sure what you mean by that. Dumbledore did believe the worst of Snape, "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater." But he believed that Snape had changed. Dumbledore believes that people are innocent until proven guilty, but as far as we know at this point in the story, Dumbledore believes that Sirius is guilty just as much as Snape does, and Snape has just discovered Lupin with him in very suspicious circumstances. Snape was forgiven his guilt, but this seems to have been conditional on his atonement "he turned spy for us at great personal risk." Sirius, in contrast, still thought Snape deserved to have been bitten by the werewolf. Snape might perhaps be forgiven for thinking Sirius unrepentant. Pippin previously: > > On that basis the threat of dementors doesn't seem so outrageous. Plenty of people think that killing DE's on sight is the right thing to do. Sirius and Lupin, for example, who also have to be stopped by Harry from killing the man they believe is guilty. > > Renee: > But you omit that Sirius and Lupin ultimately listened to Harry, while Snape wasn't only completely unwilling to do so, but also belittled Harry (and James Potter again, but I'm willing to cut him some slack there.)< Pippin: Snape is quite right, though very rude, in conveying that Harry doesn't understand the situation. Harry doesn't know that Snape was Dumbledore's spy on the Death Eaters; he doesn't even know what a Death Eater *is* at this point and he's not at all savvy about fighting them. Though he knows intellectually that he's hardly a match for a full grown dark wizard, he still thinks he's safe enough with his wand in his possession, though Lupin has already charmed it away from him once. But though Snape threatened to MAKE Harry get out of the way, he ultimately did listen to him, because he didn't give Sirius to the dementors when he had the chance. And though Snape was not particularly happy with Dumbledore's decision to trust Sirius, he ultimately accepted it, as shown by the handshake in GoF. Pippin From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 15:18:29 2005 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:18:29 -0000 Subject: Harry's Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122705 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: Tonks: > I know we have discussed this before. But I don't remember if anyone > found this part from the book. I was rereading SS/PS on p.27 the > scene with the snake. > > "Harry moved in front of the tank and looked intently at the snake. > He wouldn't have been surprised if it had died of boredom itself-" > etc. (Harry is thinking here not talking and then the Snake) "raised > it head until it eyes were on a level with Harry's. It winked." > > After that Harry hears the snake and talks to it. But notice the > words. He LOOKED INTENTLY at the snake. I think that this is our > clue. Yes he can speak Parseltongue, but he wasn't speaking then. > He was only looking at the snake. But no ordinary look. Does he do > this anywhere else?? LisaMarie here: Oooohh, that gave me chills when I read it just now. Seems very reminiscent of Voldemort's talent for legilemency. Maybe this, like Parseltongue, is a power that he left with Harry at Godric's Hollow? Maybe that's why Harry was able to break into Snape's memories during the Occlumency lesson? Of course, JKR has said that Harry having Lily's eyes is very important to the plot, and that his glasses are a clue to his vulnerability. (http:// www.madamscoop.org/bytheme.htm#harry) Interesting. I haven't done much researching of canon with these aspects in mind. I wonder what everyone else thinks. LisaMarie, who is wishing for a Time-Turner to make her weekend long enough to search for eyes/eyesight references AND make lesson plans for her next week's classes =) From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Sat Jan 22 15:31:59 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:31:59 -0000 Subject: ESE!Pigwidgeon? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122706 I hear everybody going "Huh?" How could such a cute pet be ESE? I've been suspicious of Pig for a while, and I've collected a set of reasons why I think we might reconsider Ron's pet. Let's enumerate. He has a lot in common with Scabbers. 1 - He is Ron's only beloved pet. 2 - He was given to Ron by someone Ron trusts Scabbers: Percy, Pig: Sirius 3 - He has unknown origins. Where was Scabbers before he got to Percy? Where was Pig before he got to Sirius? 4 - He's sort of incompetent at what he is supposed to do. Scabbers mostly sleeps except once when he attacks Goyle. Pig is really too small to be a post owl although he puts forth a good effort. He doesn't seem really "owlish". 1 - He's really tiny. 2 - He twitters instead of hooting. 3 - He zooms around. Owls are graceful silent flyers. (Warning - metathinking coming) He seems to be deliberately written to remind us of a Golden Snitch. 1 - He fits in one hand. 2 - He zooms around, and probably would be hard to catch if he didn't want to be caught. Or, could it be the other way around? Could JKR have designed Golden Snitches and Quidditch itself as a giant setup for a climactic chase where Harry MUST catch an escaping Pigwidgeon? >From OneLook.com online dictionary "Snitch" noun: someone acting as an informer or decoy for the police. verb: take by theft, give away information about somebody 1 - Snitches carry information, as do post owls. 2 - The owls at Hogwarts spend a lot of time unsupervised in the owlry or elsewhere. Could Pig be passing information to somebody when nobody is looking? 3 - In Sirius' letter where we first meet Pig, Sirius says that this was the only owl available. Why? There is usually an abundance of owls around when you need one. Why a sudden shortage so that ONLY this one could do the job? And why was he so eager? In short, I think we need to keep our eyes on ubercute Pigwidgeon. He could be a real snitch. ~Constance Vigilance, whose heart would be broken if proved correct, but here is the evidence anyway From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 15:39:47 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:39:47 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122707 horridporrid03 Wrote: > So I just want to be clear, Eggplant, > you feel that Snape is Harry's > enemy - not Voldemort I have never even hinted that Voldemort is not an enemy, as for Snape, he should certainly be treated as an enemy for the purposes of the Occlumency lessons and I think even Snape and Dumbledore would agree with that. But is Snape really an enemy of Harry? Only JKR knows for certain but I think it's a real possibility and I'll bet Harry feels the same way. > You're offered lessons that could help > you regain control of your own head, > and the most powerful light wizard > tells you that it is *imperative* > you learn this skill. This "most powerful light wizard" has proven to be dead wrong over after over again and at the time it would be entirely reasonable to assume he was wrong this time too because as Harry said, if he knew Occlumency earlier Mr. Weasley would be dead. As for these wonderful lessons everybody is talking about, the ones that let a teacher get deep inside your head, are being taught by somebody you do not trust! Oh and one more little thing, the lessons make you feel terrible and DO NOT WORK; it's worse, the lessons are counterproductive, they actually make you weaker. You complain about this again and again up to the very end of your adventure but receive no satisfactory explanation for this, or an explanation of any sort for that matter. You are just ignored. Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 16:13:47 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:13:47 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122708 In response to the discussions here: As I was reading the different threads this thought came to me. I think that this pulls it all together. LV gets his power from us, from our negative emotions. We all know that LV kills mostly though other people. Snape was a DE. He probably did kill someone and could again. Snape puts his thoughts in the pensive, but NOT because he doesn't want Harry to see them. He puts them there because they will be a danger to Harry if LV sees them. Snape's knows that this is his own weakness and we should give him credit for knowing that. He puts them in the pensive because he expects that he will come in contact with LV while teaching Harry. Look at Snape's reaction when Harry sees what is in the pensive. He, the MASTER of non-emotion and control, looses control. He grabs Harry's arm and throws him to the floor. What do you think would have happened to Harry if it were LV and not Harry looking into the memory, not in the pensive but in Snape's mind? I don't think that our dear Harry would have faired so well!! Snape put the memory in the pensive to protect Harry. And he stops the lessons to protect Harry. This, of course, is NOT a good sign. It points to the potential of Snape again loosing control to LV. And I think that this is also the reason that DD doesn't trust Snape to be the DADA teacher. I really think that I am on to something here. Tonks_op From editor at texas.net Sat Jan 22 16:24:19 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:24:19 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long) References: Message-ID: <009101c5009e$d408b3a0$b059aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 122709 Great heavens, I'm combining posts. Too bad Anal P. Lardbottom is no longer on list, he would be crowing in triumph. Dungrollin interrupts: > Snape was never taught how to be a teacher. Amanda: You know, all of this "teacher" variant of this thread puts the responsiblity squarely on the teacher for getting knowledge of their subject inserted into the heads of their students. I postulate that Snape never *wanted* to be a teacher, at least not of those who do not show a clear affinity for his particular discipline. He does genuinely seem to be a master of what he does, and you simply are not a recognized master of anything unless at some level, displayed or not, you have a passion for that skill. Braiding those two thoughts together: A master of a subject prepares lesson plans; he interacts with his students during classes and provides them feedback on their work; he attempts to motivate them to achieve better scores than they currently are. How is this a bad teacher? Ah, you will tell me that the *way* in which he does these things is nasty and oppressive. That's true. But. I believe students have a certain responsibility to learn. They are not little kings of the world, and I think there is a certain value to students to learn that there are vastly different personality types among adults; that not all adults are fair; that not all situations are fair; and that they have to bring a certain willingness to work and adapt to the table. Why should teachers be held responsible when students do not learn, when those students do not use the opportunities given them, to learn? Why should teachers be held responsible for the happiness level of their students, when they are not the parents of those students? It seems to me that the whole attitude of Hogwarts--NOT just Snape--is that authorities in certain subjects are made available to students, and whether the students make the most of the opportunity is up to them. The onus of the responsibility is on the student. This distribution of responsibility in learning is most *definitely* not what exists in America today, where it's all on the teacher. The balance may have shifted too far to the students in the case of Hogwarts; I feel it's too far on the teachers in this country. But my bottom line has always been: if you filter out his *manner* and just look at what he's doing *as a teacher,* Snape is fulfilling his obligations to the letter and more, and the list of his "atrocities" shrinks considerably. Which brings me to something Charme said, in another Snapethread: Charme : There's only one observation I have that I haven't seen mentioned: while Snape is strict, sarcastic, and occasionally (that's a little understated, isn't it? :)) unfair, he also can be what some would perceive as physically abusive when angered. There's only one time it occurs to the "physical" level, and that's when Harry sees Snape's "worst memory." Snape bruises Harry's arm after grabbing him, and throws him forcefully enough that Harry hits the dungeon floor. Right, wrong, or indifferent to whether Snape is evil, has his heart in the right place or not, he appears to have an anger management issue where Harry and Sirius (recall, PoA when Sirius escapes at the end and Snape is disappointed about the Dementors not getting Sirius) are concerned. Now I can tell you some of the parents I know, regardless of what their kid did, would not condone a teacher treating a student in that manner. Neither would the public or the school system. Amanda: As Charme points out, this is the *one time.* And I think that this instance is not applicable to any analysis of Snape as a Hogwarts teacher, or of his standard teaching methods. This incident is outside the standard school system as well as the standard teacher/student relationship. For one thing: this is not the potions master interacting with a student. This is an operative of the Order trying to convey a critical skill to a key player in a major conflict that could change the world as they experience it. The key player has been sabotaging himself in acquiring this skill, because the enemy is already affecting him (via the dreams, causing a desire to see more that makes him not want to block them), which has been frustrating, but that frustration and the anger it produces are, I believe, because Snape knows the stakes and Harry won't recognize them or rise to the moment by applying himself fully. I think it's partly because Snape can't communicate those stakes or the actual situation very well (but Harry has all the facts at his disposal and ignores Hermione, who *does* appear to recognize the situation, so I'm not prepared to *blame* Harry's lack of progress solely to Snape's poor communication). For another, Harry's actions in invading Snape's privacy took this incident out of the realm of any sort of instructor/student applicability, into the personal. Harry knew perfectly well that Snape had put those memories in the Pensieve to keep Harry from seeing them. Snape was shaken when Harry saw memories that Snape left in his mind, that Snape accepted the risk of Harry seeing. And yet Harry stuck his face into the Pensieve deliberately and with full knowledge of what he was doing; he deliberately invaded Snape's privacy for no other reason than curiosity. I believe any person so invaded would react with rage--to the other party as an invader, not as a student or anything else. If my students went rummaging in their teachers' desks, purses, cars, personal belongings, etc., I would be infurated with them myself. If the teacher in question struck them, I'd probably want an explanation for my own understanding. But I don't think the lesson here: it's both wrong and dangerous to violate other people's privacy--is misapplied. Note the word "violate." **Snape was violated by Harry here.** Appropriate or not, the intensity of Snape's reaction is understandable--and it has *less than worthless* as a point of comparison to any other teacher/student interactions he has with Harry or anyone else. It's a totally different level and type of interaction. So, to circle round, if there is only one instance of physical abuse, and that instance is outside any standard teacher/student interactions, I disagree that Snape can be considered physically abusive. ~Amanda From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 16:29:13 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:29:13 -0000 Subject: Life Debt -Snape & Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122710 Another thought: Snape has a life debt to James. James is killed. The life debt does not die with him, it is transferred to Harry. Snape a former DE, or current DE, doesn't matter. He has a life debt and this is a VERY serious thing in the WW, more than it would be in ours. Even a DE must follow it. We see time and again the ways in which Snape protects Harry. He doesn't like Harry. He hates James, even now. But still he must do what he must do. Even if he again turns to the dark side, he will still have to save Harry. Tonks_op Ah. A little butterbeer helped my thinking! From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Jan 22 16:49:31 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:49:31 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122711 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Renee: > > Snape apparently doesn't trust DD's judgement concerning > others, though it's DD's judgement of him that kept him out of > trouble after the first Voldemort war. He's only too eager to think > the worst of others, even though DD apparently never thought > the worst of him. < > > Pippin: > I'm not sure what you mean by that. Dumbledore did believe the > worst of Snape, "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater." But > he believed that Snape had changed. Renee: What I meant - sorry for not putting it more clearly before is that DD *knew* the worst about Snape, but he came to *believe* Snape had changed, for reasons still to be divulged. Apparently, he did and does not believe Snape is still on Voldemort's side and just feigns to be on DD's. Pippin: Sirius, in contrast, still thought Snape deserved to > have been bitten by the werewolf. Snape might perhaps be > forgiven for thinking Sirius unrepentant. Renee: He might, perhaps, if he'd heard Lupin out and still remained unconvinced. The problem is that he doesnt. What if DD, knowing Snape was a Death Eater, hadn't listened when Snape showed up but immediately handed him over to the authorities? > Pippin previously: > > > On that basis the threat of dementors doesn't seem so > outrageous. Plenty of people think that killing DE's on sight is > the right thing to do. Sirius and Lupin, for example, who also > have to be stopped by Harry from killing the man they believe is > guilty. > > > > > Renee: > > But you omit that Sirius and Lupin ultimately listened to Harry, > while Snape wasn't only completely unwilling to do so, but also > belittled Harry (and James Potter again, but I'm willing to cut him > some slack there.)< > > Pippin: > Snape is quite right, though very rude, in conveying that Harry > doesn't understand the situation. Harry doesn't know that Snape > was Dumbledore's spy on the Death Eaters; he doesn't even > know what a Death Eater *is* at this point and he's not at all > savvy about fighting them. Though he knows intellectually that > he's hardly a match for a full grown dark wizard, he still thinks > he's safe enough with his wand in his possession, though Lupin > has already charmed it away from him once. Renee: Irrelevant, as Lupin is tied up and gagged and Sirius doesn't have a wand. Snape, who has a wand and freedom of speech and movement, has the upper hand. He could have listened. He could have tried to lift the "confundus", if he believed Lupin & Sirius cast it on the Trio. But he's a little too eager to turn Black and the werewolf in. Pippin > But though Snape threatened to MAKE Harry get out of the way, > he ultimately did listen to him, because he didn't give Sirius to > the dementors when he had the chance. Renee: I bet he did that because he needed to prove HE was the one who caught Black. Not to mention the fact that by the time he reached Sirius and Harry, Future!Harry's Patronus had driven the Dementors away. (I won't speculate about Snape's ability to cast a corporeal Patronus when faced with dozens of Dementors.) Pippin: > And though Snape was not particularly happy with Dumbledore's > decision to trust Sirius, he ultimately accepted it, as shown by > the handshake in GoF. Renee: Did he have a choice, if he wanted to remain in DD's good graces? From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Jan 22 16:52:00 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 16:52:00 -0000 Subject: ESE!Pigwidgeon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122712 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Constance Vigilance" wrote: > > I hear everybody going "Huh?" How could such a cute pet be ESE? > > I've been suspicious of Pig for a while, and I've collected a set of > reasons why I think we might reconsider Ron's pet. Let's enumerate. > > He has a lot in common with Scabbers. > > 1 - He is Ron's only beloved pet. > 2 - He was given to Ron by someone Ron trusts > Scabbers: Percy, Pig: Sirius > 3 - He has unknown origins. > Where was Scabbers before he got to Percy? > Where was Pig before he got to Sirius? > 4 - He's sort of incompetent at what he is supposed to do. > Scabbers mostly sleeps except once when he attacks Goyle. > Pig is really too small to be a post owl although he puts forth a > good effort. > > He doesn't seem really "owlish". > > 1 - He's really tiny. > 2 - He twitters instead of hooting. > 3 - He zooms around. Owls are graceful silent flyers. > > (Warning - metathinking coming) > > He seems to be deliberately written to remind us of a Golden Snitch. > > 1 - He fits in one hand. > 2 - He zooms around, and probably would be hard to catch if he didn't > want to be caught. > > Or, could it be the other way around? Could JKR have designed Golden > Snitches and Quidditch itself as a giant setup for a climactic chase > where Harry MUST catch an escaping Pigwidgeon? > > From OneLook.com online dictionary > "Snitch" noun: someone acting as an informer or decoy for the police. > verb: take by theft, give away information about somebody > > 1 - Snitches carry information, as do post owls. > 2 - The owls at Hogwarts spend a lot of time unsupervised in the owlry > or elsewhere. Could Pig be passing information to somebody when nobody > is looking? > 3 - In Sirius' letter where we first meet Pig, Sirius says that this > was the only owl available. Why? There is usually an abundance of owls > around when you need one. Why a sudden shortage so that ONLY this one > could do the job? And why was he so eager? > > In short, I think we need to keep our eyes on ubercute Pigwidgeon. He > could be a real snitch. > > ~Constance Vigilance, whose heart would be broken if proved correct, > but here is the evidence anyway Hickengruendler: First, let me say that this is the most entertaining and surprising theory I read for months. I enjoyed reading your post, but I want to point out that there is one big difference between Scabbers and Pig. Crookshanks approved of him. In the last chapter Ron gave the owl to Crookshanks for a "sniffling test", and Pigwidgeon passed. ;-) From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 17:27:59 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:27:59 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long.) In-Reply-To: <009101c5009e$d408b3a0$b059aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122713 "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Harry knew perfectly well that Snape > had put those memories in the > Pensieve to keep Harry from seeing them. And that , especially in the context of the war game they call Occlumency lessons, is exactly why it was Harry's duty to do all he could to look into that Pensive. Sure Snape would get angry but Harry has no reason to be sensitive to Snape's feelings and everybody gets angry when you lose a battle. Snape lost that little encounter and I will cry few tears over it. I said it before I'll say it again, Snape was a coward to put those memories in the Pensive when he didn't give Harry the same opportunity for his most secret memories and Snape was a fool to let Harry see him do it. > he deliberately invaded Snape's privacy > for no other reason than curiosity. > I believe any person so invaded would > react with rage And that is exactly why Harry reacted with rage when Snape did the exact same thing to him, and did it first. Eggplant From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 17:49:33 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 12:49:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long.) References: Message-ID: <013a01c500aa$bbcea6d0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122714 >> he deliberately invaded Snape's privacy >> for no other reason than curiosity. >> I believe any person so invaded would >> react with rage > > And that is exactly why Harry reacted with rage when Snape did the > exact same thing to him, and did it first. > > Eggplant Charme: You know, Eggplant, I never thought of it that way but I think you're on to something there. Just because Snape didn't take it nearly as serious as Harry did during the Occulmency lessons, doesn't mean that Snape's seeing Harry's memories meant any less to Harry. Charme From martyb1130 at aol.com Sat Jan 22 16:40:30 2005 From: martyb1130 at aol.com (martyb1130 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:40:30 EST Subject: Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122715 Very interesting question, that being about the floo powder. In OOTP Mrs. Figg (a squib) is summoned to court in order to testify for Harry. Now how is it that she got there? There are no buses that go to the Ministry of Magic. Mr. Filch is also a squib and sends away for a kit, on how to do magic, so I'm sure that floo powder is not out of the question. Brodeur From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jan 22 14:22:11 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:22:11 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: pippin > Although Lupin says he has confidence that Harry will be able to > handle a real dementor attack with just the wisp of a patronus, > Harry tells his own class they should practice with a boggart > even after some of them can produce a true patronus. Well, thinking happy thoughts and thinking happy thoughts when something is coming at you that tries to suck all the happiness out of you are two different things. Producing a real patronus in the nice, safe environment of the classroom is not that impressive. Will they be able to handle their fear and keep their minds together when the real thing comes along? Harry knows the difference, they don't. pippin > > In fact, he varies his technique from Lupin's by having the class > learn without a mock dementor at first. Well, he also did not have a boggart at hand, and ofcourse for most people the boggart would not have turned into a dementor. pippin I wonder if Harry feels he > would have made faster progress himself if he had been > allowed to do this. Or it could have hindered him. Giving him a false feeling of confidence, just as what happens in his class, where people think this is like any other spell. pippin I also wonder whether Lupin had some > ulterior motives, like wanting to find out who was at Godric's > Hollow besides Voldemort. > > "You heard James?" > > But then I have my suspicions, you see. Oh do you? ;) Gerry From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Sat Jan 22 18:23:29 2005 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:29 -0000 Subject: ESE!Pigwidgeon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122717 --- hickengruendler wrote: > > First, let me say that this is the most entertaining and surprising > theory I read for months. Thank you. :) I enjoyed reading your post, but I want to > point out that there is one big difference between Scabbers and Pig. > Crookshanks approved of him. In the last chapter Ron gave the owl to > Crookshanks for a "sniffling test", and Pigwidgeon passed. ;-) I'm glad you reminded me. I had intended to mention that. When Ron passes Pig to Crookshanks for the sniff test, he asks, What do you think? Is it an owl or not? (not a direct quote because I don't have my book.) Crookshanks has no doubt that Pig is an owl. (And neither do I) His problem with Scabbers was that he wasn't a rat. But Pig is truly an owl and thus passes the sniff test. I still think that we should be suspicious of little Pigwidgeon. ~Constance Vigilance From mcdee1980 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 18:24:48 2005 From: mcdee1980 at yahoo.com (mcdee1980) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:24:48 -0000 Subject: Birdies in the Sky & Other Comm Methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122718 > > Steve/bboyminn: > > So far, we have these methods of communication- > > -Owls > > -Floo Talking > > -Living Portraits > > -Flying memos > > -Ghosts > > -'Birdie' Messenger Charm > > -Fawkes-the Phoenix > > -Two-Way Enchanted Mirrors > > Various Colored Wand Sparks > > Legilimency > > Patronus > > Wizard's Wireless > >(examples were snipped from all of the above) > > So, what have I forgotten? > > > Lady McBeth Now: > I think we have forgotten one very important method of communication . . . SCARS! Harry's scar is a direct link to LV. I think I would call the Dark Mark a scar as well and it allows LV to communicate or call the Death Eaters. There is one other scar that we know exists, but hasn't been shown to have any purpose yet: DD's scar that is an exact map of the London Underground. It certainly would be an interesting way to communicate! Perhaps DD isn't the only one with an interesting or unusual scar! From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 18:31:46 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:31:46 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122719 > > Geoff: > > It would appear that even Lupin doesn't seem to produce a > recognisable Patronus or Hermione would have given a clearer > description of it - and his silver vapour, or whatever, did drive > the Dementor away. > > > > JLV: > > Hermione doesn't describe this as silver vapour at all, but a > > silvery "thing". Surely if it was mist/vapur she wouldn't have > > called it a thing? And to say that "Hermione would have given a > > clearer description of it" if it was corporeal rather than mist is > > rather unjustified. < > > Pippin: > Especially since Hermione doesn't give a clear description of > Dumbledore's patronus either. Here's what she says about > Dumbledore driving the dementors away from the Quidditch > match: > > "Dumbledore was really angry," Hermione said in a quaking > voice. "I've never seen him like that before. He ran onto the field > as you fell, waved his wand, and you sort of slowed down before > you hit the ground. Then he whirled his wand at the dementors. > Shot silver stuff at them. They left the stadium right away...." > > --PoA ch 9 > > > JKR has confirmed that Dumbledore's patronus is a phoenix. > Neri agrees with Pippin (!) and adds: The issue of who can see the form of a corporeal patronus is muddied in the books. It seems to be one of those things that JKR didn't think all the way through. However, it IS canon that people have trouble identifying a corporeal patronus because it is so shining that the light is "blinding" and obscures the shape. We know for sure that DD identified Harry's patronus in the Quidditch game against Ravenclaw as a stag: ****************************** PoA, Ch. 22: "Last night Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi," said Dumbledore, smiling. "An extraordinary achievement ? not least, keeping it quiet from me. And then I remembered the most unusual form your Patronus took, when it charged Mr. Malfoy down at your Quidditch match against Ravenclaw. ****************************** We are not told in words that Lupin was able to identify it too, but he almost certainly was because he's described as "shaken" after seeing it: ********************************* PoA, Ch. 13 "That was quite some Patronus," said a voice in Harry's ear. Harry turned around to see Professor Lupin, who looked both shaken and pleased. ****************************** I can see why Lupin would be pleased, maybe even surprised, but why "shaken"? The only reason I see is that he identified his old friend Prongs (and of course, couldn't say it without letting the secret out). And yet, all the hundreds of students in the Quidditch field also saw Harry's patronus, and apparently they did not recognize that it was a stag. Perhaps they didn't even recognize it as some animal. If they had, someone (certainly Ron or Hermione) would have told Harry, but they didn't. The reason seems to be that the patronus is so shining that it is "blinding". Even Harry himself can't make the form of the patronus that saved his life: ********************************* PoA, Ch. 20 And then, through the fog that was drowning him, he thought he saw a silvery light growing brighter and brighter He felt himself fall forward onto the grass . Facedown, too weak to move, sick and shaking, Harry opened his eyes. The Dementor must have released him. The blinding light was illuminating the grass around him The screaming had stopped, the cold was ebbing away Something was driving the Dementors back It was circling around him and Black and Hermione . They were leaving . The air was warm again . With every ounce of strength he could muster, Harry raised his head a few inches and saw an animal amid the light, galloping away across the lake Eyes blurred with sweat, Harry tried to make out what it was It was as bright as a unicorn ********************************* Even when TT!Harry finally produces it, he has trouble identifying his own patronus: ****************************** PoA, Ch 21: "EXPECTO PATRONUM! " he yelled. And out of the end of his wand burst, not a shapeless cloud of mist, but a blinding, dazzling, silver animal. He screwed up his eyes, trying to see what it was. It looked like a horse. ****************************** Only when the patronus comes back to TT!Harry after getting rid of the dementors, he is finally able to identify it: ****************************** The Patronus turned. It was cantering back toward Harry across the still surface of the water. It wasn't a horse. It wasn't a unicorn, either. It was a stag. It was shining brightly as the moon above ****************************** So it seems that you need to be a powerful wizard not only to produce a corporeal patronus, but also to make its shape through the blinding light. Or perhaps it takes the ability to produce a corporeal patronus to make you able to see through the light of any patronus, yours or somebody else's. And probably a very powerful corporeal patronus is also more shining, making it even more difficult to identify its shape. DD and Lupin can identify Harry's patronus in the Quidditch field, but the students can't. This explains why Hermione and the rest of the students didn't recognize DD's patronus as a phoenix or even as a bird, and why Hermione couldn't make the shape of Lupin's patronus in the train. But it seems Lupin was able to identify Harry's patronus in the Quidditch field, and according to the logic above this implies that Lupin's patronus is also corporeal. Neri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 20:33:12 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:33:12 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long.) In-Reply-To: <013a01c500aa$bbcea6d0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122720 Charme: You know, Eggplant, I never thought of it that way but I think you're on to something there. Just because Snape didn't take it nearly as serious as Harry did during the Occulmency lessons, doesn't mean that Snape's seeing Harry's memories meant any less to Harry. Alla: I agree. Don't forget that Harry seems like very "private" person. He does not exactly talk much about Dursleys even to Ron and Hermione. I mean, sure, they figured it out by now, but mostly from Dursleys' actions. For example after saving Harry in CoS, I hope Ron realised that his relatives were not kind to him at all. What is my point? Oh, yes, I'd say that Harry was not happy at all about Snape seeing his most private memories. Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 20:45:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:45:36 -0000 Subject: Life Debt -Snape & Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122721 Tonks: Another thought: Snape has a life debt to James. James is killed. The life debt does not die with him, it is transferred to Harry. Snape a former DE, or current DE, doesn't matter. He has a life debt and this is a VERY serious thing in the WW, more than it would be in ours. Even a DE must follow it. We see time and again the ways in which Snape protects Harry. He doesn't like Harry. He hates James, even now. But still he must do what he must do. Even if he again turns to the dark side, he will still have to save Harry. Alla: Oh, absolutely. I think that the life-bond does create a certain obligation between the parties, BUT I am not sure if it is transferrable to son officially "so to speak", or is that what Snape simply decided to do out of his "code of honor". I have been wondering for a long time whether undischarge life-bond makes the party who was saved to undergo some physical or emotional pain and may be that will explain Snape's desire to do so. I do tend to think though that one very important part is often forgotten in explaining why Snape protects Harry. He is his teacher. If he stands by and watches even his most "hated" student die ( and yes, I do believe that Harry is his most hated student), I doubt that even ever so paitient of Snape's escapades Dumbledore will tolerate Snape's presence in the school any longer. Just my opinion, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 21:30:00 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:30:00 -0000 Subject: Birdies in the Sky & Other Comm Methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122722 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mcdee1980" wrote: > > > > Steve/bboyminn: > > > So far, we have these methods of communication- > > > -Owls (***and other birds) > > > -Floo Talking > > > -Living Portraits > > > -Flying memos > > > -Ghosts > > > -'Birdie' Messenger Charm > > > -Fawkes-the Phoenix > > > -Two-Way Enchanted Mirrors > > > -Various Colored Wand Sparks > > > -Legilimency > > > -Patronus > > > -Wizard's Wireless > > > > > >...(examples were snipped from all of the above)... > > > So, what have I forgotten? > Lady McBeth Now: > I think we have forgotten one very important method of > communication . . . SCARS! > ...Harry's scar is a direct link to LV. > ...the Dark Mark a scar as well and it allows LV to communicate or > call the Death Eaters. > ...DD's scar that is an exact map of the London Underground. bboyminn: OK, I'll give you... -The Dark Mark (although limited in scope and function, it is specifically created as a means of communication) -The Protean-Charmed Galleons (Similar function to the Dark Mark. Conveys the time and date of the next DA Club Meeting.) Harry's Scar is another matter. I can't quite say you are wrong, but at the same time, I can't quite say you are right. The Scar is very random and uncontrollable, so while information is transferred, it's a very limited tool. That said however, now that Voldemort knows about the scar connection, he has found a way to make very specific information travel along that /Scar Channel/. I think this is still very limited, but at the same time, I could imagine a time when Harry turns the tables. When he wants Voldemort to receive a message, and Harry concentrates really hard, and force his message into Voldemort's mind. That would be cool. Also, it seems that Harry's Scar is an anomaly; a one-of-a-kind deviation from what is normal. It's a scar on a person who has sustained a direct hit by an AK curse and live to tell the tale. No known person has ever survived a Death Curse, and no known person has ever had a scar like Harry's. Given all this (nudge-nudge-wink-wink), I don't think people will be trading in their cell phones for curse scars at anytime in the near future ;). Dumbledore's scar is another matter. Will it come up again in the future? Does it have some important role or, was it just a fun bit of trivia? Will Harry and Dumbledore be lost in London, and Dumbledore will pull up his robes and refer to the map? Only time will tell. Just to keep things up-to-date, as suggested by others, I think it's fair to add House-elves to the list. I personally think House-Elves are very under-appreciated and under-utilized. I do picture them play a greater and more important role in the future, and messenger could very easily be one of those roles. Final Note: European wizard use Post Owls, but apparently other birds are used in other parts of the world. Sirius sends Harry messages by large brightly colored tropical birds. Thanks for the suggestions. Steve/bboyminn From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Jan 22 21:43:14 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:43:14 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122723 There has been a huge discussion about Harry and whether or not he should trust Snape. My question is why on earth would Harry trust any of the staff at Hogwarts? Because they are teachers and he is a student? That is balderdash and reprehensible balderdash at that. Were Harry my son I would be praising him to the skies every summer for refusal to place trust where trust has not been earned. It is the responsibility of the teacher to prove themselves worthy of trust and respect, not the responsibility of the student to respect someone just because they managed to wangle a job out of some Board of Trustees. Who has earned Harry's trust (in terms of staff)? Certainly not McGonagall, who shows herself time and again to be incompetent at securing fair treatment for him (in the matter of the Sorceror's Stone, in the detentions with Umbridge, in the Quidditch suspension, in the matter of Snape's unfair policies, in the matter of the Prefect position, etc). And yes, it IS McGonagall's job to secure justice for Harry in these situations. This is especially the case in that Harry has no parents to intercede for him independently. Certainly Harry cannot trust Snape, and DEFINITELY not Dumbledore, whose sins against Harry are so numerous that they can't be numbered. All we are left with is Hagrid, not the sharpest tool in the shed, and Lupin, who only lasts a year. Quite a pathetic record, really. Lupinlore From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 22:05:24 2005 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:05:24 -0000 Subject: Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122724 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, leslie41 at y... wrote:> Leslie: > Hey all: > Sorry if I've forgotten any details--I've scoured the Lexicon and > can't come up with an answer. > > I know squibs seem to have an affinity for cats--but is there any > evidence that squibs can/do use owl post? > > Do they use floo powder? LisaMarie: After the Dementor attack near Privet Drive (OotP), Harry offers to let Mrs. Figg use Hedwig to contact DD, and she says that she needs to let him know immediately. This says to me that Squibs *could* use owl post, but that specific situation requires something more instant. After all, sending owl post doesn't really require magic, just access to an owl. Oh, another reference I just thought of: Hermione sends word of her prefect status to her parents using Hedwig. When they are leaving for King's Cross, Hermione says that her parents "sent Hedwig back," which leaves room for them to have sent a congratulatory message along. Just off the top of my head. LisaMarie From Snarryfan at aol.com Sat Jan 22 22:56:33 2005 From: Snarryfan at aol.com (evita2fr) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:56:33 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122725 >> TrekkieGrrrl wrote: >> I was furious with Harry during all those Occlumency lessons. I >> don't CARE if he "understood" the reason for them. The mere fact >> that Dumbledore - of all people - told him they were important >>ought >> to be enough. Harry was behaving very much like a spoiled child in >> those classes, no doubt enhancing Snape's view of him AS a spoiled >> brat. > > Alla replied: > > Well, I DO care whether Harry knew the reasons for the lessons. I > think it would made tremendous difference for his mindset. > I doubt anything would change Snape's view of Harry at that point, > but that's just me and if you think that complaining of the fact > that lessons made him weaker is spoiled brat's behaviour, then > honestly I am glad that Harry did complain, because then we realise > that Snape was indeed purposefully opened Harry's mind to Voldemort, > we'll at least remember that we did have hints and our suspicions > were not for no reason. :o) Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Harry only complained to Hermione and Ron (about the lessons)? Snape doesn't know that the lessons weakened Harry. Ditto with Umbridge's quill/MacGonagall, if nobody told her about the quill, she can't possibly know what happened. As far as she knows, he only writes lines, with a normal quill. Christelle, who laughted to the similarity between the pensieve scene and the moment in the Beauty and the Beast from Disney when Belle found the rose. From caesian at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 23:01:39 2005 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:01:39 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <931F6BD0-6CC9-11D9-B6B6-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122726 On Jan 21, 2005, at 2:26 PM, leslie41 at yahoo.com wrote: > Hey all: > > Sorry if I've forgotten any details--I've scoured the Lexicon and > can't come up with an answer.? > > I know squibs seem to have an affinity for cats--but is there any > evidence that squibs can/do use owl post?? > > Do they use floo powder? > > Leslie > Caesian responds: Several posters have already put forth evidence that Muggles, namely the Durlseys, can use owls. As for Squibs, the large tawny owl that fluttered past the kitchen window on the morning before Harry's arrival at Privet Drive (PS, Chapter 1) was probably intended for Mrs. Figg. That is the one piece of canon I can recall which specifically suggests that Squibs can use owls. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 23:13:44 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:13:44 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122727 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > There has been a huge discussion about Harry and whether or not he > should trust Snape. My question is why on earth would Harry trust any of the staff at Hogwarts? Because they are teachers and he is a > student? That is balderdash and reprehensible balderdash at that. > Were Harry my son I would be praising him to the skies every summer for refusal to place trust where trust has not been earned. It is the responsibility of the teacher to prove themselves worthy of trust and respect, not the responsibility of the student to respect someone just because they managed to wangle a job out of some Board of Trustees. Tonks now: I totally disagree. A teacher or anyone in a position to be one's superior is to be treated with the respect afforded their office. If a parent has a problem with a teacher they have the right to be heard. And if there is justification, the teacher can be let go. But a CHILD is to be respectful to every adult simply because they are an adult. And to a teacher because they are the child's superior. They do not have to like the teacher, and they do not have to think that the teacher knows best, they just have to treat the teacher with respect. In a civilized society that is what people do!!! Haven't we all had this arguement before? Lupinlore said: > Who has earned Harry's trust (in terms of staff)? Certainly not > McGonagall, who shows herself time and again to be incompetent at > securing fair treatment for him (Snip) And yes, it IS McGonagall's job to secure justice for Harry in these situations. This is especially the case in that Harry has no parents to intercede for him independently. Certainly Harry cannot trust Snape, and DEFINITELY not Dumbledore, whose sins against Harry are so numerous that they can't be numbered. (SNIP) > Lupinlore Tonks now: McGonagall is Harry's teacher, not his parent. Yes, he has no parents, but things are tough all over. She is not his parent and it is not her job. Her job is to teach and as Head of House to make sure that the students are safe and well behaved. As to the comment about Dumbledore... I am with Hagrid. My wand is out and pointed toward you >>>> Never insult Albus Dumbledore in my presence!!!!! Tonks_op From gbannister10 at aol.com Sat Jan 22 23:27:28 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:27:28 -0000 Subject: Birdies in the Sky & Other Comm Methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122728 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: Steve/bboyminn: > Dumbledore's scar is another matter. Will it come up again in the > future? Does it have some important role or, was it just a fun bit of > trivia? Will Harry and Dumbledore be lost in London, and Dumbledore > will pull up his robes and refer to the map? Only time will tell. Geoff: I doubt it. Harry,being a Muggle, will know that maps of the Underground network are displayed everywhere around London - stations, bus shelters, information boards....... We don't need DD's knees. (could be a good chorus line when they make a musical version of HP. :-) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 22 23:35:28 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:35:28 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122729 > > Pippin: > Sirius, in contrast, still thought Snape deserved to > > have been bitten by the werewolf. Snape might perhaps be > > forgiven for thinking Sirius unrepentant. > > Renee: > He might, perhaps, if he'd heard Lupin out and still remained > unconvinced. The problem is that he doesnt. What if DD, knowing Snape was a Death Eater, hadn't listened when Snape showed up but immediately handed him over to the authorities?< Pippin: I didn't notice Dumbledore reading Fake!Moody his rights before stunning him and dosing him with veritaserum. Snape isn't nearly as powerful as Dumbledore, he doesn't have backup, he doesn't have a bottle of veritaserum handy and he's outnumbered in a hostage situation. > Renee: > Irrelevant, as Lupin is tied up and gagged and Sirius doesn't have a wand. Snape, who has a wand and freedom of speech and movement, has the upper hand. He could have listened. < Pippin: Um, how could Snape listen to Lupin if Lupin was gagged? If Snape ungags Lupin, he's in danger of being spellbound himself. Sirius has just admitted to knowing an illegal wandless spell, and has already taken three armed students hostage with it. ( Snape knows perfectly well that Harry didn't leave the I-cloak behind for his convenience. Harry wouldn't have abandoned it if he had a choice.) We have no canon that Snape knows how to lift a confundus charm. . > > Pippin > > But though Snape threatened to MAKE Harry get out of the way, he ultimately did listen to him, because he didn't give Sirius to the dementors when he had the chance.<< > > Renee: > I bet he did that because he needed to prove HE was the one who caught Black.< Pippin: Um, I'm confused. You're saying Snape sincerely meant to turn Sirius and Lupin over to the dementors when he threatened to do it in the Shack, but had second thoughts later and decided to bring Sirius to the castle instead? May I borrow a leaf from Neri's book and ask how we are to know? Renee: > Not to mention the fact that by the time he reached Sirius and Harry, Future!Harry's Patronus had driven the Dementors away. (I won't speculate about Snape's ability to cast a corporeal Patronus when faced with dozens of Dementors.) < Pippin: Again, I'm not sure how this relates to Snape's earlier threat to turn Sirius and Lupin over to the dementors. Was he making an empty threat before, or not? > Pippin: > > And though Snape was not particularly happy with Dumbledore's decision to trust Sirius, he ultimately accepted it, as shown by the handshake in GoF.<< > > Renee: > Did he have a choice, if he wanted to remain in DD's good graces? Pippin: Considering that remaining in DD's good graces at that point means doing something at considerable risk, he must want to remain in DD's good graces rather badly. This is something I don't really understand about the "Snape isn't really on the side of good, he's out for himself" theories. Just what is Snape supposed to be out for? He's a clever wizard who knows a potion that feigns death -- he wouldn't have to join DD just to get shut of Voldie. If Snape doesn't care whether the good guys win, what is he after? Pippin From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 23:44:17 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:44:17 -0000 Subject: Birdies in the Sky & Other Comm Methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122730 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Steve/bboyminn: > > Dumbledore's scar is another matter. Will it come up again in the > > future? Does it have some important role or, was it just a fun bit > of > > trivia? Will Harry and Dumbledore be lost in London, and Dumbledore > > will pull up his robes and refer to the map? Only time will tell. > > Geoff: > I doubt it. Harry,being a Muggle, will know that maps of the > Underground network are displayed everywhere around London - > stations, bus shelters, information boards....... > > We don't need DD's knees. (could be a good chorus line when they make > a musical version of HP. > :-) Snow But you are talking about the London underground as a muggle perspective, correct? What about the London underground as it refers to-under Gringotts, Chamber of Secrets or under the MOM, these are all magical related places that most muggles are not aware of? No map available for these places, I'm guessing, unless it is on Dumbledore's knee. See my earlier post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/95244 for related discussion of the scar on DD's knee. Snow From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 22 23:59:28 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:59:28 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122731 Lupinlore: There has been a huge discussion about Harry and whether or not he should trust Snape. My question is why on earth would Harry trust any of the staff at Hogwarts? Because they are teachers and he is a student? That is balderdash and reprehensible balderdash at that. Were Harry my son I would be praising him to the skies every summer for refusal to place trust where trust has not been earned. It is the responsibility of the teacher to prove themselves worthy of trust and respect, not the responsibility of the student to respect someone just because they managed to wangle a job out of some Board of Trustees. Tonks now: I totally disagree. A teacher or anyone in a position to be one's superior is to be treated with the respect afforded their office. If a parent has a problem with a teacher they have the right to be heard. And if there is justification, the teacher can be let go. But a CHILD is to be respectful to every adult simply because they are an adult. And to a teacher because they are the child's superior. They do not have to like the teacher, and they do not have to think that the teacher knows best, they just have to treat the teacher with respect. In a civilized society that is what people do!!! Haven't we all had this arguement before? Alla: Sorry, Tonks, , I am with Lupinlore. Harry has no parents, therefore he cannot complain to them about abusive teacher If adults don't care much about his emotional and physical well being, Harry should protect his own interests, if there is no one to interfere on his behalf, IMO. Respect to the teacher, who mistreats him. Why? Simply because he calls himself a "teacher". I say it is not enough to respect him. Lupinlore said: Who has earned Harry's trust (in terms of staff)? Certainly not McGonagall, who shows herself time and again to be incompetent at securing fair treatment for him (Snip) And yes, it IS McGonagall's job to secure justice for Harry in these situations. This is especially the case in that Harry has no parents to intercede for him independently. Certainly Harry cannot trust Snape, and DEFINITELY not Dumbledore, whose sins against Harry are so numerous that they can't be numbered. (SNIP) Tonks now: McGonagall is Harry's teacher, not his parent. Yes, he has no parents, but things are tough all over. She is not his parent and it is not her job. Her job is to teach and as Head of House to make sure that the students are safe and well behaved. Alla: Let me ask you a question. WHOSE job is it to protect Harry from unfairness? Because I thought that if child is an orphan, the job of his Head of the House is more than just to teach him. Tonks: As to the comment about Dumbledore... I am with Hagrid. My wand is out and pointed toward you >>>> Never insult Albus Dumbledore in my presence!!!!! Alla: As I said earlier today, when I am in the good mood, I can be forgiving towards Dumbledore, because he (contrary to Snape) seems to be sorry at the end of OOP, but I absolutely agree with Lupinlore that Dumbledore's sins against Harry are numerous. Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 00:12:17 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:12:17 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122732 Pippin But though Snape threatened to MAKE Harry get out of the way, he ultimately did listen to him, because he didn't give Sirius to the dementors when he had the chance.<< Renee: I bet he did that because he needed to prove HE was the one who caught Black.< Pippin: Um, I'm confused. You're saying Snape sincerely meant to turn Sirius and Lupin over to the dementors when he threatened to do it in the Shack, but had second thoughts later and decided to bring Sirius to the castle instead? May I borrow a leaf from Neri's book and ask how we are to know? Alla: I am not sure whether Renee meant it, but I think that Snape absolutely intended to turn Sirius and Remus over to Dementors. I think he decided that bringing them to the Catle will be much more profitable thing for him to do - he will get more publicity,as someone who caught Azkaban escapee. And of course Order of Merlin will not hurt. I also think that he wanted to show Dumbledore that Dumbledore was wrong and he was right. As to how we know .. . well, Dumbledore does say that "He is just suffered a severe dissapointment", after he learns of Sirius escape. - PoA, p.420, paperback. I think it is reasonable to assume that Snape was dissapointed that he did not manage to get Sirius kissed. Pippin earlier : And though Snape was not particularly happy with Dumbledore's decision to trust Sirius, he ultimately accepted it, as shown by the handshake in GoF.<< Renee earlier : Did he have a choice, if he wanted to remain in DD's good graces? Pippin: Considering that remaining in DD's good graces at that point means doing something at considerable risk, he must want to remain in DD's good graces rather badly. Alla: What do you mean, Pippin? I don't know about you but in that scene I did not doubt for a second who was more powerful - Dumbledore or Fudge. I frankly thought that Dumbledore can crush Cornelius very easily, if he chooses to, so I think that Snape knew that too, but that is just me. Pippin: This is something I don't really understand about the "Snape isn't really on the side of good, he's out for himself" theories. Just what is Snape supposed to be out for? He's a clever wizard who knows a potion that feigns death -- he wouldn't have to join DD just to get shut of Voldie. If Snape doesn't care whether the good guys win, what is he after? Alla: Ummm, revenge for example? Just my opinion, Alla From jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 23 00:24:10 2005 From: jlv230 at yahoo.co.uk (jlv230) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:24:10 -0000 Subject: Birdies in the Sky & Other Comm Methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122733 Snow: But you are talking about the London underground as a muggle perspective, correct? What about the London underground as it refers to-under Gringotts, Chamber of Secrets or under the MOM, these are all magical related places that most muggles are not aware of? No map available for these places, I'm guessing, unless it is on Dumbledore's knee. See my earlier post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/95244 for related discussion of the scar on DD's knee. JLV here: Hi there. I just thought I'd drop in that, being from London as I am, it never occurred to me to think that 'London Underground' referred to anything but the London Underground! I'm not sure if this is common knowledge internationally, but the London Underground actually is the name of the 'subway' in London (although we usually call it the Tube). It is also the case that most tube or subway maps around the world follow Harry Beck's original design for the London map, which, I believe, was first used in the 30s. The map is also rather attractive, as maps go, and highly symbolic of London - students have been known to put them on the wall as decoration and tourist stuff often has the map printed on it. I always assumed that this DD scar thing was just a joke (and a good one - I read it out loud to my family when I came to that bit). It is great to hear a fresh perspective! But I still think Tube when I hear Underground... It's just the way I was raised I suppose. JLV xx From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 00:34:34 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:34:34 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122734 "Tonks" wrote: > A teacher or anyone in a position to be > one's superior is to be treated with the > respect afforded their office. I wonder If during the last 5 years 4 of your teachers (3 appointed by Dumbledore) had tried to kill you and a fifth make no secret about hating your guts if you would feel the same way. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 00:40:52 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:40:52 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122735 Tonks wrote: A teacher or anyone in a position to be one's superior is to be treated with the respect afforded their office. Eggplant: I wonder If during the last 5 years 4 of your teachers (3 appointed by Dumbledore) had tried to kill you and a fifth make no secret about hating your guts if you would feel the same way. Alla: Eggplant, I don't want to be nitpicking, since in a essence I absolutely agree with you, but just out of curiosity, who is teacher number three and number four, who tried to kill Harry? I counted Quirrelmort and fake Moody. Who else? I am just curious. Alla From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sun Jan 23 01:28:29 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:28:29 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... Message-ID: <8.6079f163.2f2457bd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122736 In a message dated 1/22/2005 4:35:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, eggplant9998 at yahoo.com writes: "Tonks" wrote: > A teacher or anyone in a position to be > one's superior is to be treated with the > respect afforded their office. I wonder If during the last 5 years 4 of your teachers (3 appointed by Dumbledore) had tried to kill you and a fifth make no secret about hating your guts if you would feel the same way. Eggplant ******************************************* Chancie: Good Point! But I do understand what Tonks is trying to say, it is Harry's job to treat those in athority with some respect, but IMO, once they've shown they don't deserive it then all bets are off. ********************************************************************* Alla: Eggplant, I don't want to be nitpicking, since in a essence I absolutely agree with you, but just out of curiosity, who is teacher number three and number four, who tried to kill Harry? I counted Quirrelmort and fake Moody. Who else? I am just curious. ******************************************************************** Chancie: I'm OBVIOUSLY not Eggplant, but Umbridge did try to kill Harry, but Dumbledore didn't appoint her. I think s/he is also thinking of Lockheart in th CoS, but he didn't really try to "KILL" Harry, just erase his memory, and have him sent so ST. Mungo's. Not that, that's any better. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 23 01:34:05 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:34:05 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122737 Lupinlore: > There has been a huge discussion about Harry and whether or not he > should trust Snape. My question is why on earth would Harry trust > any of the staff at Hogwarts? Because they are teachers and he is > a student? That is balderdash and reprehensible balderdash at > that. Were Harry my son I would be praising him to the skies every > summer for refusal to place trust where trust has not been > earned. It is the responsibility of the teacher to prove > themselves worthy of trust and respect, not the responsibility of > the student to respect someone just because they managed to wangle > a job out of some Board of Trustees. Tonks: > I totally disagree. A teacher or anyone in a position to be one's > superior is to be treated with the respect afforded their office. > If a parent has a problem with a teacher they have the right to be > heard. And if there is justification, the teacher can be let go. > But a CHILD is to be respectful to every adult simply because they > are an adult. And to a teacher because they are the child's > superior. Alla: > Respect to the teacher, who mistreats him. Why? Simply because he > calls himself a "teacher". I say it is not enough to respect him. SSSusan: I'm with Lupinlore, too. I am somewhat torn, knowing that this is a "traditional British boarding school" setting, which means there probably *is* a degree of "You must respect the professors simply because they ARE" going on, but I don't think that overrides the side of me which believes that respect should be earned. I'm sure y'all get tired of hearing people like me say, "Well, when *I* was teaching..." but here I go again. When I taught [in the '90s, in the U.S., in a public (American definition) secondary school], my Big Rule #1 was respect; that is, I expected my students to display respect for others. OTOH, my part of the bargain was, if they were respectful (of me, peers & humankind), they also would be treated with respect by me. IOW, I expected to have to earn their respect, which I did earn in large part from being fair [hint, hint, Master Snape]. In short, I think it's good to BEGIN w/ an outlook of respecting the *office* of professor, but fair to drop the automatic respect if the professor has given reason to lose it. Now, for Harry, this is complicated in the Snape case by his always assuming Snape's an evil bad guy and thus misinterpreting some of Snape's actions. So I would argue that, in some things, Harry should have respect for Snape [his having saved his life in the Quidditch match, his status as an Order member, etc.]. But as his own Potions teacher, for instance, I think Snape has blown it himself, and I don't blame Harry for not respecting him or, perhaps more accurately, for not trusting him. Lupinlore said: > Who has earned Harry's trust (in terms of staff)? Certainly not > McGonagall, who shows herself time and again to be incompetent at > securing fair treatment for him (Snip) And yes, it IS McGonagall's > job to secure justice for Harry in these situations. This is > especially the case in that Harry has no parents to intercede for > him independently. Tonks: > McGonagall is Harry's teacher, not his parent. Yes, he has no > parents, but things are tough all over. She is not his parent and > it is not her job. Her job is to teach and as Head of House to > make sure that the students are safe and well behaved. Alla: > Let me ask you a question. WHOSE job is it to protect Harry from > unfairness? Because I thought that if child is an orphan, the job > of his Head of the House is more than just to teach him. SSSusan: In this I align myself with Tonks. I think Harry's pretty much on his own. Isn't that also part of the "life's tough, deal with it" mentality of the British boys' school? I don't think McGonagall owes him a parent-like relationship. And I do think that she has a great fondness for Harry which comes through many times [the Nimbus 2000, the willingness to do "whatever it takes" to help him become an Auror, etc.]. He's still frightened of her because she's strict and commanding, but I don't think he lacks respect for her, nor finds her untrustworthy. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who has serious reservations about hitting the "Send" button, as she's just imbibed a rather substantial glass of chenin blanc. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 01:35:22 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:35:22 -0000 Subject: Why I like Ginny! Quotes and more...(long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122738 vmonte: The Sugar Quill has an interesting article on Ginny Weasley. The article mentions the scene at the DoM where Ginny is transfixed by the egg that transforms into a bird and back. (I've added the link and the quote below.) Didn't Ginny also offer Harry some of her Easter egg earlier in the year? I wonder if there is something symbolically going on here. "Oh, look!" said Ginny, as they drew nearer, pointing at the very heart of the bell jar. Drifting along in the sparkling current inside was a tiny, jewel- bright egg. As it rose in the jar, it cracked open and a hummingbird emerged, which was carried to the very top of the jar, but as it fell on the draught its feathers became bedraggled and damp again, and by the time it had been borne back to the bottom of the jar it had been enclosed once more in its egg. "Keep going!" said Harry sharply, because Ginny showed signs of wanting to stop and watch the egg's progress back into a bird. "You dawdled enough by that old arch!" she said crossly, but followed him past the bell jar to the only door behind it. >From http://www.sugarquill.net/index.php?action=gringotts&st=ginny2 "As we all know, the Department of Mysteries keeps reserve stocks of abstract concepts for research purposes. Not just any abstract concepts, in fact, but the mysteries of humankind (Death, Love, Time, The Future, The Universe, The Human Brain ). Ginny seems to be fascinated with time, for reasons which we can only guess. Would she like more time? Does she have an affinity to the concept (unknowingly freezing it to get Snitches from under people's noses, perhaps)?" vmonte: Ron's comments on Ginny's Seeker abilities (OOTP)- "Yeah," said Ron slowly, savouring the words, "we won. Did you see the look on Chang's face when Ginny got the Snitch right out from under her nose?" vmonte: And at the end of OOTP - "She's probably cheerful enough with someone else," said Harry shrugging. "Who's she with now anyway?" Ron asked Hermione, but it was Ginny who answered. "Michael Corner," she said. "Michael - but -" said Ron, craning around in his seat to stare at her. "But you were going out with him!" "Not anymore," said Ginny resolutely. "He didn't like Gryffindor beating Ravenclaw at Quidditch and got really sulky, so I ditched him and he ran off to comfort Cho instead." She scratched her nose absently with the end of her quill, turned The Quibbler upside down and began marking her answers. Ron looked highly delighted. "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." He cast Harry an oddly furtive look as he said it. "Well, I've chosen Dean Thomas, would you say he's better?" asked Ginny vaguely. "WHAT?" shouted Ron, upending the chessboard. vmonte again: Did you notice what was going on during the chess game? Does the Queen chess piece symbolically represent Ginny? (I have previously commented that the chess game in SS/PS represents the 2nd Voldemort war. In that post I proposed that Ginny was being set-up to play the part of the Queen.) Is the quivering Castle Cho Chang? Other interesting quotes... Philosopher's Stone/Sorcerer's Stone "Harry Potter!" she squealed. "Look, Mom! I can see-" ____ "Be quiet, Ginny, and it's rude to point." Chamber of Secrets On the third landing, a door stood ajar. Harry just caught sight of a pair of bright brown eyes staring at him before it closed with a snap. "Ginny," said Ron. "You don't know how weird it is for her to be this shy. She never shuts up normally -" He and Ron went down to breakfast to find Mr. and Mrs. Weasley and Ginny already sitting at the kitchen table. The moment she saw Harry, Ginny accidentally knocked her porridge bowl to the floor with a loud clatter. Ginny seemed very prone to knocking things over whenever Harry entered a room. She dived under the table to retrieve the bowl and emerged with her face glowing like the setting sun. Pretending he hadn't noticed this, Harry sat down and took the toast Mrs. Weasley offered him. ___________ Staggering slightly under their weight, he managed to make his way out of the limelight to the edge of the room, where Ginny was standing next to her new cauldron. "You have these," Harry mumbled to her, tipping the books into the cauldron. "I'll buy my own -" "Bet you loved that, didn't you, Potter?" said a voice Harry had no trouble recognizing. He straightened up and found himself face-to- face with Draco Malfoy, who was wearing his usual sneer. "Famous Harry Potter," said Malfoy. "Can't even go into a bookshop without making the front page." "Leave him alone, he didn't want all that!" said Ginny. It was the first time she had spoken in front of Harry. She was glaring at Malfoy. "Potter, you've got yourself a girlfriend!" drawled Malfoy. Ginny went scarlet as Ron and Hermione fought their way over, both clutching stacks of Lockhart's books. _____________ "How did Ginny get like this?" he asked slowly. "Well, that's an interesting question," said Riddle pleasantly. "And quite a long story. I suppose the real reason Ginny Weasley's like this is because she opened her heart and spilled all her secrets to an invisible stranger." "It took a very long time for stupid little Ginny to stop trusting her diary," said Riddle. "But she finally became suspicious and tried to dispose of it. And that's where you came in, Harry. You found it, and I couldn't have been more delighted. Of all the people who could have picked it up, it was you, the very person I was most anxious to meet...." Then came a faint moan from the end of the Chamber. Ginny was stirring. As Harry hurried toward her, she sat up. Her bemused eyes traveled from the huge form of the dead basilisk, over Harry, in his blood-soaked robes, then to the diary in his hand. She drew a great, shuddering gasp and tears began to pour down her face. "Harry -- oh, Harry -- I tried to tell you at b-breakfast, but I c- couldn't say it in front of Percy -- it was me, Harry -- but I -- I s- swear I d-didn't mean to -- R-Riddle made me, he t-took me over -- and - how did you kill that -- that thing? W-where's Riddle? The last thing I r-remember is him coming out of the diary --" "It's all right," said Harry, holding up the diary, and showing Ginny the fang hole, "Riddle's finished. Look! Him and the basilisk. C'mon, Ginny, let's get out of here --" "Miss Weasley should go up to the hospital wing right away," Dumbledore interrupted in a firm voice. "This has been a terrible ordeal for her. There will be no punishment. Older and wiser wizards than she have been hoodwinked by Lord Voldemort." __________ Prisoner of Azkaban Ginny, who was huddled in her corner looking nearly as bad as Harry felt, gave a small sob; Hermione went over and put a comforting arm around her. "But didn't any of you -- fall off your seats?" said Harry awkwardly. "No," said Ron, looking anxiously at Harry again. "Ginny was shaking like mad, though...." (Encounters with Dementors) ___________________ Order of the Phoenix 'Fine!' shouted Mrs Weasley. 'Fine! Ginny - BED!' Ginny did not go quietly. They could hear her raging and storming at her mother all the way up the stairs, and when she reached the hall Mrs Black's ear-splitting shrieks were added to the din." "All been talking about me, have you? Well, I'm getting used to it...." "We wanted to talk to you, Harry," said Ginny, "but as you've been hiding ever since we got back -" "I didn't want anyone to talk to me," said Harry, who was feeling more and more nettled. "Well, that was a bit stupid of you," said Ginny angrily, "seeing as how you don't know anyone but me who's been possessed by You-Know- Who, and I can tell you how it feels." Harry remained quite still as the impact of these words hit him. Then he wheeled around. "I forgot," he said. "Lucky you," said Ginny coolly. ____________ "Yeah, size is no guarantee of power," said George. "Look at Ginny." "What d' you mean?" said Harry. You've never been on the receiving end of one of her Bat-Bogey Hexes, have you?" [OotP 100 ch6] _______________ "But," said Ron, following Hermione along a row of quills in copper pots. "I thought Ginny fancied Harry!" Hermione looked at him rather pityingly and shook her head. "Ginny used to fancy Harry, but she gave up on him months ago. Not that she doesn't like you, of course," she added kindly to Harry.... [OotP 348 ch16] ______________ Hermione: "I also think we should have a name," she said brightly, her hand still in the air. "It would promote a feeling of team spirit and unity, don't you think? "Can we be called the Anti-Umbridge League?" said Angelina hopefully. "Or the Ministry of Magic are Morons Group?" suggested Fred. "I was thinking," said Hermione, frowning at Fred, "more of a name that doesn't tell everyone what we were up to, so we can refer to it safely outside meetings." "The Defense Association?" said Cho. "The D.A. for short, so nobody knows what we're talking about?" "Yeah, the D.A.'s good," said Ginny. "Only let's make it stand for Dumbledore's Army because that's the Ministry's worst fear, isn't it?" [OotP 392 ch18] ___________ We were watching their practice. They're going to be slaughtered. They're complete rubbish without us." "Come on, Ginny's not bad," said George fairly, sitting down next to Fred. "Actually, I dunno how she got so good, seeing how we never let her play with us...." "She's been breaking into your broom shed in the garden since the age of six and taking each of your brooms out in turn when you weren't looking," said Hermione from behind her tottering pile of Ancient Runes books. "Oh," said George, looking mildly impressed. "We'll - that'd explain it." _____________ "Okay," she said, her brow furrowed as she continued to pace. "Now, we need to keep students away from her office while we force entry, or some Slytherin's bound to go and tip her off...." "Luna and I can stand at either end of the corridor," said Ginny promptly, "and warn people not to go down there because someone's let off a load of Garroting Gas." Hermione looked surprised at the readiness in which Ginny had come up with this lie. Ginny shrugged and said, "Fred and George were planning to do it before they left." "You can't come down here!" Ginny was calling to the crowd. "No, sorry, you're going to have to go round by the swiveling staircase, someone's let off Garroting Gas just along here -" They could hear people complaining; one surly voice said, "I can't see no gas..." "That's because it's colourless," said Ginny in a convincingly exasperated voice, "but if you want to walk through it, carry on, then we'll have your body as proof for the next idiot who didn't believe us...." _______________ 'Don't call her a Mudblood!' said Ron and Ginny together, very angrily. 'Hem, hem,' said Ginny, in such a good imitation of Professor Umbridge that several people looked around in alarm and then laughed. The thing about growing up with Fred and George,' said Ginny thoughtfully, 'is that you sort of start thinking anything's possible if you've got enough nerve.' 'Excuse me, but 1 care what happens to Sirius as much as you do!' said Ginny, her jaw set so that her resemblance to Fred and George was suddenly striking. 'I'm nobody,' said Neville hurriedly. 'No you're not,' said Ginny sharply. 'Neville Longbottom - Luna Lovegood. Luna's in my year, but in Ravenclaw.' __________ All of them looked a little the worse for wear - there were several long scratches running the length of Ginny's cheek, a large purple lump was swelling above Neville's right eye, Ron's lip was bleeding worse than ever - but all were looking rather pleased with themselves. "So," said Ron, pushing aside a low-hanging branch and holding out Harry's wand, "had any ideas?" "How did you get away?" asked Harry in amazement, taking his wand from Ron. "Couple of Stunners, a Disarming Charm, Neville brought of a really nice little Impediment Jinx," said Ron airily, now handing back Hermione's wand too. "But Ginny was the best, she got Malfoy - Bat- Bogey Hex - it was superb, his whole face was covered in the great flapping things. Anyway, we saw you heading into the forest out of the window and followed. What've you done with Umbridge?" __________ "You're too -" Harry began. "I'm three years older than you were when you fought You-Know-Who over the Sorcerer's Stone," she said fiercely, "and it's because of me Malfoy's stuck back in Umbridge's office with giant flying bogeys attacking him -" ____________ "You don't have to take that tone with me. I was just trying to see if I could help." "We've got to get out of here," said Harry firmly. "Luna, can you help Ginny?" "Yes," said Luna, sticking her wand behind her ear for safekeeping, putting an arm around Ginny's waist and pulling her up. "It's only my ankle, I can do it myself!" said Ginny impatiently, but the next moment she had collapsed sideways and grabbed Luna for support. ______________ Vivian From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 01:48:37 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:48:37 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122739 SSSusan: In this I align myself with Tonks. I think Harry's pretty much on his own. Isn't that also part of the "life's tough, deal with it" mentality of the British boys' school? I don't think McGonagall owes him a parent-like relationship. And I do think that she has a great fondness for Harry which comes through many times [the Nimbus 2000, the willingness to do "whatever it takes" to help him become an Auror, etc.]. He's still frightened of her because she's strict and commanding, but I don't think he lacks respect for her, nor finds her untrustworthy. Alla: Well, I KNOW that Harry is on his own all the time ( well, with his friends since I don't doubt that they, contrary to adults, love Harry for who he is and ready to fight for him), but if we agree that Harry IS on his own all the time, we are back to original question, which Lupinlore asked, why Harry should be expected to trust anyone in Hogwarts (I would say any adult in Hogwarts) They don't protect him , many of them simply consider him a weapon in their fight against Voldie, why should he trust them AT ALL? And you know that I like Mcgonagall, right? I consider her treatment of Harry to be much better than Dumbledore's and Snape, but I still think that she was supposed to help him with Umbridge for example. Just my opinion, Alla From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 02:17:12 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:17:12 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122740 > > Pippin: > > > But though Snape threatened to MAKE Harry get out of the > way, he ultimately did listen to him, because he didn't give > Sirius to the dementors when he had the chance.<< > > > > Renee: > > I bet he did that because he needed to prove HE was the one > who caught Black.< > > Pippin: > Um, I'm confused. You're saying Snape sincerely meant to turn > Sirius and Lupin over to the dementors when he threatened to > do it in the Shack, but had second thoughts later and decided to > bring Sirius to the castle instead? May I borrow a leaf from Neri's > book and ask how we are to know? > Neri himself: I'm not sure what book are you referring to here, but I'll try to say what we do know. There seem to be two basic possibilities here: 1. In the shack, Snape didn't actually mean to turn Black and Lupin straight to the dementors. He was only playing a part when he said he would. 2. He did mean to do it in the shack, and he changed his mind after the dementor attack. If you go with option 1, you have to explain: 1a: Why did he threaten them when he didn't actually mean to do it? 1b: Why did he act so "deranged" at the time? Just to remind you, we're talking here full-capitals deranged mode with sparks shooting out of his wand, "eyes gleaming fanatically", "spitting", "hissing" and "shrieking", and again "there was a mad glint in Snape's eyes that Harry had never seen before. He seemed beyond reason." You can explain 1a by saying that he enjoyed playing with them and seeing their fear, but this doesn't explains 1b. So either you go for Oscar-performer-with-a-secret-mission!Snape, which brings you to MAGIC DISHWASHER with all its many complications and assumptions, or you just assume that he really succumbed to his rage, which doesn't seem that wild an assumption after OotP. This brings us to option 2 above, in which we need to explain why Snape changed his mind later and did bring Black to the castle. But this doesn't require any out-of-the-ordinary, big-conspiracy-theory explanations. There are in fact several simple explanations that are not mutually exclusive: 2a: He simply had time to cool his head a bit, especially since he was unconscious. 2b: Black and the children weren't conscious and antagonizing him. 2c: He realized that the dementors had just broken into the grounds, which DD's very forcibly forbade them to do, and what's more, 2d. they attacked and tried to kiss students of the school and 2e. they might try to do it again and 2f. they might attack him too if he takes Black to them and besides 2g. he is likely to get his wish anyway if he simply takes Black and the children to the castle. So of course we don't KNOW, but I find option 2 much more simple and consistent. It saves me a huge headache. And if some members prefer option 1 then I'd like to hear their full explanation of 1a and especially 1b. The MDDT at least submitted a detailed theory, and as Faith notes, the really difficult thing about these theories is not to raise them, but to ensure that they are watertight. Neri From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 02:18:06 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:18:06 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122741 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > who is teacher number three and number > four, who tried to kill Harry? I counted > Quirrelmort and fake Moody. Who else? Umbrage and Lockheart, although I suppose a lawyer could argue that Lockheart *only* tried to turn Harry into a vegetable and might not have killed him. Eggplant From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 02:26:06 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:26:06 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122742 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" > wrote: > > > > There has been a huge discussion about Harry and whether or not he > > should trust Snape. My question is why on earth would Harry trust > any of the staff at Hogwarts? Because they are teachers and he is a > > student? That is balderdash and reprehensible balderdash at that. > > Were Harry my son I would be praising him to the skies every > summer for refusal to place trust where trust has not been earned. > It is the responsibility of the teacher to prove themselves worthy > of trust and respect, not the responsibility of the student to > respect someone just because they managed to wangle a job out of > some Board of Trustees. > > Tonks now: > > I totally disagree. A teacher or anyone in a position to be one's > superior is to be treated with the respect afforded their office. If > a parent has a problem with a teacher they have the right to be > heard. And if there is justification, the teacher can be let go. But > a CHILD is to be respectful to every adult simply because they are > an adult. And to a teacher because they are the child's superior. > They do not have to like the teacher, and they do not have to think > that the teacher knows best, they just have to treat the teacher > with respect. In a civilized society that is what people do!!! > Haven't we all had this arguement before? > > > Lupinlore said: > > Who has earned Harry's trust (in terms of staff)? Certainly not > > McGonagall, who shows herself time and again to be incompetent at > > securing fair treatment for him (Snip) And yes, it IS McGonagall's > job to secure justice for Harry in these situations. This is > especially the case in that Harry has no parents to intercede for > him independently. Certainly Harry cannot trust Snape, and > DEFINITELY not Dumbledore, whose sins against Harry are so numerous > that they can't be numbered. (SNIP) > > Lupinlore > > > Tonks now: > McGonagall is Harry's teacher, not his parent. Yes, he has no > parents, but things are tough all over. She is not his parent and it > is not her job. Her job is to teach and as Head of House to make > sure that the students are safe and well behaved. > > As to the comment about Dumbledore... I am with Hagrid. My wand is > out and pointed toward you >>>> Never insult Albus Dumbledore in my > presence!!!!! > > Tonks_op Snow: The duel is about to begin In one corner we have Lupinlore backed by Alla that the teachers at Hogwarts School should indeed take care of Harry realizing his status as an orphan and that Dumbledore is at fault for the same crime In the opposing corner we have Tonks rebuttal that the teachers at Hogwarts are not specifically responsible for parenting Harry I'm going to have to side with the underdog Tonks not just because she appears to be the underdog at the moment, but because I feel she's right If it were only so easy to just accept a young, innocent, abused sole under your wing as a teacher but it's not that easy Harry has baggage. Harry is an emotionally abused soul that has lost his parents, due to Voldemort, has been made to live with the Dursley's, due to his mother's sacrifice not Dumbledore's preference to see or allow him to be abused in order to protect him. How can Dumbledore be faulted for using the only tool and the strongest tool he had available to him to protect Harry? McGonnagall and Snape are both trusted by Dumbledore and are both aware of Harry's circumstances of being parentless but are also aware what Harry could mean to the Wizarding World as a whole. Both McGonnagall and Snape are both teachers and they both are teaching Harry lessons beyond the classroom setting, IMO; respect amongst other more important things that Harry (and the Harry filter;us) has yet to come to realize. Harry is not overly protected by anyone, like a parent would be except were Sirius was concerned. Sirius has been the only one so far to break the rules of Harry not knowing too much by allowing him to ask questions and actually giving him answers where he was not prohibited from doing so. Everyone else in the Order or "Plan" have just taught Harry what he needed to know and treated him as though he was an object to an eventual destruction, Weapon!Harry. Does this mean that all the teachers in the Order only see Harry as a weapon no, but their job in both accounts as a member of the Order and a teacher are to take orders and/or teach necessary lessons. Sirius, and Dumbledore in some circumstances, goes above and beyond. They are the balance that stabilizes Harry and his emotions. They are in fact his true teachers and caretakers. Snow From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 02:34:56 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:34:56 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122743 Snow: The duel is about to begin In one corner we have Lupinlore backed by Alla that the teachers at Hogwarts School should indeed take care of Harry realizing his status as an orphan and that Dumbledore is at fault for the same crime In the opposing corner we have Tonks rebuttal that the teachers at Hogwarts are not specifically responsible for parenting Harry I'm going to have to side with the underdog Tonks not just because she appears to be the underdog at the moment, but because I feel she's right. Alla: Chuckle. I am very bad duelist, Snow and don't worry, I am sure Tonks will have plenty fo support on her side too. :o0 Snow: Harry is not overly protected by anyone, like a parent would be except were Sirius was concerned. Sirius has been the only one so far to break the rules of Harry not knowing too much by allowing him to ask questions and actually giving him answers where he was not prohibited from doing so. Everyone else in the Order or "Plan" have just taught Harry what he needed to know and treated him as though he was an object to an eventual destruction, Weapon!Harry. Does this mean that all the teachers in the Order only see Harry as a weapon no, but their job in both accounts as a member of the Order and a teacher are to take orders and/or teach necessary lessons. Sirius, and Dumbledore in some circumstances, goes above and beyond. They are the balance that stabilizes Harry and his emotions. They are in fact his true teachers and caretakers. Alla: I believe Lupinlore was specifically speaking about Hogwarts teachers, not any other adults( but I may be wrong) therefore I did not include Sirius or Molly Weasley for that matter. Sirius indeed tried and I said earlier I believe that he loved Harry for himself. Ideally, if he would survived and getting some therapy, I am sure he would been OK parent figure, but he just had so much baggage himself. I do hope that Remus will step up to the plate somehow at least in HBP. JMO, Alla From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 02:38:14 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:38:14 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122744 > Lupinlore wrote: > > There has been a huge discussion about Harry and whether or not he > should trust Snape. My question is why on earth would Harry trust any > of the staff at Hogwarts? Neri: My apologies for quoting from the Eschatological Laundry List again, but it does seem to provide an answer to any the-world-isn't-fair post. The Eternal Truth that comes to mind this time is #30 in the list: "We have only ourselves, and one another. That may not be much, but that's all there is". The ELL can be found in: http://tombrazaitis.com/Eternal%20Truths.htm Neri From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 03:46:56 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:46:56 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122745 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Snow said: > > The duel is about to begin > > In one corner we have Lupinlore backed by Alla that the teachers at Hogwarts School should indeed take care of Harry realizing his > status as an orphan and that Dumbledore is at fault for the same crime In the opposing corner we have Tonks rebuttal that the teachers at Hogwarts are not specifically responsible for parenting Harry I'm going to have to side with the underdog Tonks not > just because she appears to be the underdog at the moment, but because I feel she's right. > > > Alla said: > > Chuckle. I am very bad duelist, Snow and don't worry, I am sure > Tonks will have plenty fo support on her side too. :o0 > Tonks now: And I am an Auror, well trained. Even out numbered I will win. And a special Thank You to Snow! Now to change the subject ;-) did anyone read my post # 122708 Has New Information about your Favorite teacher... Snape. Tonks_op Wand still drawn, watching Lupinlore and Alla closely. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 04:12:00 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:12:00 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122746 >>Eggplant: >I have never even hinted that Voldemort is not an enemy... Betsy: Sorry, but you *have* hinted that Voldemort is not *Harry's* enemy. When you say that Harry was perfectly correct to sabotage his Occlumency lessons in order to put one over on his teacher, you are saying that Voldemort is not an actual threat. In other words, not an enemy. Sneaking into Snape's private memories in no way helped prepare Harry for taking on Voldemort. Yet you cheer Harry's actions like he just pulled one over on his ultimate enemy instead of alienating the only person currently at Hogwarts who can teach him a necessary skill. >>Eggplant: >... as for Snape, he should certainly be treated as an enemy for the purposes of the Occlumency lessons and I think even Snape and Dumbledore would agree with that.< Betsy: Snape *definitely* agrees with that. He specifically tells Harry to defend himself using any means Harry can think of. The thing is, Snape is not teaching Harry how to be a spy, he's trying to teach him Occlumency. What Harry did would be the equivalent of a boxing student hiding behind a door and knocking his coach out with a shovel when the coach came back in the room. Sure, the student got the best of the coach, but he learned nothing about boxing and lost his coach to boot. Not a good way to train for the ring. >>Eggplant: >But is Snape really an enemy of Harry? Only JKR knows for certain but I think it's a real possibility and I'll bet Harry feels the same way.< Betsy: I do not think Snape is the enemy (obviously ), but I agree with you that Harry does see Snape as an enemy. And he does treat Snape accordingly, and the end result is the death of Sirius. That's one of the big reasons that I really hope that Snape and Harry come to some sort of understanding. They're both wasting time and energy on each other that would be better used facing down Voldemort. >>Betsy: >You're offered lessons that could help you regain control of your own head, and the most powerful light wizard tells you that it is *imperative* you learn this skill.< >>Eggplant: >This "most powerful light wizard" has proven to be dead wrong over after over again... Betsy: Has Dumbledore been wrong time and again? He *was* fooled by Crouch! Moody, and the big reveal in OotP is that puppetmaster!Dumbledore is a myth (thank God!) but Harry is still alive, still learning, and Voldemort has paid dearly for every step forward he's made, because of Dumbledore's actions. >>Eggplant: >...and at the time it would be entirely reasonable to assume he was wrong this time too because as Harry said, if he knew Occlumency earlier Mr. Weasley would be dead.< Betsy: This is the crux of the matter. Harry has never fully trusted *anyone* and understandably so. I am of the opinion that Harry's lack of trust is a strength in many ways. He thinks things through for himself. The problem here, the reason Dumbldore *did* screw up, is that Harry is deliberatly kept in the dark on too many things. >From Harry's perspective his link with Voldemort *is* a good thing. And while Dumbledore's word was good enough for him before, Harry is too aware of too many secrets being hidden from him to take anyone's word at this time. I understand why Dumbledore made the decision he made; Harry is still a boy, and he'd prefer to keep him off the battle field. But I understand too, why Harry cannot accept being kept safely on a shelf, unquestionably obeying orders he doesn't see the point of. His whole life has been fighting against being put safely away. So, I guess this is a long way of saying that I concede the point here. Though I recognize that Harry's decision to not practice Occlumency was unwise, I don't know if Harry could have made any other decision. >>Eggplant: >As for these wonderful lessons everybody is talking about, the ones that let a teacher get deep inside your head, are being taught by somebody you do not trust! Oh and one more little thing, the lessons make you feel terrible and DO NOT WORK; it's worse, the lessons are counterproductive, they actually make you weaker. You complain about this again and again up to the very end of your adventure but receive no satisfactory explanation for this, or an explanation of any sort for that matter. You are just ignored.< Betsy: Did Harry tell folks again and again that the lessons are making him weak? I flipped through OotP, and Harry thought about it and brought it up once with Hermione and Ron. He did say something to Dumbledore after the fact, but that was all I could find. Also, Dumbledore doesn't ignore Harry when he accuses Snape of opening his (Harry's) mind to Voldemort. He answers simply, "I trust Severus Snape." (OotP p. 833 Scholastic) I also take issue with the lessons not working. In the very first lesson, Harry pushes Snape out of his mind. In fact, the first Occlumency lesson has a lot of similarity to the Imperio lesson with Crouch!Moody. There's a small voice that refuses to allow another to take control and Harry ends up on the floor with a hurt knee. Folks have argued that Snape never actually shows Harry how to do Occlumency, but Crouch!Moody never actually shows Harry how to block the Imperio curse. And Snape *does* give Harry more instruction when he asks, (the whole, clear your mind thing) which is more than we see Crouch!Moody doing. And Snape gives Harry homework. Harry himself admits that he didn't do the work. "I didn't practice, I didn't bother, I could've stopped myself having those dreams..." (ibid p. 829) No, the lessons would have worked. But Harry didn't want to learn. It's the old leading a horse to water he doesn't want to drink problem. Snape gave Harry the tools, Harry chose not to use them. Would having a teacher Harry trusted made a difference? I don't think it would have in that I think Harry would still have wanted to know what was going on and would still have let in the dream. But, on a totally different note, going with the idea that McGonagall or Flitwick or even Lupin as the teacher would have changed nothing plot-wise, I *love* that JKR chose to have Snape be the teacher. We, the readers, learned more about Snape's past, Harry learned more about his father, and the relationship between Snape and Harry has been set up for a big change. I can't wait for HBP! Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 04:38:54 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:38:54 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122747 >>Tonks: >LV gets his power from us, from our negative emotions. We all know that LV kills mostly though other people. Snape was a DE. He probably did kill someone and could again. Snape puts his thoughts in the pensive, but NOT because he doesn't want Harry to see them. He puts them there because they will be a danger to Harry if LV sees them. Snape's knows that this is his own weakness and we should give him credit for knowing that. He puts them in the pensive because he expects that he will come in contact with LV while teaching Harry.< Betsy: I'm not sure I understand this, are you saying that if Harry sees someone murdered, his emotional reaction to that would somehow give Voldemort power? Because Harry did see Cedric murdered and during the battle at the MoM I don't think that memory was ever called up. >>Tonks: >Look at Snape's reaction when Harry sees what is in the pensive. He, the MASTER of non-emotion and control, looses control. He grabs Harry's arm and throws him to the floor. Betsy: Actually, I'd say that Snape in definitely *not* the master of control and non-emotion when anything regarding the Mauraders comes up. Look at his reactions in the Shrieking Shack at the end of PoA. Snape was almost pure emotion at that point. >>Tonks: >What do you think would have happened to Harry if it were LV and not Harry looking into the memory, not in the pensive but in Snape's mind? I don't think that our dear Harry would have faired so well!!< Betsy: Again I'm not clear on what you're saying here. (I'm really sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult!) Are you saying that Voldemort could use the negative emotions of Snape to control him and sort of set him loose on Harry? >>Tonks: >Snape put the memory in the pensive to protect Harry. And he stops the lessons to protect Harry. This, of course, is NOT a good sign. It points to the potential of Snape again loosing control to LV. And I think that this is also the reason that DD doesn't trust Snape to be the DADA teacher.< Betsy: I tend to think that Snape is not at risk to going back to Voldemort. Dumbledore is so incredibly confident in Snape that I think there most be some majorly compelling reason Snape changed sides. I think that once we learn that reason (and I hope we do) we'll have a new outlook on Snape and also recognize that Snape is permanently on the right side. I do wonder why Dumbledore doesn't want Snape to be the DADA professor. And I'm sure it's a good reason. But I don't think it's because he's worried Snape will go back to Voldemort. If that was a real worry, Snape would not be so highly ranked in the Order. In my opinion anyway. Betsy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 05:53:19 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:53:19 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122748 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy: > I'm not sure I understand this, are you saying that if Harry sees > someone murdered, his emotional reaction to that would somehow give Voldemort power? Because Harry did see Cedric murdered and during the battle at the MoM I don't think that memory was ever called up. Tonks now: No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that LV uses other people to do his killing most of the time. That Snape has probably killed before. That LV uses the negative emotions of others toward his own ends. And in the case of Snape not overcoming his intense rage at James, this opens Harry to danger in the Occlumency lessons. And this is why Snape puts the memory in the pensive. > > Betsy: > Actually, I'd say that Snape in definitely *not* the master of > control and non-emotion when anything regarding the Mauraders comes up. Look at his reactions in the Shrieking Shack at the end of PoA. Snape was almost pure emotion at that point. > Tonks now: That is what I am trying to say. Snape is only emotional when anything to do with the Maureders comes up. This is Snape's weakness. And LV uses a person's weakness, and works through it. That is why Snape had to put that memory in the pensive. He did it to protect Harry. > > Betsy: > Again I'm not clear on what you're saying here. (I'm really sorry, > I'm not trying to be difficult!) Are you saying that Voldemort could use the negative emotions of Snape to control him and sort of set him loose on Harry? Tonks now: Yes. LV would use Snape to kill Harry. Look at what Snape did when he saw Harry looking in the pensive. Snape lost his cool. LV would have looked through Harry into Snape, triggered Snape's rage and Harry would have been in very serious danger. Snape knew this. Snape knew his weakness and how the Dark Lord could use it. So he put this weak part into the pensive to protect Harry during the session. Most of the time Snape IS in control of his emotions, but not when thoughts of James come up. And Snape is wise to know this and to take the necessary steps to protect Harry during the sessions. > > Betsy: > I tend to think that Snape is not at risk to going back to > Voldemort. Dumbledore is so incredibly confident in Snape that I > think there most be some majorly compelling reason Snape changed > sides. I think that once we learn that reason (and I hope we do) > we'll have a new outlook on Snape and also recognize that Snape is > permanently on the right side. > I do wonder why Dumbledore doesn't want Snape to be the DADA > professor. And I'm sure it's a good reason. But I don't think it's > because he's worried Snape will go back to Voldemort. If that was a real worry, Snape would not be so highly ranked in the Order. In my opinion anyway. > Tonks here: Yes, but DD thought that Snape could put aside his feels about James and DD was wrong. I assume that Snape when to DD and told him about the sessions and why they had to end, and DD understood. Snape can't set his feelings about James aside, at least not yet. This doesn't mean that Snape will go back to LV. It only means that there is a weakness that Snape must overcome within himself. And his failure to do so leaves a door open for LV. Tonks_op From fuzzlebub85 at aol.com Sun Jan 23 00:19:45 2005 From: fuzzlebub85 at aol.com (fuzzlebub85 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:19:45 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122749 Lupinlore: There has been a huge discussion about Harry and whether or not he should trust Snape. My question is why on earth would Harry trust any of the staff at Hogwarts? Because they are teachers and he is a student? That is balderdash and reprehensible balderdash at that. Were Harry my son I would be praising him to the skies every summer for refusal to place trust where trust has not been earned. It is the responsibility of the teacher to prove themselves worthy of trust and respect, not the responsibility of the student to respect someone just because they managed to wangle a job out of some Board of Trustees. Tonks now: I totally disagree. A teacher or anyone in a position to be one's superior is to be treated with the respect afforded their office. If a parent has a problem with a teacher they have the right to be heard. And if there is justification, the teacher can be let go. But a CHILD is to be respectful to every adult simply because they are an adult. And to a teacher because they are the child's superior. They do not have to like the teacher, and they do not have to think that the teacher knows best, they just have to treat the teacher with respect. In a civilized society that is what people do!!! Haven't we all had this arguement before? Kaylee Tonks-Lupin stepping in: Eh...okay. I agree with some points from both of you. Yes, adults are to be respected by children, Tonks. But...Harry has good reason not to show respect for anyone who mistreats him, like Snape and the Dursleys. So...mainly in agreement with Lupinlore here. Lupinlore said: Who has earned Harry's trust (in terms of staff)? Certainly not McGonagall, who shows herself time and again to be incompetent at securing fair treatment for him (Snip) And yes, it IS McGonagall's job to secure justice for Harry in these situations. This is especially the case in that Harry has no parents to intercede for him independently. Certainly Harry cannot trust Snape, and DEFINITELY not Dumbledore, whose sins against Harry are so numerous that they can't be numbered. (SNIP) Tonks now: McGonagall is Harry's teacher, not his parent. Yes, he has no parents, but things are tough all over. She is not his parent and it is not her job. Her job is to teach and as Head of House to make sure that the students are safe and well behaved. Kaylee here: McGonagall IS Harry's teacher...BUT he does not have a parent. I think, in her heart, McGonagall feels more for Harry than she can show. After all, who was it that crossed Dumbledore that first night in PS/SS? Tonks: As to the comment about Dumbledore... I am with Hagrid. My wand is out and pointed toward you >>>> Never insult Albus Dumbledore in my presence!!!!! Kaylee here: Oh, yeah, me too. Never insult Dumbledore here with me. Kaylee Lupin, signing off! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 02:42:57 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:42:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050123024257.64727.qmail@web61202.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122750 >Neri says:This explains why Hermione and the rest >of the students didn't recognize DD's patronus as a phoenix or even >as a bird, and why Hermione couldn't make the shape of Lupin's >patronus in the train. Arynn ponders for a few senconds, then it hits her: Lupin's patronus is a Jellyfish! It would be hard to distinguish a jellyfish from a blob of silver stuff. Now I just have to figure how Remus's personality fits in with my "theory". Sorry, lack of sleep. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From caesian at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 06:09:44 2005 From: caesian at yahoo.com (caesian) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:09:44 -0800 Subject: DD knew Moody=Barty Crouch before Polyjuice expired Message-ID: <608BB9F3-6D05-11D9-AD1F-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122751 Why does Dumbledore request that Professor Snape retrieve Winky from the kitchens BEFORE the polyjuice potion had worn off? I cannot think of a good reason for her to be present except that the imposter was Barty Crouch Jr. How much of Barty Jr's story did DD already know? And why? If he involved Winky, it seems likely that DD already knew most of the saga of Mr. Crouch Sr., Winky and Master Barty. Perhaps he only discovered this recently, or perhaps he has known for many years. He tells Harry earlier that he does not know whether Barty Jr. was innocent or guilty. However, if the alternative involved Dementors, it seems reasonable that DD would not have involved himself. So, it seems as if at the time of the third task Dumbledore already knew that an imposter was at Hogwarts, and the true identity of the imposter (Barty Crouch Jr.), but apparently not who was being impersonated. (He mentions to Harry that he knew Imposter!Moody was not the real Moody only when Imposter!Moody removed Harry after the third task.) It may also be significant that it was Professor Snape who was asked to retrieve Winky. Perhaps Dumbledore knew Barty Jr. was on campus because Snape had provided this information covertly - in his function as a spy. Thus Snape was asked to retrieve Winky because someone else might have wondered why later. Caesian, who is curious about who here sleeps with Stephen Fry? I mean the audio books, of course. From ladymlb777 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 02:57:25 2005 From: ladymlb777 at yahoo.com (Michele) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:57:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050123025725.30213.qmail@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122752 In regard to McG treatment of Harry during the Umbridge fiasco, I really don't think that there was much she could have done for him. Not that she didn't want to. At that time they all had to keep their cool, and she tried to point that out to Harry repeatedly. But being a typical adolescent it was difficult for him. After DD left it was more than necessary for her to remain on campus, and thus remain absent from the Harry/Umbridge feud. I, honestly, think that she loves him, as much as a non parent could love a child. She, however, doesn't coddle him, as DD has. I think that she respects him enough to be hard on him and treat him like the absent minded, not so level headed, teen that he is. Yes, it is hard to expect Harry to trust anyone right now. Especially since four teachers have tried to off him in a way. But I think that we will see how deep McG love for harry runs soon. I think in considering all of this, we have to keep in mind that no one out side of Harry and DD know about the prophecy. So thinking of Harry as a weapon, in my mind, doesn't really stand up. I think the initial goal of the order was to keep him out of the way, and thus keep him safe. But that is about to change. Now Harry doesn't need to be kept out/kept safe. I think that a lot of the teachers strayed for giving him any unneeded attention because they wanted to further the notion that he is not special. I think that even Snape will step up (still drentched in secrecy) and push Harry, not to demean him, but to learn. I could be wrong, though, who knows. __________________________________________________ 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 snholmes at email.unc.edu Sun Jan 23 03:09:12 2005 From: snholmes at email.unc.edu (snholmes at email.unc.edu) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:09:12 -0500 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050122220912.oe9osg171kockcws@webmail2.isis.unc.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 122753 Steph: Sorry to ask this question if it was one resolved long ago, I was just wondering whether or not anyone ever figured out what happened to Sirius' motorbike (the one Hagrid rode on that Halloween night to deliver Harry to the Dursleys'.) I *think* I recall JKR stating in an interview that we should have figured that out. I'm sure it's not important, but I'm just curious. Thanks, Stephanie From casil30 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 03:31:20 2005 From: casil30 at yahoo.com (Lisa C.) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:31:20 -0000 Subject: Harry's eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122754 There's a reference to Harry using his eyes in GoF. "He concentrated every last particle of his mind upon forcing the bead back toward Voldemort, his ears full of phoenix song, his eyes furious, fixed..." (GoF, ch. 34) I had just re-read that part of the book when I read Tonks posted message...very interesting theory. From bizaw169 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 03:44:18 2005 From: bizaw169 at yahoo.com (bizaw169) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:44:18 -0000 Subject: A dead man's house Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122755 Hi, I've been reading a lot here but it's the first time I post. Okay, so, I'm currently re-reading OotP, and I noticed something I didn't before. I read the books in french, so I don't have the exact quote, but when Harry enter Sirius's house for the first time, it says something like 'Harry felt as though he'd just entered a dead man's house' ... so I see this and I'm like 'Whoa, Jo is a wicked woman!' ... anybody noticed that bit too? Do you think JK put it there on purpose, as foreshadowing? On the subject of foreshadowing, I wonder, do you think everything people see as foreshadowing and discuss here is actually consciously put there (In the books I mean) by Jo? Or do you think it's possible that some of the foreshadowing could be unconscious on Jo's part? Sorry if this subject has been discussed before, I just think it's interresting to wonder about =) Tsuta From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 05:05:56 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:05:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and Sirius (was Re: Harry and Boggarts) In-Reply-To: <20050122143257.30287.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050123050556.33881.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122756 Magda wrote: ...snip... >>When Harry is prevented from communicating with Sirius, he feels closer to him than ever. For all these reasons I think it was the IDEA of the other that each really cherished, not the present situation but some abstract future time when they could be godfather and godson, once the uncomfortable present was got over with. Juli: OK, let me see if I understand what you're saying, Sirius and Harry don't really like spending time with each other, just the *idea* of being together? If I understood you correctly, then I disagree. As I see it they both enjoyed each others company, but they just don't know exactly how to behave. Sirius is constantly faced with the dilema of not knowing if HArry is Harry or James, he's never delt with children, he's never truly been an grown-up. Harry on the other hand has never had a parent figure in his life, Petunia and Vernon are just the people he lives with, he doesn't relate to them at all. So neither one knows how to act, they don't know if they should hug or something. I think if they had had the time they could really bond and become truly close. Juli __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 05:13:58 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:13:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The method of communication / Lupin's Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050123051358.57913.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122757 > > Juli: > > I know he produced some sort of Patronus to make > > the dementores leave, but was it a Corporeal > Patronus? > > Did it have a specific shape? I thought of it just > > like Harry's first attempts at the Patronus, just > some > > silvery thingy without shape. > > JMO > > Geoff: > I did string some thoughts together about > Patronuses/Patroni in > message 122032 which might be relevant to this > discussion. Juli again: I read you post Geoff, but still it isn't clear to me if you believe that Remus knows how to cast a corporeal patronus or not. On a different note, we already know that DA members know how to cast a corporeal patronus, but how many do you think could do it in front of a dementor? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 05:10:28 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:10:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050123051028.57323.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122758 Brodeur wrote: In OOTP Mrs. Figg (a squib) is summoned to court in order to testify for Harry. Now how is it that she got there? There are no buses that go to the Ministry of Magic. Juli: But the subway, underground, tube or whatever you may call it does get there. Harry actually took the underground with Arthur Weasley to get to the MoM, so Mrs Figg could also do it. She could have taken the train from Surrey to London, then the underground and a little walk. It doesn't seem that difficult, even for a squib. Or perhaps DD arranged for a port-key or he connected her fire place to the floo network. Juli __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 23 06:25:13 2005 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (imamommy at sbcglobal.net) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:25:13 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122759 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Lupinlore: > There has been a huge discussion about Harry and whether or not he > should trust Snape. My question is why on earth would Harry trust > any of the staff at Hogwarts? Because they are teachers and he is a > student? That is balderdash and reprehensible balderdash at that. > Were Harry my son I would be praising him to the skies every > summer for refusal to place trust where trust has not been earned. > It is the responsibility of the teacher to prove themselves worthy > of trust and respect, not the responsibility of the student to > respect someone just because they managed to wangle a job out of > some Board of Trustees. > > Tonks now: > I totally disagree. A teacher or anyone in a position to be one's > superior is to be treated with the respect afforded their office. If > a parent has a problem with a teacher they have the right to be > heard. And if there is justification, the teacher can be let go. But > a CHILD is to be respectful to every adult simply because they are > an adult. And to a teacher because they are the child's superior. > They do not have to like the teacher, and they do not have to think > that the teacher knows best, they just have to treat the teacher > with respect. In a civilized society that is what people do!!! > Haven't we all had this arguement before? > > > Alla: > > Sorry, Tonks, , I am with Lupinlore. Harry has no parents, therefore > he cannot complain to them about abusive teacher > > If adults don't care much about his emotional and physical well > being, Harry should protect his own interests, if there is no one to > interfere on his behalf, IMO. > > Respect to the teacher, who mistreats him. Why? Simply because he > calls himself a "teacher". I say it is not enough to respect him. > imamommy: These issues, IMO, boil down once more to free agency. Harry chooses to attend Hogwarts, of his own free will and choice. He chooses whom to trust there. He had until OOP chosen to trust DD. If he is going to stay at Hogwarts, he is going to have to decide to place trust in some of his teachers, or he may as well not be there. He does not choose to trust Snape, but we have yet to see if he is choosing wisely. > Lupinlore said: > Who has earned Harry's trust (in terms of staff)? Certainly not > McGonagall, who shows herself time and again to be incompetent at > securing fair treatment for him (Snip) And yes, it IS McGonagall's > job to secure justice for Harry in these situations. This is > especially the case in that Harry has no parents to intercede for > him independently. Certainly Harry cannot trust Snape, and > DEFINITELY not Dumbledore, whose sins against Harry are so numerous > that they can't be numbered. (SNIP) > > > Tonks now: > McGonagall is Harry's teacher, not his parent. Yes, he has no > parents, but things are tough all over. She is not his parent and it > is not her job. Her job is to teach and as Head of House to make > sure that the students are safe and well behaved. > > Alla: > Let me ask you a question. WHOSE job is it to protect Harry from > unfairness? Because I thought that if child is an orphan, the job of > his Head of the House is more than just to teach him. > imamommy: I think McGonagall does quite a bit, behind the scenes, for Harry. Yet she also has a whole house full of students to look after, as well as lessons to prepare and teach, as well as relationships with her peers to maintain. And I feel that she more than anyone gives the fairest discipline to Harry. Also, Harry doesn't seem to expect her to fulfill any role other than what she has been doing. He does not seek her counsel or assistance. In the few instances where she freely offers it, he seems grateful, but he does not seek it. > > Tonks: > As to the comment about Dumbledore... I am with Hagrid. My wand is > out and pointed toward you >>>> Never insult Albus Dumbledore in my > presence!!!!! > > > Alla: > > As I said earlier today, when I am in the good mood, I can be > forgiving towards Dumbledore, because he (contrary to Snape) seems > to be sorry at the end of OOP, but I absolutely agree with Lupinlore > that Dumbledore's sins against Harry are numerous. > > imamommy: If I am not mistake, my tea leaves foretell that Harry is going to have to recognize, accept, and then forgive DD's numerous mistakes in order to reach the emotional strength he will need for the climax of the series. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 06:41:27 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:41:27 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: <20050122220912.oe9osg171kockcws@webmail2.isis.unc.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122760 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, snholmes at e... wrote: > > Steph: > > Sorry to ask this question if it was one resolved long ago, I was just wondering whether or not anyone ever figured out what happened to Sirius' motorbike (the one Hagrid rode on that Halloween night to deliver Harry to the Dursleys'.) I *think* I recall JKR stating in an interview that we should have figured that out. > > Stephanie Tonks here: I think that everyone here decided that it probably made it way to Arthur Weasley's home. Tonks_op From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 23 06:40:08 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:40:08 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... References: <8.6079f163.2f2457bd@aol.com> Message-ID: <000801c50116$633122c0$9158aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 122762 > Alla: > > Eggplant, I don't want to be nitpicking, since in a essence I > absolutely agree with you, but just out of curiosity, who is teacher > number three and number four, who tried to kill Harry? I counted > Quirrelmort and fake Moody. Who else? > Chancie: > > I'm OBVIOUSLY not Eggplant, but Umbridge did try to kill Harry, > but Dumbledore didn't appoint her. I think s/he is also thinking > of Lockheart in th CoS, but he didn't really try to "KILL" Harry, > just erase his memory, and have him sent so ST. Mungo's. > Not that, that's any better. L.O.O.N. on deck. Umbridge did not try to kill Harry. She was going to Crucio him. Lockhart was going to erase his and Ron's memories, and then leave them to die in the tunnels below Hogwarts. So he *was* trying to kill them. ~Amanda From mysticowl at gmail.com Sun Jan 23 06:47:34 2005 From: mysticowl at gmail.com (Alina) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:47:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP! Re: GoF - Second Task In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122763 > Sabrina: > > snip. > > *WARNING* GOF SPOILER BELOW!! > > The fact that Ron was what had been taken down into the lake for > Harry to find (Ron being what Harry would miss most) completely > took me by pleasant surprise. I was also wondering that since > Hermione was taken as what Victor Krum had to find, does this mean > she is what he would miss the most? I'm thinking this is a way of > foreshadowing some sort of friendship (or more) that is going to > develop between Victor and Hermione. Well, they didn't really have a lot of choice for Krum, did they? There were only, what, 20 people at Hogwarts that he knew? Anti-social as he is, it's not unlikely that he wasn't close to any of the other Durmstrang students that came to Hogwarts and we know he doesn't like Karkaroff. I know that brought in family for Fleur, but it appears he doesn't have any siblings and his parents could have been too busy to participate. Or perhaps any adult participation is against the rules, seeing as how all four hostages were underage wizards. Basically, while I don't want to devalue Krum's apparent inclination for Hermione, I don't think we should put too much into her being his hostage either. Alina. From mysticowl at gmail.com Sun Jan 23 06:56:55 2005 From: mysticowl at gmail.com (Alina) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:56:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Innocent Alby? (was Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122764 > Unfortunately, year two turns out to be a disaster. The pressure from > Voldemort and his followers is increasing. Hagrid's confidence is > shattered early in his teaching career by the incident with Buckbeak, > and his status is shown to be fragile when he is clapped into Azkaban, > professor or no. Harry continues to refuse trust, even when DD > himself offers him an opening. And the Weasleys are not available > over the summer to provide a source of support for Harry at year's > end. It is becoming clear that Harry needs a source of support who is > more confident and, sadly, more clever than Hagrid, and one who does > not have the existing emotional/familial commitments that hamper the > Weasleys. Hagrid became a teacher in year three, not year two. Your argument still works, just the timeline is off. Alina. From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Jan 23 07:05:44 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:05:44 -0000 Subject: Innocent Albus? (was RE: Why should Harry...) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122765 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > As to the comment about Dumbledore... I am with Hagrid. My wand is > out and pointed toward you >>>> Never insult Albus Dumbledore in my > presence!!!!! > BUZZZ. Nope, sorry, request denied, not gonna happen, thank you for playing! Interestingly enough, I agree that there are scenarios where Albus can come out (mostly) innocent and sympathetic, although I personally doubt JKR will go with them. I really think she is so deeply invested in her own authorial scheme of the characters and events that she is genuinely mystified why people don't see them the same way she does. The problem is that her view is based on a kind of intimate knowledge that she has never communicated to her readers and likely never will. Hence (to pick one example), her statement about Lupin that "the only thing wrong with him is he wants to be liked too much." Well, if we've seen that trait we've only seen it very obliquely. She is speaking of the Lupin that exists in her mind. Unfortunately, that Lupin may or may not have very much to do with the Lupin presented in the pages of her books. Likewise when JKR speaks of DD she is speaking about the "epitome of goodness" that exists in her mind, NOT about the figure that exists in her books, for whom the title "epitome of goodness" often seems rather inappropriate. Speaking as someone who has been published in several venues (although obviously neither as successfully nor as widely as JKR), I have to say that one of the hardest tasks for a writer is to try and recognize that what exists in your head might differ rather substantially from what is printed on the pages of your work. After dealing time and again with people who *just don't GET it* an author faces a bitter pill to recognize, or be forced to recognize, that *I just didn't SAY it.* But, back to the redemptive scenario for Alby. Here's how one such sequence might play out, starting from Harry's arrival at Hogwarts: Albus knows that Harry lacks adult emotional support of the kind a parent would provide. However, when Harry comes to Hogwarts DD has no way of knowing that Harry's time there will be SO very ... eventful. He at first hopes that Harry will get through Hogwarts with Voldy and his followers remaining relatively (although certainly not completely) quiet. There is no way for Albus to anticipate all the problems with the Stone, the Basilisk, etc. The two obvious adults to "bring in" as a kind of support structure for Harry would be Sirius and/or Remus. But at this point DD still believes Sirius to be a DeathEater (let's leave aside for this discussion all the problems that raises given Dumbledore's position as Head of the Wizengamot and the availability of Veritaserum and Legilemcency). And Remus is mainly qualified to teach DADA, a subject that is not open. Given that DD arranges for Hagrid to be Harry's first adult "friend." Hagrid would seem to have several advantages. Being something of an outcast himself he can readily sympathize with Harry and provide him emotional support. Similarly the fact that Hagrid is rather childlike makes it easier for Harry to open up to him. As he is not a member of the faculty, Hagrid isn't bound by the various rules and strictures covering the interaction of students and professors. Things start out splendidly. Harry is sorted into Gryffindor, he develops a close circle of friends, and warms rapidly to Hagrid, who might eventually become not a parent but a kind of older sibling with enough experience to give Harry support and enough status, at least at Hogwarts, to offer Harry some level of "familial" intercession. But, the events of the first year prove that Albus has indulged his usual (but lovable) flaw of being too optimistic. Harry just isn't ready to trust anyone, even someone so positive toward him as Hagrid. Voldemort and his followers are showing every sign of being much more aggressive and clever than Dumbledore had hoped. Severus is overdoing the whole hostility act (Dumbledore thinks). And as groundskeeper Hagrid is too much out of the power loop to really act as an effective protector for Harry. Besides, DD is beginning to suspect that all those ugly remarks about Hagrid's "slowness" may be more true than DD wanted to allow. To cap it off the events of Harry's summer show that the Dursleys, far from being cowed by Harry's entrance into the WW, are actually becoming bolder and worse. Luckily there are some bright spots for year two. Why not bring Remus in at this point? A good question and something that Rowling may have intended (especially if Remus turns out to be the HBP). But let us hypothesize for the time being that Remus is unavailable. There is now an opportunity to promote Hagrid to the faculty, giving him more status and making him a better possible support for Harry, even given that relationships between student and teacher are more complicated than between student and groundskeeper. In addition, Harry is warming to the Weasleys, another possible source of support. Unfortunately, year two turns out to be a disaster. The pressure from Voldemort and his followers is increasing. Hagrid shows some inclination to intercede openly for Harry in the matter of the petrified students, but his status is shown to be fragile when he is clapped into Azkaban on the basis of no evidence at all. Harry continues to refuse trust, even when DD himself offers him an opening. And the Weasleys are not available over the summer to provide a source of support for Harry at year's end. It is becoming clear that Harry needs a source of support who does not have the existing emotional/familial commitments that hamper the Weasleys, and who is more formidable than Hagrid. In year three Dumbledore is finally able to bring in Remus. There is now an opportunity to promote Hagrid to the faculty, giving him more status and making him a better possible support for Harry, even given that relationships between student and teacher are more complicated than between student and groundskeeper. Unfortunately the werewolf proves more reserved and reticent than DD had hoped. Hagrid's confidence is shattered early in his teaching career by the incident with Buckbeak. The return of Sirius creates an enormous shambles. Sirius wants to be a parent for Harry, but he has a death sentence on his head and plentiful emotional problems of his own. Severus, in a move deeply disappointing to DD, flies into a childish rage and forces Remus out of Hogwarts, as well as greatly deepening the rift between Harry and the potions master. And to put the shine on the apple, Harry has immediately latched onto Sirius (or the hope Sirius represents), thus creating an electric and extraordinarily difficult dynamic Year Four is brittle and somewhat desperate. The Weasleys are able to provide support for Harry over the summer, but Sirius can't show his face. The family situation of the Weasleys is becoming even more complicated, and the drift of government policy makes it almost impossible for Remus to think about anything other than survival. Voldemort's return caps the end of the year. By now DD is in a state of panic. Not only has he singularly failed to provide an appropriate emotional support system for Harry, Harry is himself in clear danger. It has now become clear that, for any forseeable future, Sirius is the only option for providing a parental figure for Harry. DD arranges the affairs of the Order around two goals, to safeguard Harry's life and to keep Sirius alive for Harry. To make things even more complicated, Dumbledore orders that Harry be kept in the dark so that, DD hopes, his happiness might yet be salvaged. Albus is experiencing disaster on every front in the form of Umbridge, and is honestly caught off guard by the viciousness of Fudge's policies and the willingness of the WW to turn its back on both Harry and Albus. He sets his policy for the year to one of extreme defensive, fully aware that things are out of control. However, he clings to a hope that once the crisis is weathered Sirius' name can be cleared and the thorny and persistant dilemmas of familial support for Harry can be solved at last. Meanwhile McGonagall and Hagrid are buried under the Umbridge onslaught, Snape's bitterness is proven to go even deeper than DD had begun to fear, the Weasley family is paralyzed by disagreement and threats to Arthur's career, and Remus shows himself to be disinclined to step up. All in all a fine mess. Anyway, that's how one "Innocent Alby" scenario might go. Unfortunately, I really don't buy it. Lupinlore From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 23 07:06:25 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:06:25 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122766 > "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > > Harry knew perfectly well that Snape > > had put those memories in the > > Pensieve to keep Harry from seeing them. Eggplant: > And that , especially in the context of the war game they call > Occlumency lessons, "war game"? Could you clarify what you mean by that? Eggplant: > is exactly why it was Harry's duty to do all he > could to look into that Pensive. Could you clarify that too? I don't follow this reasoning. Eggplant: > Sure Snape would get angry but > Harry has no reason to be sensitive to Snape's feelings and > everybody gets angry when you lose a battle. Snape has, at Dumbledore's request, at least attempted to work with Harry for the greater good. Harry, in response to the same request and for the same greater good, has mostly refused to cooperate or really even focus on the task. It sounds to me like you are interpreting this situation solely on the personal levels of Snape and Harry, without reference to the background context of the overarching need compelling the interaction. Eggplant: > I said it before I'll > say it again, Snape was a coward to put those memories in the > Pensive when he didn't give Harry the same opportunity for his most > secret memories and Snape was a fool to let Harry see him do it. We only know part of one of the memories. We have no idea what the others were. There may well have been memories that, should Harry have witnessed them, would have endangered Snape in his role as a spy. Snape could easily have simply been taking advantage of this safeguard put on the process, to "add" a few of his personal memories as well. You jump to conclusions based on limited canon. Amandageist: > > he deliberately invaded Snape's privacy > > for no other reason than curiosity. > > I believe any person so invaded would > > react with rage The Plant: > And that is exactly why Harry reacted with rage when Snape did the > exact same thing to him, and did it first. Ah, but Snape did it for a very good reason. I doubt Snape gives a rat's ass about Harry's memories, and would never have cast Legilimens on Harry without a need. [I may also point out that, whether he was truly applying himself or not, Harry returned to Snape's office week after week of his own free will to continue the lessons, even after he understood what they entailed. Placing oneself into a situation with foreknowledge is totally different from being violated without warning.] I totally understand Harry's reaction, just as I understand Snape's. But to use a similarity of reaction to equate Snape's *motive* with Harry's is specious. ~Amanda From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Jan 23 07:07:16 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:07:16 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? (was Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122767 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Alina wrote: > > > Unfortunately, year two turns out to be a disaster. The pressure from > > Hagrid became a teacher in year three, not year two. Your argument > still works, just the timeline is off. > > Alina. Yep. I've corrected it. Lupinlore From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sun Jan 23 07:13:20 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:13:20 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' motorbike Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122768 In a message dated 1/22/2005 10:42:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, tonks_op at yahoo.com writes: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, snholmes at e... wrote: > > Steph: > > Sorry to ask this question if it was one resolved long ago, I was just wondering whether or not anyone ever figured out what happened to Sirius' motorbike (the one Hagrid rode on that Halloween night to deliver Harry to the Dursleys'.) I *think* I recall JKR stating in an interview that we should have figured that out. > > Stephanie Tonks here: I think that everyone here decided that it probably made it way to Arthur Weasley's home. Tonks_op ************************************************ Chancie: Yea, Tonks is right, we did discuss it here a while back ago. However, I didn't go with the whole Author Weasley thing. The main reason for that was because, I don't remember Hagrid ever mentioning that he really knows Molly or Author. We know he was the last to have it, and the way I see/saw (depending on how you look at it) that Hagrid probably threw it in the lake with the Giant Squid. OK before you say I'm an idiot there is a reason (not that it's necessarily a "good", but a reason all the same..) why I think this. OK we know Hagrid is very emotional, and that he was the last to have the bike. I would imagine that upon hearing that Sirius betrayed the Potter's to Voldemort, and well you know... I could very well see Hagrid becoming enraged at the fact that he had just seen Sirius, and was "acting upset" and that he tried to "comfort" him. Then going outside his hut picking up Sirius's bike, and chunking it into the lake. Chancie~who's wondering if the Giant Squid is too large to ride Sirius's motorbike...Hagrid did ride it after all.... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Jan 23 07:28:34 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:28:34 EST Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency -THE REAL STORY Message-ID: <59.1fa62aa7.2f24ac22@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122769 > > Tonks wrote: > > Yes. LV would use Snape to kill Harry. Look at what Snape did when > he saw Harry looking in the pensive. Snape lost his cool. LV would > have looked through Harry into Snape, triggered Snape's rage and > Harry would have been in very serious danger. Snape knew this. Snape > knew his weakness and how the Dark Lord could use it. So he put this > weak part into the pensive to protect Harry during the session. Most > of the time Snape IS in control of his emotions, but not when > thoughts of James come up. And Snape is wise to know this and to > take the necessary steps to protect Harry during the sessions. Julie says: I hadn't thought of it this way, but it could explain one thing that bothered me about Snape's reaction. WHY was he so angry that Harry saw this scene of the Marauders bullying him? Yes, Snape didn't come off too well, but James and Sirius come off much worse. Snape already taunted Harry about James not being the wonderful person Harry imagines. Why not use this scene to drive that nail in deeper? You'd think Snape would feel immense satisfaction at Harry having to face the "truth" about James, given Snape's feelings. Instead Snape is furious. But is he furious that Harry witnessed his humiliation, or furious that Harry's action may have put both their lives further at risk? Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Jan 23 07:28:18 2005 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:28:18 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In Defense of Snape (long.) In-Reply-To: References: <009101c5009e$d408b3a0$b059aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: <41F3ECC2.29137.22D2458@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 122770 On 22 Jan 2005 at 17:27, eggplant9998 wrote: > "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > > > Harry knew perfectly well that Snape > > had put those memories in the > > Pensieve to keep Harry from seeing them. > > And that , especially in the context of the war game they call > Occlumency lessons, is exactly why it was Harry's duty to do all he > could to look into that Pensive. Sure Snape would get angry but > Harry has no reason to be sensitive to Snape's feelings and > everybody gets angry when you lose a battle. Snape lost that little > encounter and I will cry few tears over it. I said it before I'll > say it again, Snape was a coward to put those memories in the > Pensive when he didn't give Harry the same opportunity for his most > secret memories and Snape was a fool to let Harry see him do it. I think something is being missed here. Snape is a teacher. Harry is a student. I think a useful analogy can be drawn here, between the idea of a teacher supervising students in certain school environments. It can be entirely appropriate for a teacher, on certain occasions, to see their students in a state of undress - for example, if the kids are changing for sport. It is *far* less appropriate (perhaps totally inappropriate depending on the environment) for the teacher to allow the students to see them in such a state of undress. My point is that to say Snape is a coward for attempting to conceal his memories in the pensieve and not allowing Harry the same privilege is to seriously ignore the teacher/student dynamic. I've seen the arguments that Snape isn't really functioning as a teacher during the Occlumency lessons, and I think they make good points - but even if that is granted, it remains the case that after the lessons are over, Snape *needs* to still be a teacher, and Harry *needs* to still be a student. And it is entirely appropriate in quite a few circumstance for a teacher to take more care about their own privacy, than they give consideration to a students privacy. With regard to the Occlumency lessons, the primary purpose of these lessons is to teach Harry to conceal his thoughts. Leaving the thoughts he would most want to conceal from Snape inside his head makes it a real test of his ability, and gives him a real incentive to learn the lesson he is supposed to be learning. Letting him remove the memories that he wouldn't want Snape to see - well, it would seem to me to render the lessons far less significant. Snape is not in those lessons to learn himself. Presumably he is already an accomplished enough Occlumens that he is not likely to learn that much from battling Harry. So he has no reason to leave that in his head. In simple terms - I think there's a lot of difference between a teacher seeing a student naked in the course of normal schooling, and allowing the student to see the teacher naked. And I think arguably, we're dealing with a similar situation here. Unfortunately, I'm off for four days tomorrow on a university commitment. This is annoying because I'd love to follow this thread, which I'm finding very interesting and perhaps post a bit more in it. But I can't be in two places at once. 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 chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sun Jan 23 07:43:22 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:43:22 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Innocent Albus? (was RE: Why should Harry...) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122771 In a message dated 1/22/2005 11:06:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, bob.oliver at cox.net writes: > > As to the comment about Dumbledore... I am with Hagrid. My wand is > out and pointed toward you >>>> Never insult Albus Dumbledore in my > presence!!!!! > BUZZZ. Nope, sorry, request denied, not gonna happen, thank you for playing! Interestingly enough, I agree that there are scenarios where Albus can come out (mostly) innocent and sympathetic, although I personally doubt JKR will go with them. I really think she is so deeply invested in her own authorial scheme of the characters and events that she is genuinely mystified why people don't see them the same way she does. Anyway, that's how one "Innocent Alby" scenario might go. Unfortunately, I really don't buy it. Lupinlore **************************************************************** Chancie: Perhaps I am simply odd, but I have no doubts that Dumbledore, although he doesn't always succseed in his plans, really does have Harry's and the rest of Hogwarts' interest at heart. I do see Dumbledore as the "epitome of goodness" that JKR claims him to be! However, just because he's *GOOD* doesn't mean we should try to translate that into *PERFECT*! How many of us were forced to go threw horrible or humiliating circumstances when we were children/teenagers because our parents, or family were trying to help (think back mostly to teenage years, you may not think of them that badly now, but I'm sure you did then. If not, I'm extremely jealous!!!) It didn't mean they are/were ESE!, or even bad people, it's simply a matter of "it didn't work out"! I think sometimes we as readers expect too much of the characters or even the writers of any story. They are meant to be seen like "real" people who have flaws, and who's plans don't always work out the way they planed them too. After all, if they did, Harry wouldn't even have a story, he wouldn't be the boy-who-lived, and he wouldn't even be the boy with a lightening bolt scar. Chancie~who stands with Tonks in defense of Dumbledore, but doesn't have a wand, because I don't have one =( [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 07:43:41 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:43:41 -0000 Subject: A dead man's house In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122772 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bizaw169" wrote: > > > ...I noticed something I didn't before. I read the books in french, > so I don't have the exact quote, but when Harry enter Sirius's house > for the first time, it says something like 'Harry felt as though > he'd just entered a dead man's house' ... so I see this and I'm like > 'Whoa, Jo is a wicked woman!' ... anybody noticed that bit too? Do > you think JK put it there on purpose, as foreshadowing? > > ...edited... > > Sorry if this subject has been discussed before, I just think it's > interresting to wonder about =) > > Tsuta bboyminn: First, let's set the mood... -OotP - Am Ed HB pg 60- Harry stepped over the threshold into the almost total darkness of the hall. He could smell damp, dust, and a sweetish, rotting smell; the place had the feeling of a derelict building. now to the point.... (same page) The others' hushed voices were giving Harry an odd feeling of foreboding; it was as thought they had just entered the house of a dying person. - - - - - - - - - - - - - I think it is a case of the somber atmosphere and the hushed voices that give Harry this feeling. When you are in the house of someone who is dying or who is dead, people generally talk in politely quiet and respectful voices so as not to desturb those who are grieving. I think part of the reason for this 'foreboding' is to help create the sense that this is a /dark/ house, the house of a dark wizard. Perhaps not truly a Dark wizard's house, but that the house had that general feel. So, I think JKR is just setting the mood for the house. Of course, we learn very quickly that part of the reason for the hushed voices is so that no one wakes up Mrs. Black. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 23 07:51:18 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:51:18 -0000 Subject: Birdies in the Sky & Other Comm Methods In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122773 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlv230" wrote: > > Snow: > But you are talking about the London underground as a muggle > perspective, correct? What about the London underground as it refers > to-under Gringotts, Chamber of Secrets or under the MOM, these are > all magical related places that most muggles are not aware of? No > map available for these places, I'm guessing, unless it is on > Dumbledore's knee. See my earlier post > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/95244 > > for related discussion of the scar on DD's knee. JLV: > Hi there. I just thought I'd drop in that, being from London as I > am, it never occurred to me to think that 'London Underground' > referred to anything but the London Underground! I'm not sure if > this is common knowledge internationally, but the London Underground > actually is the name of the 'subway' in London (although we usually > call it the Tube). > > It is also the case that most tube or subway maps around the world > follow Harry Beck's original design for the London map, which, I > believe, was first used in the 30s. The map is also rather > attractive, as maps go, and highly symbolic of London - students > have been known to put them on the wall as decoration and tourist > stuff often has the map printed on it. > > I always assumed that this DD scar thing was just a joke (and a good > one - I read it out loud to my family when I came to that bit). It > is great to hear a fresh perspective! But I still think Tube when I > hear Underground... It's just the way I was raised I suppose. Geoff: Well, since people have decided to take my reply seriously and not tongue-in-cheek as was my intention, I will add a few thoughts. To a UK resident - and especially one in London - reference to the Underground will mean the Underground railway system. I agree with JLV that "subway" is not used in reference to this system. A subway to a Brit is usually a pedestrian underpass at a station or a road junction etc. I hope in passing that Dumbledore's map is up to date. Has he got the extensions to the Jubilee Line and the Docklands Light Railway which feature on modern maps? Just for information, there are two types of Underground line in London. There are the true "tube" lines, deep level like the Northern, Piccadilly, Victoria, Central , Bakerloo and Jubilee which use quite small cross-section carriages and the sub-surface lines such as the District, Circle, Metropolitan etc. which were built by cut-and-cover just below street level and use full size carriages and are referred to as the "Underground" or by their individual names. Unlike Dumbledore, soemone outside London (or the UK) may not realise the extent of the system with over 200 stations (some of which just to be confusing are not underground at all!). Perhaps Voldemort will fall on a live rail or something equally nasty. :-) From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sun Jan 23 07:52:48 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 02:52:48 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... Message-ID: <1b9.b84db3f.2f24b1d0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122774 In a message dated 1/22/2005 10:46:05 PM Pacific Standard Time, editor at texas.net writes: Chancie: > > I'm OBVIOUSLY not Eggplant, but Umbridge did try to kill Harry, > but Dumbledore didn't appoint her. I think s/he is also thinking > of Lockheart in th CoS, but he didn't really try to "KILL" Harry, > just erase his memory, and have him sent so ST. Mungo's. > Not that, that's any better. L.O.O.N. on deck. Umbridge did not try to kill Harry. She was going to Crucio him. Lockhart was going to erase his and Ron's memories, and then leave them to die in the tunnels below Hogwarts. So he *was* trying to kill them. ~Amanda ******************************************************************* Chancie: I don't know what you mean by "L.O.O.N. on deck." But it doesn't sound very nice. And sorry, but Umbridge did try to kill him, unless of course having dementor's sent to your town to hunt you down and kiss you, is your idea of a hot date. =) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Jan 23 08:14:44 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:14:44 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122775 > > Neri: > > My apologies for quoting from the Eschatological Laundry List again, > but it does seem to provide an answer to any the-world-isn't-fair > post. The Eternal Truth that comes to mind this time is #30 in the list: > > "We have only ourselves, and one another. That may not be much, but > that's all there is". > No apology is necessary! Unfortunately, the quote does not go one single iota in the direction of answering the problem. Of course, the reply may be there are no answers. But, I don't believe that, so I repeat, the quote is absolutely no help whatsoever. Lupinlore P.S. Shouldn't the set of quotes really be called "the EXISTENTIAL laundry list?" They are certainly very existential. They are not, however, the least little bit eschatological. Existential = the belief that what is given in experience is all there is in reality, and that such things as "truth," "justice," etc., arise from human striving and decisions. Eschatological = theories about the end of time. The word is most often used in the context of Christian Theology concerning the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven when all suffering and injustice will end and the flaws in the world will be healed. The separation of the saved and the damned will take place, with the saved experiencing eternal joy in the presence of God and the damned being cast into the outer dark (or the eternal flame, depending on your system of Biblical Theology) Eschatology can be either Millenial (characterized by a belief that human action will bring about the Kingdom of Heaven) or Apocalyptic (characterized by the belief that the Kingdom of Heaven will be instituted by God). From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jan 23 10:51:44 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:51:44 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: <000801c50116$633122c0$9158aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122776 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > L.O.O.N. on deck. > > Umbridge did not try to kill Harry. She was going to Crucio him. Not a L.O.O.N but still ... Umbridge sent Dementors after him. So she did try to kill him. Naama, who has no idea what the argument is about... > From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jan 23 11:41:33 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:41:33 -0000 Subject: Innocent Albus? (was RE: Why should Harry...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122777 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Interestingly enough, I agree that there are scenarios where Albus >can come out (mostly) innocent and sympathetic, although I personally > doubt JKR will go with them. I really think she is so deeply >invested in her own authorial scheme of the characters and events >that she is genuinely mystified why people don't see them the same >way she does. >. Likewise when JKR speaks of DD she is > speaking about the "epitome of goodness" that exists in her mind, >NOT about the figure that exists in her books, for whom the >title "epitome of goodness" often seems rather inappropriate. Umm.. I've reread these paragraphs and I can't make sense of them: you say that "there are scenarios where Albus can come out (mostly) innocent and sympathetic" but that you "doubt JKR will go with them". And yet that in JKR's mind DD is the epitome of goodness. So - why wouldn't JKR go with an innocent and sympathetic DD? I'm sure I'm completely missing your meaning here. Could you clarify? Naama From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sun Jan 23 12:47:57 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:47:57 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122778 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > > Renee: What if DD, > knowing Snape was a Death Eater, hadn't listened when Snape > showed up but immediately handed him over to the > authorities?< > > Pippin: > I didn't notice Dumbledore reading Fake!Moody his rights before > stunning him and dosing him with veritaserum. Snape isn't > nearly as powerful as Dumbledore, he doesn't have backup, he > doesn't have a bottle of veritaserum handy and he's > outnumbered in a hostage situation. Renee: Now the issue is getting muddled, I think. What triggered this exchange was Alla's remark that Snape didn't treat Lupin the way DD treated him, which I then compared to the parable of the ungrateful servant. DD's later treatment of Fake!Moody doesn't change that (and it's debatable whether the situations are comparable, but that's irrelevant here). DD listened to Snape. Snape bound and gagged Lupin, insulted him and threatened to drag him from the Shrieking Shack. > > Renee: > > Irrelevant, as Lupin is tied up and gagged and Sirius doesn't > have a wand. Snape, who has a wand and freedom of speech > and movement, has the upper hand. He could have listened. < > > Pippin: > Um, how could Snape listen to Lupin if Lupin was gagged? If > Snape ungags Lupin, he's in danger of being spellbound > himself. Sirius has just admitted to knowing an illegal wandless > spell, and has already taken three armed students hostage with > it. Renee: Apparently the snippage has created some confusing here: I wasn't suggesting that Snape listen to Lupin. I was comparing Lupin and Sirius who listened to Harry when he told them not to kill Pettigrew, to Snape who did *not* listen to Harry's arguments in favour of Sirius and Lupin. And if Sirius could have used his illegal wandless spell against Snape, then why does he blanch and start pleading when Snape threatens to call the Dementors, instead using it? Pippin: > We have no canon that Snape knows how to lift a confundus > charm. Renee: Well, if he can't, why does he apply for the job of DADA teacher? > > > > Pippin > > > But though Snape threatened to MAKE Harry get out of the > way, he ultimately did listen to him, because he didn't give > Sirius to the dementors when he had the chance.<< > > > > Renee: > > I bet he did that because he needed to prove HE was the one > who caught Black.< > > Pippin: > Um, I'm confused. You're saying Snape sincerely meant to turn > Sirius and Lupin over to the dementors when he threatened to > do it in the Shack, but had second thoughts later and decided to > bring Sirius to the castle instead? May I borrow a leaf from Neri's > book and ask how we are to know? Renee: Ah, but when has not knowing something stopped us from making deductions? :) By the time Snape finds Sirius, Harry and Hermione unconscious, the situation has changed. Snape has a better opportunity to think now. What will happen if he calls the Dementors (provided he could have done so; I've got no idea where they went and I don't know how long the effects of a Patronus lasts)? Will they only Kiss Sirius and leave Harry and Hermione alone? They *have* shown an unhealthy interest in Harry before. Can Snape prevent them from sucking out the soul of the boy he's trying to protect? And even if he can protect Harry, there are no witnesses if the Dementors Kiss Sirius while the two students are out; how can he prove his own role? Better take everyone to the castle. To me, this seems a likely scenario > Pippin: > Again, I'm not sure how this relates to Snape's earlier threat to > turn Sirius and Lupin over to the dementors. Was he making an > empty threat before, or not? Renee: I think he meant it initially, but changed his mind because the situation had changed. Pippin: > This is something I > don't really understand about the "Snape isn't really on the side > of good, he's out for himself" theories. Just what is Snape > supposed to be out for? He's a clever wizard who knows a potion > that feigns death -- he wouldn't have to join DD just to get shut of > Voldie. If Snape doesn't care whether the good guys win, what is > he after? > Renee: Personal glory, perhaps? Just like the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters, there are more motives than wanting the good guys to win or wanting them to loose. But I don't know if Snape is or isn't really on the side of good. To my best knowledge, I didn't doubt his loyalties in this exchange, just his behaviour. And most of the time, I prefer him to end up redeemed, either dead or alive. From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 23 13:43:13 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:43:13 -0000 Subject: The method of communication / Lupin's Patronus In-Reply-To: <20050123051358.57913.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122780 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: Juli: > I read you post Geoff, but still it isn't clear to me > if you believe that Remus knows how to cast a > corporeal patronus or not. On a different note, we > already know that DA members know how to cast a > corporeal patronus, but how many do you think could do > it in front of a dementor? Geoff: The point I was attempting to make in my original post was that we assume from Hermione's description that Lupin was producing a Patronus. Although it did not appear to be corporeal, it still produced the required effect of driving the Dementor away, which was the desired result. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 14:02:19 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:02:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape vs Quirrell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050123140219.42494.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122781 -- horridporrid03 wrote: > Betsy: > So Snape would have appeared to be a Death Eater telling Quirrell > that he should be loyal to Snape - fellow teacher, etc. - rather > than the unknown Death Eater running him. I think Snape's goal > was to find out who Quirrell was working for. I think Voldemort > would have seen this as normal Death Eater > behavior, being aggressively jealous of rank and position. He'd be > less than pleased with Snape for hiding out rather than trying to > search down his master, but all of the free Death Eaters did this, > so I don't think Snape would have stood out in his mind for that. I agree with most of this. I think we don't give Voldemort enough credit (!!!!) for being smarter than Crabbe and Goyle. There are some DE's (actually, probably most) who are one-dimensional enough that LV can crucio them just based on disloyalty or incompetence alone. Then there are others who have intelligence, talent and/or resources that LV needs and who have to be handled with more tolerance for their mistakes or misjudgements (Lucius Malfoy). >From LV's point of view in PS/SS, Snape falls into the latter category. He has a skill (potions making) that is of great importance to a Dark Lord who wants to be immortal, he's intelligent (which is an asset that a Dark Lord may not want in a DE as it might lead to too much independence but in Snape's case is coupled with an intense dislike of a lot of the Good Guys so it might balance out) and Snape is a senior teacher/head of house at Hogwarts with heightened access to Dumbledore, LV's great enemy. All of these circumstances means that Snape isn't automatically going to get crossed off the Christmas card list. And as Betsy says, everyone else tore for cover as soon as the GH fiasco became known, so it's not like Snape did anything different. I don't think LV doubted that he could get Snape back until GOF when Crouch!Moody started reporting back about his lack of help and his attitude. Also since everyone thought he WAS Moody, it's possible Dumbledore shared his thoughts about things including Snape's conversion, and since Real!Moody knew that Snape had been a spy, then it wouldn't be surprising if Crouch!Moody picked that up too... Bottom Line: Snape's got a lot of 'splaining to do but he's still a Potions Man and Voldemort needs one of those to be immortal. Sometimes even a Dark Lord has to put a little water in his wine. Of course, after the immortality potion is perfected, Snape gets whacked, but that's in the future. > Betsy: > The interesting thing to me is it seems like Snape didn't share his > suspicions regarding Quirrell with Dumbledore. No way, Jose. Snape tells Dumbledore EVERYTHING - to the point where I'm sure Dumbledore wishes he'd give it a rest and shut up. Dumbledore's comment in GOF when he and Harry look into the pensieve and see Snape talking about the Dark Mark becoming clearer and Dumbledore saying "I could have figured that out myself" (not exact) proves it to me. Snape craves Dumbledore's approval; there's NO way he wouldn't be up those stairs sharing every single suspicion or thought or idea he has. 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 Jan 23 14:19:04 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:19:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050123141904.22491.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122782 >> Dungrollin: >> Now that story sounds oddly familiar... Substitute "tortured to >> insanity" with "murdered by Voldemort" and "grandmother" with >> "aunt and uncle"... So why doesn't Harry fear Snape more than >> anything else? > Gerry: > Well, maybe because he has a different character? Had different > parents, so a different genetic make-up, in which fear genes do not > play such a big part? Also Neville probably grew up hearing from his Gran about his parents' great sacrifice for the good side and the evils of the DE's who did it, and seeing his parents on a regular basis. That would be pretty terrifying for a child. Harry didn't find out the truth until he was 11 and then it came wrapped in a whole lot of new information about being a wizard, etc. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 14:21:51 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:21:51 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122783 Renee wrote: Ah, but when has not knowing something stopped us from making deductions? :) By the time Snape finds Sirius, Harry and Hermione unconscious, the situation has changed. Snape has a better opportunity to think now. What will happen if he calls the Dementors (provided he could have done so; I've got no idea where they went and I don't know how long the effects of a Patronus lasts)? Will they only Kiss Sirius and leave Harry and Hermione alone? They *have* shown an unhealthy interest in Harry before. Can Snape prevent them from sucking out the soul of the boy he's trying to protect? And even if he can protect Harry, there are no witnesses if the Dementors Kiss Sirius while the two students are out; how can he prove his own role? Better take everyone to the castle. To me, this seems a likely scenario. vmonte responds: Nice response Renee. I would bet that this is exactly what Snape was thinking. Your reasoning, IMO, sounds very much like JKR's. Vivian :) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 23 14:21:55 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:21:55 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122784 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > > > > Neri: > > > > My apologies for quoting from the Eschatological Laundry List again, but it does seem to provide an answer to any the-world-isn't-fairpost. The Eternal Truth that comes to mind this time is #30 in the list: > > > > "We have only ourselves, and one another. That may not be much, but that's all there is". Eggplant > No apology is necessary! Unfortunately, the quote does not go one single iota in the direction of answering the problem. Of course, the reply may be there are no answers. But, I don't believe that, so Irepeat, the quote is absolutely no help whatsoever. > Pippin: I agree with Neri (!) The reason Harry needs the other people at Hogwarts is that he isn't strong enough to defeat Voldemort alone. That was the gist of Dumbledore's leaving feast speech in GoF "We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are divided." And the Sorting Hat backs him up at the starting feast in OOP,"For our Hogwarts is in danger from external deadly foes/And we must unite inside her/Or we'll crumble from within." That is exactly what happens in OOP as everyone, from Dumbledore on down, very much including Harry, ignores this advice and pursues their personal agenda instead of the common good. Pippin From witchypooh67 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 14:27:57 2005 From: witchypooh67 at yahoo.com (witchypooh67) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:27:57 -0000 Subject: Harry and Sirius (was Re: Harry and Boggarts) In-Reply-To: <20050123050556.33881.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122785 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > > Magda wrote: > ...snip... > > >>When Harry is prevented from communicating with > Sirius, he feels closer to him than ever. For all > these reasons I think it was the IDEA of the other > that each really cherished, not the present situation > but some abstract future time when they could be > godfather and godson, once the uncomfortable present > was got over with. > > Juli: > OK, let me see if I understand what you're saying, > Sirius and Harry don't really like spending time with > each other, just the *idea* of being together? If I > understood you correctly, then I disagree. As I see it > they both enjoyed each others company, but they just > don't know exactly how to behave. Sirius is constantly > faced with the dilema of not knowing if HArry is Harry > or James, he's never delt with children, he's never > truly been an grown-up. Harry on the other hand has > never had a parent figure in his life, Petunia and > Vernon are just the people he lives with, he doesn't > relate to them at all. So neither one knows how to > act, they don't know if they should hug or something. > I think if they had had the time they could really > bond and become truly close. > > Juli Kelly: I agree with Julie. In OotP, Harry is acting like a typical angry teenager who has been through far more than anyone should. Sirius is acting like an angry young adult (remember, emotionally he is still in his early 20's, he didn't have the opportunity to live and mature in Azkaban) who feels unappreciated and helpless. When I first read OotP it had been months since I had read PoA and GoF. When Sirius died, his death did not effect me much and I was frankly a little bit disappointed with how hard Harry took it. Later, when I reread the books back-to-back, I understood the depth of their feelings for one another. I think Harry and Sirius really needed one another. Yes, their relationship did connect both of them to James, but Harry needed a parental figure he could count on, and Sirius needed to participate and be useful to the cause. He could do that by protecting Harry. I will be disappointed if we do not contiue to see Harry grieve in HBP. Sirius was very important to Harry, but not just because Sirius was his father's best friend. Kelly, who REALLY hopes we see more of Sirius in some form From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 14:38:32 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:38:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050123143832.23677.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122786 > Renee: > Snape apparently doesn't trust DD's judgement concerning others, > though it's DD's judgement of him that kept him out of trouble > after > the first Voldemort war. He's only too eager to think the worst of > others, even though DD apparently never thought the worst of him. I don't think it's quite like that. It's not Dumbledore that Snape disrespects or doesn't trust. It's more like he feels that Dumbledore's trusting nature is open to abuse by unworthy people. His anger at Lupin throughout the year in POA (when he thinks Lupin is helping Black get into the castle) is almost a rage on Dumbledore's behalf: how dare you betray this man who gave you a chance when no one else would? I really do think that Snape's regard for Dumbledore is quite solid and close to worshipful, and if Dumbledore was a less good man he might encourage that as a way to keep Snape tied to him. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 14:39:34 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:39:34 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: <59.1fa62aa7.2f24ac22@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122787 Julie wrote: I hadn't thought of it this way, but it could explain one thing that bothered me about Snape's reaction. WHY was he so angry that Harry saw this scene of the Marauders bullying him? Yes, Snape didn't come off too well, but James and Sirius come off much worse. Snape already taunted Harry about James not being the wonderful person Harry imagines. Why not use this scene to drive that nail in deeper? You'd think Snape would feel immense satisfaction at Harry having to face the "truth" about James, given Snape's feelings. Instead Snape is furious. But is he furious that Harry witnessed his humiliation, or furious that Harry's action may have put both their lives further at risk? vmonte responds: Is it possible that Snape was already aware that the maurauders were animagi? If he was aware of what James and gang were, then there was another reason why he followed Sirius that night. Maybe this is the real reason why Snape gets angry with Harry. Because he doesn't want Dumbledore to know that he was already aware of the marauders. And this is why he tells Harry to keep his mouth shut. Vivian From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 14:49:12 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:49:12 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -The real reasons for DD not teaching Harry... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122788 Tonks wrote: Look at Snape's reaction when Harry sees what is in the pensive. He, the MASTER of non-emotion and control, looses control. He grabs Harry's arm and throws him to the floor. What do you think would have happened to Harry if it were LV and not Harry looking into the memory, not in the pensive but in Snape's mind? I don't think that our dear Harry would have faired so well!! vmonte responds: Snape is the master of non-emotion? Snape is ruled by his emotions. IMO he is the worst choice for a teacher. Also, I wonder if there is another reason that Dumbledore did not want to teach Harry Occlumency himself. JKR recently told a fan that there was another reason as to why Dumbledore did not kill Voldemort at the DoM (that the reason was different than what Dumbledore told Voldemort). I always took it to mean that perhaps the connection between Harry and Voldemort is stronger than Voldemort even knows, and that if DD were to kill Voldemort, Harry would also die. What if there is more to the reason why Dumbledore did not want to teach Harry Occlumency himself. Maybe Dumbledore did not want to risk Harry taking a glimpse into his own mind and finding out information DD isn't ready to share. What that info could be, who knows... Vivian From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jan 23 14:53:46 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:53:46 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122789 > > > Renee: > What if DD, knowing Snape was a Death Eater, hadn't listened when Snape showed up but immediately handed him over to the authorities?< > > > > Pippin: > > I didn't notice Dumbledore reading Fake!Moody his rights before stunning him and dosing him with veritaserum. Snape isn't nearly as powerful as Dumbledore, he doesn't have backup, he doesn't have a bottle of veritaserum handy and he's outnumbered in a hostage situation. > > Renee: > Now the issue is getting muddled, I think. What triggered this exchange was Alla's remark that Snape didn't treat Lupin the way DD treated him, which I then compared to the parable of the ungrateful servant. DD's later treatment of Fake!Moody doesn't change that (and it's debatable whether the situations are comparable, but that's irrelevant here). DD listened to Snape. Snape bound and gagged Lupin, insulted him and threatened to drag him from the Shrieking Shack. < Pippin: But that's my point. You said that Dumbledore had listened to Snape, and so Snape should have listened to Lupin. I say that the situation Snape found himself in was more comparable to Dumbledore's discovery of Fake!Moody than it was to Snape's defection. We don't know the circumstances of that, but we do know that Snape "came back to our side" --it was voluntary. That is a very different situation than confronting a Death Eater who has a student in his power. > > Pippin: > > Um, how could Snape listen to Lupin if Lupin was gagged? If Snape ungags Lupin, he's in danger of being spellbound himself. Sirius has just admitted to knowing an illegal wandless spell, and has already taken three armed students hostage with it. > > Renee: > Apparently the snippage has created some confusing here: I wasn't suggesting that Snape listen to Lupin. I was comparing Lupin and Sirius who listened to Harry when he told them not to kill Pettigrew, to Snape who did *not* listen to Harry's arguments in favour of Sirius and Lupin. < Pippin: Okay. But you say that Snape changed his mind later. Fine, but how do we know that he didn't take Harry's opinion into account then? We know that he has to pretend not to take Harry seriously. That much of OscarWinner!Snape is canon. Renee: > And if Sirius could have used his illegal wandless spell against Snape, then why does he blanch and start pleading when Snape threatens to call the Dementors, instead using it? < Pippin: ::sigh::Snape thinks he is dealing with Death Eaters. He is not, under any circumstances, going to negotiate with them, whether they threaten or plead or promise to go quietly. If Sirius wants to go to the castle, then Snape is bound to think that it's a trick. > Pippin: > > We have no canon that Snape knows how to lift a confundus > > charm. > > Renee: > Well, if he can't, why does he apply for the job of DADA teacher? Pippin: Harry is still supposed to be confunded when he wakes up at the castle, and I don't see Fudge asking whether there is any way to lift the spell, as he does when he's stymied by Marietta's spots. I conclude he knows there isn't any easy way to lift it. > Pippin: > > This is something I don't really understand about the "Snape isn't really on the side of good, he's out for himself" theories. Just what is Snape supposed to be out for? He's a clever wizard who knows a potion that feigns death -- he wouldn't have to join DD just to get shut of Voldie. If Snape doesn't care whether the good guys win, what is he after? > > > Renee: > Personal glory, perhaps? Pippin: The motives of personal glory and revenge (suggested by Alla ) don't fit very well. If Snape wanted personal glory, why become a spy and work in the shadows? If he wanted revenge, why did he defect to Dumbledore and not Crouch, who would have let him fight fire with fire? Renee: > But I don't know if Snape is or isn't really on the side of good. To my best knowledge, I didn't doubt his loyalties in this exchange, just his behaviour. And most of the time, I prefer him to end up redeemed, either dead or alive. Pippin: I guess this is where we use the word 'redeemed' differently. To me, a character who erred but is now is on the side of good has already been redeemed, though that character may still have many flaws and make mistakes. Pippin From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 23 15:05:58 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:05:58 -0600 Subject: L.O.O.N.s, was Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... References: <1b9.b84db3f.2f24b1d0@aol.com> Message-ID: <000701c5015d$13eb4820$5358aacf@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 122790 Chancie: > I don't know what you mean by > > "L.O.O.N. on deck." > > But it doesn't sound very nice. This is list culture, to which you have not yet been exposed--probably because most of the L.O.O.N.s are not very active posters these days. The reference was not to you, but to me. I am a founding L.O.O.N. A L.O.O.N. is a member of the League Of Obsessive Nitpickers. The accolade is bestowed by other L.O.O.N.s, almost always onlist, following the exhibition of a consistent and lunatic dedication to the details of canon. See below for an example. Chancie: > And sorry, but Umbridge > did try to kill him, unless of course having > dementor's sent to your town to hunt you > down and kiss you, is your idea of a hot date. =) But the statement was that Harry's *teachers* tried to kill him, and at the point Umbridge sent the dementors, she was not yet his teacher. See? ~Amanda, L.O.O.N. From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 23 15:27:12 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:27:12 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122791 Pippin, cutting through to the heart of it, said > The reason Harry needs the other people at > Hogwarts is that he isn't strong enough to defeat Voldemort > alone. That was the gist of Dumbledore's leaving feast speech in > GoF "We are only as strong as we are united, as weak as we are > divided." And the Sorting Hat backs him up at the starting feast in > OOP,"For our Hogwarts is in danger from external deadly > foes/And we must unite inside her/Or we'll crumble from within." > > That is exactly what happens in OOP as everyone, from > Dumbledore on down, very much including Harry, ignores this > advice and pursues their personal agenda instead of the > common good. This was a stunning and solid summary of theme, and I bow in respect to the master (bows to Pippin). I sat here and tried to think of every instance in which things go awry, and it can be traced to this "personal agenda over common good" source. In the Snapethread I'm slightly involved with, for example: Snape pursues the common good: attempts to teach Harry Occlumency. Result: Harry does begin to show a little resistance to the dreams (trace feelings that during the dreams that indicate a "monitor mind" separate from the desires of the dream). Harry pursues his own agenda: secretly wants the dreams to continue, and so does not follow Snape's instructions or really concentrate on Occlumency. Result: very little progress and much frustration, and the door is opened for Voldemort's manipulations. Snape pursues his own agenda: cannot accommodate the violation of his personal memories by Harry and refuses to teach him further. Result: Harry is left open to Voldemort's manipulation. I could continue, but everything fits. In fact, OoP could be interpreted as one long attempt by Harry to reconcile what is being asked of him for the common good, with his personal agenda, with varying results. ~Amanda, amazed as usual by Pippin From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 15:32:47 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:32:47 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122792 "Shaun Hately" wrote: > I think something is being missed here. > Snape is a teacher. Harry is a student And 4 of his previous teachers had tried to kill him and Harry knows this particular teacher hates his guts. > it is entirely appropriate in quite a few > circumstance for a teacher to take more > care about their own privacy, than they give > consideration to a students privacy. No doubt teachers would almost universally agree with that and no doubt students would almost universally disagree with that. > It can be entirely appropriate for a teacher, > on certain occasions, to see their students > in a state of undress - for example, if the > kids are changing for sport. It is *far* less > appropriate (perhaps totally inappropriate > depending on the environment) for the teacher > to allow the students to see them in such > a state of undress. And suppose the teacher was getting obvious enjoyment at watching those naked students, just as Snape was getting obvious enjoyment invading Harry's privacy. But in light of the recent scandals involving priests teachers and young boys I don't think I want to go further in that direction. Snape is an adult, a professor, the mighty Potions Master at Hogwarts and Harry is just a boy, and yet Snape is the one who takes safety precautions before they engage in combat and allows Harry to do nothing similar. That is the act of a coward and Harry has a perfect right to feel contempt toward his teacher because of it. That is why I cheered when Harry looked into the Pensive and if Snape is humiliated then good, he should be. > Leaving the thoughts he would most want > to conceal from Snape inside his head makes > it a real test of his ability, and gives >him a real incentive Leaving the thoughts Snape would most want to conceal from Harry would be a real incentive to resist Harry's counterattack. > Presumably he is already an accomplished > enough Occlumens that he is not likely to > learn that much from battling Harry. But that's not true, not only was Snape a coward he was also incredibly careless and stupid to let Harry see him use the Pensive and then let him alone with it. Presumably Snape learned not to be so foolish next time; who knows, that little lesson might even save Snape's life someday. Eggplant From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 15:39:32 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:39:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and Sirius (was Re: Harry and Boggarts) In-Reply-To: <20050123050556.33881.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050123153932.43203.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122793 > Magda wrote: > ...snip... > > >>When Harry is prevented from communicating with > Sirius, he feels closer to him than ever. For all > these reasons I think it was the IDEA of the other > that each really cherished, not the present situation > but some abstract future time when they could be > godfather and godson, once the uncomfortable present > was got over with. > > Juli: > OK, let me see if I understand what you're saying, > Sirius and Harry don't really like spending time with > each other, just the *idea* of being together? If I > understood you correctly, then I disagree. As I see it > they both enjoyed each others company, but they just > don't know exactly how to behave. Sirius is constantly > faced with the dilema of not knowing if HArry is Harry > or James, he's never delt with children, he's never > truly been an grown-up. Harry on the other hand has > never had a parent figure in his life, Petunia and > Vernon are just the people he lives with, he doesn't > relate to them at all. So neither one knows how to > act, they don't know if they should hug or something. > I think if they had had the time they could really > bond and become truly close. > Magda again: You've misunderstood me. Of course they LIKED being together. But they weren't together often enough to really KNOW each other for WHO they were (Harry, Sirius) rather than for WHAT they were (my best friend James' son, my dad's best friend). They thought they had time, once Harry was out of Hogwarts, once Voldemort was defeated, once a few years had passed, to develop a real relationship rather than the patchwork occasional interactions they had in GOF and OOTP. Harry doesn't tell Sirius much about developments at Hogwarts in GOF and OOTP because he doesn't want Sirius to worry and come down to Hogwarts, therefore putting himself in danger and therefore getting captured or killed and ending any possibility of their future life together. And Sirius puts off any revelations to Harry in OOTP because it's more important for Harry to be at the Dursleys and Hogwarts where he's safe than to talk about maybe living at 12GP where they can be together. Both are putting aside the present in favour of the future, when things will finally be wonderful and they can develop the relationship that circumstances prevent now. I'm reminded of Dumbledore's comments to Harry re the Mirror of Erised in PS/SS: "It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live." I'm sure that Harry will look back at this period in his life with regret for all the conversations they could have had, all the stories he could have heard about his parents and grandparents, all the togetherness they could have experienced because at the time it seemed more important to keep up a reassuring facade to each other. And Harry's urge to communicate with Sirius is strongest when he's prevented from doing so. When he's actually at 12GP in the summer and during Christmas, Sirius spends a lot of time feeding Buckbeak and Harry spends time cleaning the house with the Dursleys, and neither seems capable of reaching out to the other for some buddy-time. If they had the relationship that many posters (and fan-ficcers) claim, this shyness would not have happened. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 15:45:01 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:45:01 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at, H... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122794 "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Umbridge did not try to kill Harry. > She was going to Crucio him. Umbridge set the Dementors onto Harry. Actually I could have included Lupin in my list of homicidal teachers and made it five but I just couldn't bring myself to compare him to a toad like Umbridge. Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 15:56:13 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:56:13 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Ghost Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122795 This has probably been discussed before, since almost everything has as least once. But forgive an old Auror's memory. I was rereading PS/SS and came to the part just after the sorting when they meet the ghosts. Sir Nick says the Bloody Baron is the Slytherin ghost. ""Harry looked over at the Slytherin table and saw a horrible ghost sitting there, with blank staring eyes, a gaunt face, and robes stained with silver blood." Seamus asks Sir Nicholas "how did he get covered in blood?" Nick answers "I've never asked" What is the story here? We now know that this is Unicorn blood. How did Harry and Seamus know it was blood when it was silver? I guess because of his name. (The narrator told us. And JKR didn't want to explain anything more.) What is the story behind the Bloody Baron?? Was this explained anywhere else, in the books, interview, etc.? Tonks_op From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 15:59:25 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:59:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Innocent Alby? (was Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050123155925.95106.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122796 --- lupinlore wrote: > In year three Dumbledore is finally able to bring in Remus. > Unfortunately the werewolf proves more reserved and reticent than > DD had hoped. The return of Sirius creates an enormous shambles. Not a bad scenario, Lupinlore, although I disagree with some of your assumptions, most importantly the idea that Dumbledore fails if he's less than omniscient (in other words, if he's human). But I really disaggree that Dumbledore brought in Lupin to be some kind of parent-sub for Harry. I think Lupin was brought to Hogwarts to keep him out of the way of the escaped Sirius Black. IMO Dumbledore was afraid that Lupin would fall in with Black (who was always the stronger personality of the two), and that might prove somehow dangerous for Harry. So he brought Lupin to Hogwarts to keep him away from falling under the sway of his old school pal again. Did Dumbledore have doubts about Sirius' guilt? He probably had a hard time accepting that Sirius could have turned on James after being closer than brothers for over 10 years, but in the absence of an explanation about the SK betrayal, probably felt there was no other option. Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 16:15:09 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:15:09 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: <59.1fa62aa7.2f24ac22@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122797 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > Julie says: > I hadn't thought of it this way, but it could explain one thing > that bothered me about Snape's reaction. WHY was he so angry > that Harry saw this scene of the Marauders bullying him? (Snip) > is he furious that Harry witnessed his humiliation, or furious > that Harry's action may have put both their lives further at risk? Julie Tonks now: Good thought! I had assumed that it was Snape's emotions about James that triggered this. But you make a good point. Either way Snape's emotional response is the danger. Snape must be unemotional when dealing with LV in person,or in Harry. Of course, we could expand on this. If the pensive scene also included snips from where James saves Snape's life, Snape would not want LV to know that he has a life debt to James. But we do not see that. So going by what we do see, I stick with my orginal idea that Snape put the scene in the pensive to protect Harry from LV triggering Snape's rage during the Occlumency lessons. Tonks_op From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 16:17:59 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:17:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: <59.1fa62aa7.2f24ac22@aol.com> Message-ID: <20050123161759.66355.qmail@web53104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122798 > WHY was he so angry > that Harry saw this scene of the Marauders bullying him? Yes, > Snape didn't come off too well, but James and Sirius come off > much worse. Snape already taunted Harry about James not > being the wonderful person Harry imagines. Why not use this > scene to drive that nail in deeper? You'd think Snape would feel > immense satisfaction at Harry having to face the "truth" about > James, given Snape's feelings. Instead Snape is furious. But > is he furious that Harry witnessed his humiliation, or furious > that Harry's action may have put both their lives further at risk? > > > Julie I think he was angry because it was a visual representation of what Snape thinks Harry already knows about. Remember that Harry was in the kitchen when Sirius called Snape "Snivellus". As far as Snape knows, Harry would have asked Sirius about that as soon as possible and Sirius would have told him all about it. So as soon as possible, that would be the one memory Snape would want hidden. Since Snape thinks Harry has the same reactions to things as James did, there's no doubt in my mind that he thinks Harry - like James - would find the whole thing amusing. Why? Because I believe that Snape has no idea what Harry's childhood was like. Let's posit this from Snape's POV. James and Lily are killed and Harry - somehow - repells and defeats the Dark Lord. All the WW rejoices; this is a huge deal. Orphan Harry goes to live with Lily's sister and her family. Of course Harry would be treated like a pampered little prince, a little hero, coddled and spoiled and cherished. How could Lily's sister not love Lily's child? So year 11 comes along and the Little Ponce comes to Hogwarts and Snape is going to by God make sure that another little James Potter is not in the making. The sight of Harry in the sorting lineup must have been a major jolt for Snape: "Whoa! Worse than I thought! Got to watch this one." So Harry grows up throgh five books and apparently (largely through circumstantial evidence that JKR is careful to arrange) fulfills Snape's worst assumptions about his character. Then comes the occlumency lessons and Snape gets to see Harry's memories. And he gets a major WTF moment! No spoiled, indulged prince, just a neglected boy who seemed to be everyone's target. And I would submit that Snape was thrown for a loop by this. Every preconceived notion he'd held rigidly to for five years is being overthrown. He flips through Harry's memory, like a deck of cards, trying to find one good memory, just one thing that will validate Snape's earlier views. So by the time of the last lesson, Snape is well and truly confused. There's still the issue of LV's infusion into Harry's mind and the views of the DoM/MoM, but otherwise Snape is starting to adjust his ideas. Then Draco runs in and Snape has to leave and leaves the Pensieve out. For once and for the first time, Snape doesn't assume the worst about Harry. And what does Harry do? Lives down to Snape's worst opinion of him. So Snape comes back and finds....etc. etc. Why is Snape livid? Because he was starting - just starting - to feel some empathy for Harry, just as Harry was starting - just starting - to feel some empathy for Snape based on what he saw in the Pensieve. And that empathy is now shattered on the rocks of hurt and betrayal. Why was that memory Snape's worst? IMO, because in GOF Snape told Harry that James thought he was better than "the rest of us", that Snape was one of a crowd of people that James strutted in front of. In fact, Snape was a special case, and was singled out for humiliation as some kind of special target. That was the humiliating factor for Snape: that it was Snape himself, not a whole group of others, who was the target. Magda (ready for disagreement and the usual snarky, rude private emails that come from people who hate it when I say "nice things" about Snape" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From trekkie at stofanet.dk Sun Jan 23 16:22:17 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:22:17 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherin's Ghost References: Message-ID: <005301c50167$b4b0ebc0$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122799 > This has probably been discussed before, since almost everything has > as least once. But forgive an old Auror's memory. > > I was rereading PS/SS and came to the part just after the sorting > when they meet the ghosts. Sir Nick says the Bloody Baron is the > Slytherin ghost. ""Harry looked over at the Slytherin table and saw > a horrible ghost sitting there, with blank staring eyes, a gaunt > face, and robes stained with silver blood." > > Seamus asks Sir Nicholas "how did he get covered in blood?" Nick > answers "I've never asked" > > What is the story here? We now know that this is Unicorn blood. How > did Harry and Seamus know it was blood when it was silver? I guess > because of his name. (The narrator told us. And JKR didn't want to > explain anything more.) What is the story behind the Bloody Baron?? > Was this explained anywhere else, in the books, interview, etc.? > > Tonks_op Hmm I've never though of it as unicorn blood. Sure it's silver, but isn't that because the ghost itself is more or less silver. I've always imagined ghosts as somewhat monochrome. So blood on them would also be white. Or silver, if you'd describe the ghost itself as silvery. But if it IS indeed unicorn blood the Bloody Barin is splattered with, it sure raises some wuestions as to when and where he died. And why. He must be a former Slytherin to be the Slytherin ghost. But we only know that Nick died ages ago, the Bloody Baron could theoretically have died recently... And he must be a pretty powerful ghost since he's the only one that can control Peeves. ~TrekkieGrrrl From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 16:32:52 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:32:52 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122800 "horridporrid03" wrote: > Sorry, but you *have* hinted that Voldemort > is not *Harry's* enemy. When you say that > Harry was perfectly correct to sabotage his > Occlumency lessons in order to put one over > on his teacher, you are saying that Voldemort > is not an actual threat. Two points: 1) I said Snape was (probably) sabotaging his Occlumency lessons, not Harry. 2) If Snape is a enemy it in no way implies that Voldemort is not. > What Harry did would be the equivalent of > a boxing student hiding behind a door and > knocking his coach out with a shovel when > the coach came back in the room. And if this were a war game rather than a very civilized boxing match then knocking his coach out with a shovel would be entirely appropriate. The only difference between a war game and a war is that you don't actually kill your opponent, other than that there are no rules. Occlumency lessons are war games and you can bet the next time Harry fights Voldemort there will be no rules. > Dumbledore doesn't ignore Harry when he accuses > Snape of opening his (Harry's) mind to Voldemort. > He answers simply, "I trust Severus Snape." No, he only said Snape's goading was not the reason Sirius left the house, he did not excuse Snape's crummy Occlumency lessons. But at that point I doubt if Harry much cared if Dumbledore thought the lessons were good or not, he has made up his own mind. JKR has Harry complain that the lessons were counterproductive up to the very end of the book, I don't understand why she would do that if it turned out to mean nothing. > I also take issue with the lessons not working. > In the very first lesson, Harry pushes Snape > out of his mind. Yes, things went downhill from the very first lesson. > I can't wait for HBP! Could not agree more! Eggplant From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 16:49:23 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:49:23 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122801 > > Neri: > > > > My apologies for quoting from the Eschatological Laundry List again, > > but it does seem to provide an answer to any the-world-isn't-fair > > post. The Eternal Truth that comes to mind this time is #30 in the list: > > > > "We have only ourselves, and one another. That may not be much, but > > that's all there is". > > > > Lupinlore: > No apology is necessary! Unfortunately, the quote does not go one > single iota in the direction of answering the problem. Of course, the > reply may be there are no answers. But, I don't believe that, so I > repeat, the quote is absolutely no help whatsoever. > Neri: Well of course it isn't ;-). Did anyone promise that it IS? Did you see in this whole list a single Eternal Truth that sounds even remotely like "if you have a big problem with a Dark Lord and lousy teachers, the answer can be found in this list"? On the contrary, the list ensures us time and again that the answer can be found only within ourselves (and one another). > > Lupinlore: > > P.S. Shouldn't the set of quotes really be called "the EXISTENTIAL > laundry list?" They are certainly very existential. They are not, > however, the least little bit eschatological. > Neri: The list is "eschatological" because Sheldon Kopp said it is. The list comes from his book "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him". > > Lupinlore: > Existential = the belief that what is given in experience is all there > is in reality, and that such things as "truth," "justice," etc., arise > from human striving and decisions. > Neri: Sheldon Kopp is obviously influenced by Zen and Tao ideas. Now, I wouldn't recommend trying to explain to a Zen master that his philosophy is "existential". He might hand you a mighty blow with his stick, and then ask you if your feeling of being wronged is not realty ;-D Neri From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 16:51:47 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:51:47 -0000 Subject: If Harry & Voldemort are so closely linked could Harry posses Voldemort? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122802 vmonte: Why didn't Voldemort die at GH? And why didn't Dumbledore kill Voldemort at the DoM? If Harry and Voldemort have a strong connection to each other is it possible that Dumbledore was afraid that he might kill Harry if he attacked Voldemort? Does the "essence divided" remark, mean that there is more of Voldemort inside of Harry than we have been told? Is the reason why Voldemort appears like a caricature villain because what was left of his humanity/soul is now sharing space inside Harry's mind? And is this the real reason why no one other than Harry can kill Voldemort? If so, what will kill Voldemort then? I'm guessing (as many other posters have also guessed) that Harry will realize that he must sacrifice himself to finally rid the WW of Voldemort. Is the kiss Harry is going to get (mentioned by JKR) really from another girl or from a dementor? Will Snape then save Harry by putting a stopper on his death? Are the dementors attracted to Harry (as I previously posted) because they are attracted to the essence inside Harry, a.k.a. Tom Riddle? Also, if Voldemort is able to posses Harry, could Harry turn the tables on Voldemort and posses him? I previously posted that maybe one of the steps Voldemort has taken to become immortal has made him very much like a dementor--a soulless creature. Perhaps Harry's patronus will push Voldemort through the veil. So Harry is saved by his mother at the beginning of the series, and by his father at the end of the series. Vivian From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 17:16:29 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:16:29 -0000 Subject: Innocent Albus? (was RE: Why should Harry...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122803 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: Lupinlore said: >When JKR speaks of DD she is speaking about the "epitome of >goodness" that exists in her mind, NOT about the figure that exists >in her books, for whom the title "epitome of goodness" often seems >rather inappropriate. Tonks replies: I understand the difficulty of taking what you have in your mind and putting it on paper in such a way as to convey what you really mean. However, I do not think that JKR has a problem with that. I see DD as the *epitome of goodness*. I see his as a very wise, very saintly figure, so she conveyed her meaning to me. Lupinlore said: >But, back to the redemptive scenario for Alby. Here's how one such >sequence might play out, starting from Harry's arrival at Hogwarts: >Albus knows that Harry lacks adult emotional support of the kind a >parent would provide. (SNIP) >The two obvious adults to "bring in" as a kind of support structure >for Harry would be Sirius and/or Remus. (Snip) Tonks replies: I don't think for one moment that DD is concerned with providing a parental figure for Harry. Harry is coming of age. He has had his parent figures (FLAWED that they be) and it is time for him to move out into the world. DD is there and Harry turns to him when needed. Harry does get emotional support from Hagrid, as an adult friend. Harry is not a whimpering little boy that needs a mother to cling to. True at one point in GoF he gets the emotional comforting that he needs from Molly. That was very appropriate since Harry had been through a very traumatic situation. But for the most part Harry is strong and able to cope. Like most children his age his peer group is his main support. Lupinlore: >But, the events of the first year prove that Albus has indulged his >usual (but lovable) flaw of being too optimistic. Harry just isn't >ready to trust anyone, even someone so positive toward him as Hagrid. Tonks here: I disagree. Optimism is not a flaw. And Harry DOES trust. He trust Hagrid and DD. He trusts his new friends. Harry is not lacking in basic trust. Lupinlore said: >Year Four is brittle and somewhat desperate. (Snip) By now DD is in >a state of panic. Not only has he singularly failed to provide an >appropriate emotional support system for Harry, Harry is himself in clear danger. Tonks replies: OH GIVE ME A BREAK! DD is not *in a state of panic*. DD is always confident, and optimistic (as you have said yourself). And I don't think that with DD around that Harry is ever in as much danger as we all think. I think that DD watches over Harry pretty well. Tonks_op (Wand still out and pointed>>>>>) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 18:11:46 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:11:46 -0000 Subject: Innocent Albus? (was RE: Why should Harry...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122804 Tonks replies: OH GIVE ME A BREAK! DD is not *in a state of panic*. DD is always confident, and optimistic (as you have said yourself). And I don't think that with DD around that Harry is ever in as much danger as we all think. I think that DD watches over Harry pretty well. > Tonks_op > (Wand still out and pointed>>>>>) Alla: Yeah, that is what he says... I can go with Neri's Dumbledore looking in the essence of the person and knowing what the person is, but Nope, I disagree that Dumbledore is always watches and manages to keep Harry out of harm way. For example, Dumbledore managed quite nicely to let Harry be abducted and be forced to go through Graveyard. In the batle of MOM we see another "not confident" at all Dumbledore. I mean, he may be confident when he battles with Voldie, but he is NOT confident at all,when Harry is possessed. He seems scared to me. "Harry made to run out from behind his statue guard, but Dumbledore bellowed, "Stay where you are, Harry!" For the first time, Dumbledore sounded frightened. Harry could not see why" - OOP, p.815, paperback. So, I really don't see Confident Dumbledore in this scene. On the other hand, this exchange gives me some hope against Manipulative!Dumbledore. It sure does not look to me that Dumbledore together with Snape cooked up a plan to "open Harry's mind further to Voldemort", because then Dumbledore would not have been frightened, IMO. So, if Snape did that, I think he acted entirely on his own. Oh, back to Albie. You are not saying that Dumbledore does not make mistakes by any chance, do you? Because he admitted plenty of them to Harry. I can swallow good, but very flawed Dumbledore, I absolutely don't see Saintly! and always in the right Dumbledore after OOP. But that is just my opinion, of course and no I don't have my wand with me. :o) Alla From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sun Jan 23 19:01:03 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:01:03 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] L.O.O.N.s, was Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen... Message-ID: <1fa.341d4dc.2f254e6f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122805 In a message dated 1/23/2005 7:13:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, editor at texas.net writes: Chancie: > I don't know what you mean by > > "L.O.O.N. on deck." > > But it doesn't sound very nice. This is list culture, to which you have not yet been exposed--probably because most of the L.O.O.N.s are not very active posters these days. The reference was not to you, but to me. I am a founding L.O.O.N. A L.O.O.N. is a member of the League Of Obsessive Nitpickers. The accolade is bestowed by other L.O.O.N.s, almost always onlist, following the exhibition of a consistent and lunatic dedication to the details of canon. See below for an example. Chancie: > And sorry, but Umbridge > did try to kill him, unless of course having > dementor's sent to your town to hunt you > down and kiss you, is your idea of a hot date. =) But the statement was that Harry's *teachers* tried to kill him, and at the point Umbridge sent the dementors, she was not yet his teacher. See? ~Amanda, L.O.O.N. ******************************************************** Chancie: You are right in saying that she wasn't his teacher at that time, but IMO, the fact that she did become his teacher after the incident is still in essence a teacher that tried to kill Harry. And thanks for the "L.O.O.N." education. As you said I had never heard of it, but what does the "LOON stand for exactly. You omited that info in your post, and now I am curious. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 23 19:05:45 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:05:45 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at, H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122806 > "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > > Umbridge did not try to kill Harry. > > She was going to Crucio him. Eggplant: > Umbridge set the Dementors onto Harry. Yes, she did, but as I clarified in another post, you were specifically referring to attempts by Harry's *teachers.* At the time Umbridge set the dementors on Harry, she was in no way a teacher of anyone; she was a MoM official. During her tenure as Harry's *teacher,* she did unspeakably sadistic things to him, but did not attempt to kill him. > Actually I could have > included Lupin in my list of homicidal teachers and made it five but > I just couldn't bring myself to compare him to a toad like Umbridge. Actually, except for the fact that Werewolf!Lupin was in the forest at the same time as Harry, Harry was in no danger from Lupin at any point that I can remember. There was no confrontation. I might be wrong, please correct me and provide a canon reference. ~Amanda From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 23 20:00:26 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:00:26 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Harry (14) Message-ID: <20050123200026.91942.qmail@web25103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122807 "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" takes us on to the mental plane. Once again the first Defence against the Dark Arts class gives us the clue. Prof. Moody starts by talking about the Imperius Curse. This is a curse to make a person do exactly what you want them to. It's total mind control. In later lessons Moody actually puts the curse on the students. We see that Harry is the only one who can resist the curse. 'Moody insisted on putting Harry through his paces four times in a row, until Harry could throw off the curse entirely.' These lessons are vital for Harry, for although Moody is Harry's deadly enemy, Harry's will-power is strengthened, which helps him defeat Voldemort. At the end of the year Harry and Voldemort fight a duel. This is what happens: 'As Harry shouted, "Expelliarmus!" Voldemort cried, "Avada Kedavra!" A jet of green light issued from Voldemort's wand just as a jet of red light blasted from Harry's - they met in midair - and suddenly Harry's wand was vibrating as though an electric charge were surging through it; his hand seized up around it; he couldn't have released it if he'd wanted to - and a narrow beam of light connected the two wands, neither red nor green, but bright, deep gold. Harry, following the beam with his astonished gaze, saw that Voldemort's long white fingers too were gripping a wand that was shaking and vibrating.[...] The golden thread connecting Harry and Voldemort splintered; though the wands remained connected, a thousand more beams arced high over Harry and Voldemort, crisscrossing all around them, until they were enclosed in a golden, dome-shaped web, a cage of light, beyond which the Death Eaters circled like jackals, their cries strangely muffled now. . . . [...] And then an unearthly and beautiful sound filled the air. ... It was coming from every thread of the light-spun web vibrating around Harry and Voldemort. It was a sound Harry recognised, though he had heard it only once before in his life: phoenix song. It was the sound of hope to Harry. . . the most beautiful and welcome thing he had ever heard in his life. . . . He felt as though the song were inside him instead of just around him. ... It was the sound he connected with Dumbledore, and it was almost as though a friend were speaking in his ear. . . . Don't break the connection. I know. Harry told the music, I know I mustn't. . . but no sooner had he thought it, than the thing became much harder to do. His wand began to vibrate more powerfully than ever . . . and now the beam between him and Voldemort changed too ... it was as though large beads of light were sliding up and down the thread connecting the wands - Harry felt his wand give a shudder under his hand as the light beads began to slide slowly and steadily his way. . . . The direction of the beads movement was now toward him, from Voldemort, and he felt his wand shudder angrily. . . . As the closest bead of light moved nearer to Harry's wand tip, the wood beneath his fingers grew so hot he feared it would burst into flame. The closer that bead moved, the harder Harry's wand vibrated; he was sure his wand would not survive contact with it; it felt as though it was about to shatter under his fingers - He concentrated every last particle of his mind upon forcing the bead back toward Voldemort, his ears full of phoenix song, his eyes furious, fixed . . . 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. . . . One of the beads of light was quivering, inches from the tip of Voldemort's wand. Harry didn't understand why he was doing it, didn't know what it might achieve . . . but he now concentrated as he had never done in his life on forcing that bead of light right back into Voldemort's wand . . . and slowly . . . very slowly ... it moved along the golden thread ... it trembled for a moment. . . and then it connected. . . . At once, Voldemort's wand began to emit echoing screams of pain.' We can see here that Harry's will-power is actually greater than Voldemort's. Harry's resolve is strengthened by the song of the phoenix, the symbol of the resurrection. The higher self wants to kill the new soul as it's not under the control of the higher self, but the new soul is able to resist the higher self. The latter can neither control nor kill the new soul. The soul has won the victory on the mental plane, fortified by the power of the resurrection. It has broken the fourth chain to the universe of time and space. ===== 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 tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 20:18:22 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:18:22 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -The real reasons for DD not teaching Harry... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122808 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > vmonte said: > > Snape is the master of non-emotion? Snape is ruled by his emotions. IMO he is the worst choice for a teacher. > > Tonks here: I see Snape as cool and aloof. The only emotions you see him display are hate and anger. People here have argued as to his acting or really feeling the hate. I think sometimes he is acting a bit, but mostly when it comes to Harry and Snape's memory of James projected onto Harry, Snape is feeling hatred. But all other times he is cold, unfeeling. Not the *heart on the sleeve type*. Vmonte said: Also, I wonder if there is another reason that Dumbledore did not > want to teach Harry Occlumency himself. JKR recently told a fan that there was another reason as to why Dumbledore did not kill Voldemort at the DoM ((Snip) I always took it to mean that perhaps the connection between Harry and Voldemort is stronger than Voldemort even knows, and that if DD were to kill Voldemort, Harry would also die. Tonks here: DD does not kill LV, because DD does not use the AK curse. We have never seen DD kill anyone, and I don't think that we will ever see him do that. He does have members of the Order of the Phoenix that might, but have we ever seen that? Don't they just use self defense? And then they round the bad guys up and let the Aurors process them? Vmonte said: > What if there is more to the reason why Dumbledore did not want to > teach Harry Occlumency himself. Maybe Dumbledore did not want to > risk Harry taking a glimpse into his own mind and finding out > information DD isn't ready to share. What that info could be, who > knows... Tonks replies: I think DD is a very skilled wizard. I don't think that Harry can see anything that DD doesn't want him to see, or LV either for that matter. The reason DD doesn't teach Harry is because of the connection Harry has with LV. LV would see DD and he hates DD (remember the snake in Harry's mind wanted to kill DD). DD KNOWS it would be to dangerious for Harry to have LV's murderous rage come out. LV would overpower Harry, because Harry does not have the skill to resist him. Tonks_op From editor at texas.net Sun Jan 23 20:25:30 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:25:30 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122809 Okay, this is very long. It's a summary of canon points dealing with Occlumency and Harry's resistance to it, with some interpretation interleaved and following. Horridporrid (great name) said: > > I also take issue with the lessons not working. > > In the very first lesson, Harry pushes Snape > > out of his mind. Eggplant riposted: > Yes, things went downhill from the very first lesson. Okay, I've been wanting to do this for a while. Here goes. In the very first lesson, Harry himself shows he understands the stakes: [Snape speaking of Voldemort]: " '..he has realized that he might be able to access your thoughts and feelings in return --' " 'And he might try and make me do things?' asked Harry. 'Sir?' he added hurriedly. 'He might,' said Snape.... [OoP, p. 533] Immediately following this, the incident where the Death Eaters escaped and Voldemort was happy occurred, and Harry apparently decided that the Occlumency had weakened him. [542] Harry comes to feel he's getting worse with every lesson [553]. He finds himself dreaming about the corridor almost every night [554]. However, what he says about this shows his focus is not on improving in Occlumency, but in solving the corridor puzzle: " 'I'm getting bored walking down that corridor every night....I just wish the door would open, I'm sick of simply staring at it...' " [554]. So instead of fighting the dreams, he's still a willing participant. And I'm also willing to bet that the first foray into Occlumency, when Harry did resist Snape to a degree, did strengthen Harry's mind a bit, and so Voldemort (now aware of Harry) upped the intensity of what he was showing Harry to overcome this. And it works; Harry focuses on the dreams and not resistance. The next mention, we see just how much Harry is not applying himself: "After a few minutes, however, he remembered that he was supposed to be emptying his mind of all emotion before he slept, as Snape kept reminding him at the end of every Occlumency lesson. He tried for a moment or two, but the thought of Snape on top of memories of Umbridge merely increased his sense of grumbling resentment, and he found himself focusing instead on how much he loathed the pair of them."... [there is another dream of the corridor] "..Harry awoke abruptly with his right hand stretched in front of him in th edarkness, to open a door that was hundreds of miles away. He let it fall with a feeling of mingled disappointment and guilt. He knew he should not have seen the door, but at the same time, felt so consumed with curiosity about what was behind it that he could nto help feeling annoyed with Ron...If he could have saved his snore for just another minute..."[577] So here, Harry seems to have completely succumbed, to the extent that he has evidently forgotten that Voldemort is aware of him and very likely in control of these dreams now. He still behaves and reacts as if he's an unknown observer. And he devotes "a moment or two" to Occlumency and then allows himself to fall asleep in an emotional state. Then comes the scene where Harry is "in" Voldemort for the conversation with Rookwood. [584-586]I can't see that it would have helped Voldemort's purposes, so I postulate that Harry did see this one by accident--but he left on such a violent note (after seeing "his" reflection) that I think Voldemort has just been forcibly reminded of the connection. He rejects Ron's solution to talk to someone (Ron does not specify a name): " 'I haven't got to tell anyone,' said Harry shortly. 'I wouldn't have seen it at all if I could do Occlumency. I'm supposed to have learned to shut this stuff out. That's what they want.' "By 'they' he meant Dumbledore." [587] But here, Harry is using the existence of the Occlumency lessons to give himself an excuse not to talk to Dumbledore. He does *not* apply himself any harder. He didn't mean what he was saying, because when Hermione says the very same thing, he reacts very angrily: "Then, quite abruptly, she said, 'But you shouldn't have seen this at all, Harry.' " 'What?' he said, taken aback. " 'You're supposed to be learning how to close your mind to this sort of thing,' said Hermione, suddenly stern. " 'I know I am,' said Harry. 'But--' " 'Well, I think we should just try and forget what you saw,' said Hermione firmly. 'And you ought to put in a bit more effort on your Occlumency from now on.' "Harry was so angry with her that he did not talk to her for the rest of the day." [589] When Snape discovers the memory of the conversation with Rookwood, he is quite angry as well. Harry *lies* to Snape about the number of dreams he has had. [590-591] I feel Snape pegs him accurately--Harry does want them to continue, because he feels they are a valuable channel into Voldemort's doings. Possibly because, like Sirius, he wants to be involved; possibly because he does not want to lose his "specialness" after a summer of being totally ignored. Canon does not tell us this. But Harry still seems to have forgotten that as of just before Christmas, Voldemort is in the driver's seat, and neither Snape (who knows) or Hermione (who probably figured it out) have explicitly reminded Harry of this. I do believe if Harry realized he was being controlled all this time, he would have mastered Occlumency quite rapidly indeed; but Harry is not the master of his own mind anymore. Voldemort's manipulations have been almost constant. After Harry sees Snape's memories, Harry anticipates a reaction from Snape very much in line with the context Eggplant seems to apply: as a personal milestone in a personal struggle. Snape's reaction, however, is not personal in the slightest. He recovers and continues; this was a risk he accepted when he took on the job. [591-592] This is borne out by Snape's anger following the next casting of Legilimens, when Harry gets to the corridor. He is angrier then, than a few minutes before when Harry saw his own memories: "For some reason, Snape seemed even angrier than he had done two minutes before, when Harry had seen into his own memories." [593] Harry just doesn't get it. Harry continues to have a limited vision of this as an issue just between them. But Snape is about the business at hand, not some one-on-one power struggle. He also may be angry because Voldemort was making himself aware of Harry's mind mere minutes after Snape has said to Harry that he, Snape, was responsible for spying on the Dark Lord. Harry, because he has failed to apply himself adequately, may just have put both the spy effort and Snape himself at risk. I'd be angry myself, in Snape's position. Shortly after this, the D.A. is discovered and Dumbledore is no longer available to Harry as a resource, even if Harry *were* willing to let go his childish resentment and approach him. In Harry's next dream, we finally see a faint sign of resistance: "There was something in this room he wanted very, very much... "Something he wanted ... or somebody else wanted... "His scar was hurting... "BANG! Harry awoke instantly, confused and angry." [635] This is the first instance in any of these dreams of Harry realizing on any level that he was not the sole dreamer of the dream. Something *somebody else wanted.* And his scar hurts, and when he wakes on this very thought, he wakes confused and angry. Not disappointed and guilty. He was, finally, on some level of his mind, fighting back. And it's *hard.* Alas, he doesn't seem to have realized what happened, or he might have been encouraged in his Occlumency. And he falls almost immediately back into the feelings Voldemort has prepared for him: "He lay quite still and silent while the pain in his scar subsided and disappointment washed over him. He felt as though a wonderful treat had been snatched from him at the very last moment...He had got so close that time..." ... "His stomach gave a sickening jolt as he remembered that he had Occlumency the following evening..." [636] I have wondered if his "sickening jolt" was a little gift from Voldemort, who I have no doubt was aware of the efforts to strengthen Harry's resistance, and was resisting them by manipulatng Harry's feelings. Because Harry so easily could have interpreted his realization that "someone else" wanted what was in the Department of Mysteries as a positive milestone in his Occlumency. Then, in the final Occlumency lesson, Harry again *lies* to Snape about how much he's been working. [638] Why does he try to hide this? No wonder Snape is irritated with him; Snape has done many things to Harry, but nowhere in canon has he *ever* lied to him. In my interpretation of Snape, lying to a student would be beneath his dignity and offend his subtlety. So Harry lying to him must seem an insult on top of the frustration he feels that Harry is not working. Snape, as Eggplant has so often pointed out, does nothing to remove the Pensieve before he leaves the office on this occasion. I, though, don't feel he should have needed to. He is on the same side as Harry. He is extending a certain amount of trust to Harry, as he has to Sirius, at Dumbledore's request. This was an emergency; he was needed to attend a student of his House. And he had swept from the room once before without a backward glance to make sure Harry followed, and without emptying or securing the Pensieve, the night that Umbridge tried to throw Trelawney out. No, this was a reasonable expectation on Snape's part, and it was a failing of Harry's that he betrayed both Snape's and Dumbledore's trust by invading Snape's memories. The same curiosity that Voldemort is using to keep Harry on the hook in his dreams, makes Harry stick his face into Snape's memories. Ah, creepy thought--I hope Voldemort wasn't behind *that* curiosity as well, or Snape surely is toast. Then Harry lies to his best friends, about why the lessons stopped. He continues having dreams, and we see again that the Occlumency may have had an effect, although too late now for the lessons to have taken advantage of: "...It had probably been then that he had spoken aloud...*Just a bit farther*...for he could feel his conscious self struggling to wake..and before he had reached the end of the row, he had found himself lying in bed again, gazing up at the canopy of his four- poster." [682] His conscious mind is now trying to bring him out of the dream. He *is* fighting the infiltration. But now he is doing it alone and unguided, and is indeed easy prey for Voldemort, for later in the passage we read " 'You are *trying* to block your mind, aren't you?' said Hermione, looking beadily at Harry. 'You are keeping going with your Occlumency?' " 'Of course I am,' said Harry, trying to sound as though this quesion was insulting, but not quite meeting her eye. The truth was that he was so intensely curious about what was hidden in that room full of dusty orbs that he was quite keen for the dreams to continue." [682] and later "He also suspected that part of his mind--the part that often spoke in Hermione's voice--now felt guilty on the occasions it strayed down the corridor ending in the black door, and sought to wake him before he could reach journey's end." [682] So the result of his Occlumency was a very slow-to-grow (likely as the result of Voldemort pushing back) ability to resist, but because he did not fully communicate with Snape and had decided very early on that the lessons were weakening him, he did not recognize it as such. By the time he becomes aware that a part of him is resisting the dreams, he is *resenting* that part of him, so enmeshed by Voldemort has he become. The Occlumency had been strengthening his mind, albeit very slowly, but Voldemort has been manipulating his heart. And Harry follows his heart. So by this point, his mind and his heart are in conflict in the dreams. And Harry "sides" with his heart. So he is well-prepared ground for the vision of Sirius, which is the next dream-vision that occurs [727-728] And his reaction to it is entirely emotional, to the point of emotionally rejecting Hermione's logic [731-737], and we know what happened after that. My point here, is that Eggplant's statement "Things went downhill from the very first lesson" is only correct in terms of Snape/Harry interpersonal relations. I think it is demonstrable from canon that the Occlumency lessons *were* producing results. But they were doing so very very slowly, possibly because Voldemort was resisting by manipulating Harry's emotions. Added to this, Harry has never been very good at acquiring skills gradually--the things he is good at, he is immediately good at (and I include the Patronus charm, for he mastered it very quickly, both we and Harry are told). Probably Harry had no chance all along, if Voldemort was blocking his desire to learn Occlumency. But I disagree strongly that the lessons were of no good, or "went downhill" from the first one. ~Amanda From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Jan 23 20:24:33 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:24:33 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122810 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > In response to the discussions here: As I was reading the different > threads this thought came to me. I think that this pulls it all > together. > > LV gets his power from us, from our negative emotions. We all know > that LV kills mostly though other people. Snape was a DE. He > probably did kill someone and could again. Snape puts his thoughts > in the pensive, but NOT because he doesn't want Harry to see them. > He puts them there because they will be a danger to Harry if LV sees > them. Snape's knows that this is his own weakness and we should give > him credit for knowing that. He puts them in the pensive because he > expects that he will come in contact with LV while teaching Harry. > > Look at Snape's reaction when Harry sees what is in the pensive. He, > the MASTER of non-emotion and control, looses control. He grabs > Harry's arm and throws him to the floor. What do you think would > have happened to Harry if it were LV and not Harry looking into the > memory, not in the pensive but in Snape's mind? I don't think that > our dear Harry would have faired so well!! > > Snape put the memory in the pensive to protect Harry. And he stops > the lessons to protect Harry. This, of course, is NOT a good sign. > It points to the potential of Snape again loosing control to LV. And > I think that this is also the reason that DD doesn't trust Snape to > be the DADA teacher. > > I really think that I am on to something here. > > Tonks_op I think I am understanding your theory, and it's a good one, except, if LV saw Snape's memories through Harry's memory, wouldn't Snape be the one who would be in danger? If LV saw Snape's memories in Harry's mind, LV would see memories that could be used against Snape. Maybe, even tip LV off that Snape is *helping* the Order by teaching Harry this specific skill, or maybe tip off LV that Snape is an Occlumens!? Taking your theory and running with it, maybe Snape got as upset as he did with Harry because Harry has inadvertently let Snape's memories in and now Snape is in danger if LV sees these memories in Harry. As for DD not *trusting* Snape to be the DADA teacher, I think it's more that Snape is maybe one of *the best* potions teachers, and DD doesn't want to loss that. And FYI, I'm behind you 100% on the respecting teachers because they are teachers thread! Children need to respect their elders, they don't have to like them just respect them! Ms. Luna From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 20:32:47 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:32:47 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at, H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122811 "Amanda Geist" wrote: > At the time Umbridge set the dementors on Harry, > she was in no way a teacher of anyone; she > was a MoM official. Yes, and about a month later Harry would be quite correct to point to Umbridge and say, "See that woman, she is my teacher and she tried to kill me." > Harry was in no danger from Lupin at any point > that I can remember. There was no confrontation. You could be correct and I rather hope you are because I like Lupin a lot. Eggplant From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sun Jan 23 20:37:41 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:37:41 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122812 /snip> I am saying that LV uses > other people to do his killing most of the time. That Snape has > probably killed before. That LV uses the negative emotions of others > toward his own ends. And in the case of Snape not overcoming his > intense rage at James, this opens Harry to danger in the Occlumency > lessons. And this is why Snape puts the memory in the pensive. > > > > Betsy: > > Actually, I'd say that Snape in definitely *not* the master of > > control and non-emotion when anything regarding the Mauraders > comes up. Look at his reactions in the Shrieking Shack at the end > of PoA. Snape was almost pure emotion at that point. > > > > Tonks now: > That is what I am trying to say. Snape is only emotional when > anything to do with the Maureders comes up. This is Snape's > weakness. And LV uses a person's weakness, and works through it. > That is why Snape had to put that memory in the pensive. He did it > to protect Harry. > > > > > Betsy: > > Again I'm not clear on what you're saying here. (I'm really sorry, > > I'm not trying to be difficult!) Are you saying that Voldemort > could use the negative emotions of Snape to control him and sort of > set him loose on Harry? > > > Tonks now: > > Yes. LV would use Snape to kill Harry. Look at what Snape did when > he saw Harry looking in the pensive. Snape lost his cool. LV would > have looked through Harry into Snape, triggered Snape's rage and > Harry would have been in very serious danger. Snape knew this. Snape > knew his weakness and how the Dark Lord could use it. So he put this > weak part into the pensive to protect Harry during the session. Most > of the time Snape IS in control of his emotions, but not when > thoughts of James come up. And Snape is wise to know this and to > take the necessary steps to protect Harry during the sessions. > > >snip > > > Tonks_op Okay, I get it now. Snape took out his memories of James and the maurader's because Snape knew it was his *lose control button* and if LV saw those memories through Harry LV could *use* Snape to kill Harry! Got it! But, once again, following along your theory of LV seeing Snape's memories in Harry's mind, I still think Snape may have done it to protect himself! I mean, if LV saw that or any of the other memories in Harry's mind, he would know that Snape had been helping the Order against LV. That would blow Snape's cover with LV. Although you make a very good point about that specific memory with the maurader's in it. Ms. Luna, who apologizes for two posts on the same thread, I should have read through the entire thread before posting the first time. From trekkie at stofanet.dk Sun Jan 23 20:40:26 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:40:26 +0100 Subject: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) References: Message-ID: <001001c5018b$c543bd40$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122813 Some of the discussions here has made me wonder if Snape is capable of making a patronus at all. To make a patrnus, you must have a very HAPPY memory. And Snape doesn't strike me as a man with a lot of happy memories. That is one thing that is often overlooked when we discuss Snape, and Snape's behaviour in general. We all assume that he KNOWS how to behave and just don't give a *beep* about doing so. Well, my postulate is that he's not. Now, I haven't been am member of this group for long, but it amazes me that noone has mentioned more about Snape's childhood. I find it rather obvious that his own childhood has been the one of an abused child. And his behavioral pattern fits this very well. No wonder Snape hides behind his sarcastic mask. Better not let anyone get close to you - that way they can't hurt you! I don't think he's sadistic in the usual sense of that word either. But again it's the typical pattern:People who are beaten as kids are far more inclined to slap their own children, and though Im not saying Snape was physically abused (though I would very much think so, the pattern even fits that of sexual abuse too, though I don't think JKR would ever agree to that, it's children's books after all) he was almost certainly mentally abused as a child. Abused children show many "abnormal" patterns in their behaviour. and though some may grow up and act as "normal" responsible adults later on, some just can't. They do not have the basis for that. And Snape was one of the latter. Then, when a child like this comes to a boarding school, two things can happen, theycan get a better life, surrounded by helping, caring adults, or they can become pariahs here too. Now, Judging from his "greying undies" I don't see Snape as someone coming from a rich family. Pureblood, most likely, but not rich. And even on arrival, he was a "weird" kid, with all his dark magic. Add to that a big honker and greasy hair (and some of us HAVE hair that looks greasy even with daily washing...) and you have the perfect scapegoat. I doubt Snape had many friends in Slytherin too. Noone seems to have in any way come to his defenses when the Marauders were picking on him at the "upside-down" episode. And int IS canon that it wasn't the first time they'd chosen Snape as their favourite victim. Some kids are natural victims, often kids from abusive households. I guess wizards can be alcoholics too, or be addicted to illegal potions and whatnot. And Snape's home might very well have been like that. it DOES fit his behavioral pattern as the "victim" And then comes this "Fhrer" in the shape of Voldemort and all of a sudden the underdog gets a chance to get POWER! WHO can't REALLY blame Snape for grasping that? No it's not a noble and ethic thing to do. But it's very REAL and human. A LOT of people did the same during World War 2 and became nazis. And of course the nazi parallel to Voldie and his deatheaters are so obvious that it almost screams to high heaven. Now the big issue is: WHAT is it that caused Snape to turn around and seek Dumbledore? And at the same time made Dumbledore trust Snape 100%? It must have been something pretty big. Possibly connected to what happened in GH. But we'll have to wait and see. One of the reasons why Snape is at Hogwarts is, I believe, protection. He's not safe outside Hogwarts. And with his obvious skill as a Potions Master, he has a plausible reason to stay there. No, he's not an ideal teacher after our standards. But again, remember how old fashoined the Wizarding World is. Go back 75 years and he would have been a MILD teacher. Add to that that he's probably never recieved any formal education in how to teach, and I think he does a pretty good job. ~TrekkieGrrrl (avid Snape defender, in case you didn't know *L*) From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 20:50:18 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:50:18 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -The real reasons for DD not teaching Harry... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122814 >Tonks wrote: I see Snape as cool and aloof. The only emotions you see him display are hate and anger. People here have argued as to his acting or really feeling the hate. I think sometimes he is acting a bit, but mostly when it comes to Harry and Snape's memory of James projected onto Harry, Snape is feeling hatred. But all other times he is cold, unfeeling. Not the *heart on the sleeve type*. vmonte responds: I disagree. And you contradict yourself in your answer. >I (vmonte) said: Also, I wonder if there is another reason that Dumbledore did not want to teach Harry Occlumency himself. JKR recently told a fan that there was another reason as to why Dumbledore did not kill Voldemort at the DoM ((Snip) I always took it to mean that perhaps the connection between Harry and Voldemort is stronger than Voldemort even knows, and that if DD were to kill Voldemort, Harry would also die. >Tonks responded: DD does not kill LV, because DD does not use the AK curse. We have never seen DD kill anyone, and I don't think that we will ever see him do that. He does have members of the Order of the Phoenix that might, but have we ever seen that? Don't they just use self defense? And then they round the bad guys up and let the Aurors process them? vmonte now: Yes, I agree that Dumbledore does not fit the profile of a killer, which makes me very happy. I wish this was the only reason for why he didn't try to destroy Voldemort at the DoM, but it isn't according to JKR. From: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/news_view.cfm?id=80 JKR: "The other question that I am surprised no one has asked me since Phoenix came out?I thought that people would?is why Dumbledore did not kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in the ministry. I know that I am giving a lot away to people who have not read the book. Although Dumbledore gives a kind of reason to Voldemort, it is not the real reason. When I mentioned that question to my husband?I told Neil that I was going to mention it to you?he said that it was because Dumbledore knows that there are two more books to come. As you can see, we are on the same literary wavelength. [Laughter]. That is not the answer; Dumbledore knows something slightly more profound than that." So, Dumbledore did not give the real reason to Voldemort. But, what is it I wonder? I think that the connection between Harry and Voldemort is stronger than even Voldemort or Harry know. So, if Voldemort can posses Harry, can Harry learn to posses Voldemort? Vivian From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 20:56:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:56:57 -0000 Subject: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: <001001c5018b$c543bd40$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122815 TrekkieGrrrl wrote: Some of the discussions here has made me wonder if Snape is capable of making a patronus at all. To make a patronus, you must have a very HAPPY memory. And Snape doesn't strike me as a man with a lot of happy memories. Alla: I believe he can produce the Patronus. Didn't JKR mention at the Eddinburg festival that she cannot reveal Snape'st and patronus, because they are to essential to the plot or something to that effect? Trekkiegrrrl: That is one thing that is often overlooked when we discuss Snape, and Snape's behaviour in general. We all assume that he KNOWS how to behave and just don't give a *beep* about doing so. Well, my postulate is that he's not. Alla: Cannot speak for everybody else, but I most certainly DON'T make such assumption. What I do think though that his apparently unhappy childhood ( and NO, we don't know for sure that he was abused at all, as Charme said earlier - couple of memories don't necessarily make unhappy childhood. We don't even know for sure if the boy in those memories was Snape) often used as an excuse that Snape is INCAPABLE of changing his behaviour and therefore it is OK for him to stay that way. Am I being clear? I am not saying that Snape necessarily knows how to behave normally, I am objecting to that he should not be forced to change such behaviour. Trekkiegrrl: Now, I haven't been am member of this group for long, but it amazes me that noone has mentioned more about Snape's childhood. I find it rather obvious that his own childhood has been the one of an abused child. And his behavioral pattern fits this very well. No wonder Snape hides behind his sarcastic mask. Better not let anyone get close to you - that way they can't hurt you! Alla: It is a possibility, I'll grant you that, it is not a given, IMO. That possibility is partially the reason why Snape became so less sympathetic to me in OOP. He supposedly knows what does it mean to be bullied, if not at home, then at school and then he turns around and does the same thing to Harry and Neville. Trekkiegrrl: I don't think he's sadistic in the usual sense of that word either. But again it's the typical pattern:People who are beaten as kids are far more inclined to slap their own children. Alla: It happens often, it is NOT happening always. Trekkiegrrl: Abused children show many "abnormal" patterns in their behaviour. and though some may grow up and act as "normal" responsible adults later on, some just can't. They do not have the basis for that. And Snape was one of the latter. Alla: If that is true, it does not justify in the slightest, IMO, that Snape's students should suffer because he is incapable of normal behaviour. Trekkiegrrl: One of the reasons why Snape is at Hogwarts is, I believe, protection. He's not safe outside Hogwarts. And with his obvious skill as a Potions Master, he has a plausible reason to stay there. No, he's not an ideal teacher after our standards. But again, remember how old fashoined the Wizarding World is. Go back 75 years and he would have been a MILD teacher. Add to that that he's probably never recieved any formal education in how to teach, and I think he does a pretty good job. Alla: Well, I do agree that Snape is in Hogwarts because of the protection. I still wish that Dumbledore would hire another Potionmaster and kept Snape strictly for research purposes... :o) Just my opinion, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 20:56:43 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:56:43 -0000 Subject: Innocent Albus? (was RE: Why should Harry...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122816 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > Yeah, that is what he says... I can go with Neri's Dumbledore > looking in the essence of the person and knowing what the person is, but Nope, I disagree that Dumbledore is always watches and manages to keep Harry out of harm way. Tonks responds: As to protecting Harry. Harry isn't dead yet is he? I am not saying that DD keeps him always from danger. The world is a dangerous place, especially the WW. By watching over I mean that DD is always there is some form when Harry needs him most, not that he watches him 24/7. Alla: (Snip)> In the battle of MOM we see another "not confident" at all > Dumbledore. I mean, he may be confident when he battles with Voldie, but he is NOT confident at all,when Harry is possessed. He seems scared to me. > > "Harry made to run out from behind his statue guard, but Dumbledore bellowed, "Stay where you are, Harry!" > For the first time, Dumbledore sounded frightened. Harry could not > see why" - OOP, p.815, paperback. Tonks now: It says *for the first time, DD sounded frightened* this implys that he has not been before. So there is something about The whole Harry - LV thing that is very, very important. JKR put this in to show us just how dangerious (and important) the situation is. Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 20:59:39 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:59:39 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122817 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, snholmes at e... wrote: > > > > Steph: > > > > Sorry to ask this question if it was one resolved long ago, I was > just wondering whether or not anyone ever figured out what happened > to Sirius' motorbike (the one Hagrid rode on that Halloween night to > deliver Harry to the Dursleys'.) I *think* I recall JKR stating in > an interview that we should have figured that out. > > > > Stephanie > Tonks here: > I think that everyone here decided that it probably made it way to > Arthur Weasley's home. > > Tonks_op bboyminn: Discussion of Sirius's motorbike/motorcyle in the past have been plentiful, but not necessarily fruitful. While we have had long deep discussion, no conclusion or concensus has ever been reached. Personally, I believe that Hagrid was stuck with the Bike since Sirius was caught very soon after Harry was delivered to the Dursleys. So, the motorbike is stashed somewhere at or near Hogwarts just waiting for Harry to discover it. I doubt that it is stashed at the Weasleys, it would have been very unlikely for something that cool to have escaped discovery by Fred and George. All that said, I am very confident that at some point Harry will indeed discover the motorbike and use it, much as he discovered and used the Thestrals. Than again, it's just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 23 20:59:49 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:59:49 -0000 Subject: Incomprehensible comparison of Sirius and Aragorn Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122818 Tossing a Mr Black-related meta-subject among the Snape-lovers and crouching in the trench, hoping that there are Tolkien fans at HPFGU. I've several times, on several sites, seen HP fans compare Sirius Black and Aragorn (II, if we want to be precise) of the D?nedain and come to the conclusion that they could be long-lost twins as they are so similar to each other. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, obviously I've missed some crucial character development here, because I can't see these similarities at all. (But first, I intend to compare books with books here. No movie characterisations.) Aragorn is a patient, compassionate and wise man. Despite his high birth, he's a humble man and one who often doubts his own abilities, a thinker more than a doer, one who is content to disguise himself and wait in the shadows until his time comes. What drives him throughout the epic is his love for Arwen, and the quote I think defines his personality the most is, "When have I been hasty and unwary, who have waited and prepared for so many long years?" There's nary a flaw in him (in fact, he's sometimes so perfect that my teeth hurt). Sirius could be the dictionary illustration of arrogance, recklessness and impatience. He turned away from his birthright, and his cleverness doesn't seem to inspire him to mercy or compassion. He was reviled as a traitor (and notice that no one but Madam Rosmerta seems to question it), and it was the need for revenge that gave him strength enough to escape from prison. And despite the fact that he's loyal to the ones he loves, you can't really squeeze him into the role of "most parfait, gentil knight", can you? Any similarities that I can find are either on the most trite level (tall, lean, dark hair, grey eyes), or on a level so general as to be meaningless (Hero's Mentor*), or in the loyalty they show to the cause. But that's just one property in a multitude. Harry and Frodo have many mentors and supporters on their separate journeys, each containing a little part of the archetype. *I have a hard time seeing Sirius' main role in the tale as a mentor, actually. What he represents to me is the tragedy of Harry's past, a bleak reflection of what might have been but wasn't to be, in particular during and after OOTP. Thoughts? Alshain From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 21:05:14 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:05:14 -0000 Subject: Innocent Albus? (was RE: Why should Harry...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122819 >Tonks wrote: OH GIVE ME A BREAK! DD is not *in a state of panic*. DD is always confident, and optimistic (as you have said yourself). And I don't think that with DD around that Harry is ever in as much danger as we all think. I think that DD watches over Harry pretty well. >Tonks_op >(Wand still out and pointed>>>>>) >Alla responded: Yeah, that is what he says... I can go with Neri's Dumbledore looking in the essence of the person and knowing what the person is, but Nope, I disagree that Dumbledore is always watches and manages to keep Harry out of harm way. snip In the batle of MOM we see another "not confident" at all Dumbledore. I mean, he may be confident when he battles with Voldie, but he is NOT confident at all,when Harry is possessed. He seems scared to me. "Harry made to run out from behind his statue guard, but Dumbledore bellowed, "Stay where you are, Harry!" For the first time, Dumbledore sounded frightened. Harry could not see why" - OOP, p.815, paperback. So, I really don't see Confident Dumbledore in this scene. vmonte responds: I agree with Alla here. I think that Dumbledore was very frightened for Harry in this scene. I do believe that Dumbledore has kept a close watch on Harry but I also believe that it's impossible to predict or strategize every move Harry (for that matter anyone) will make. It's evident that the DoM scene was one of those moments. Vivian who doesn't need a wand, only her trusty keyboard... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 21:10:45 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:10:45 -0000 Subject: Innocent Albus? (was RE: Why should Harry...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122820 Alla: Yeah, that is what he says... I can go with Neri's Dumbledore looking in the essence of the person and knowing what the person is, but Nope, I disagree that Dumbledore is always watches and manages to keep Harry out of harm way. Tonks responds: As to protecting Harry. Harry isn't dead yet is he? Alla: Oh, OK, as long as he is not dead, it is perfectly fine to let him be abducted by Voldie thing, see his classmate murdered, him being forced to participate in the bizarre ritual of Voldie coming back to life AND fighting for his life because I'd say but for Priori Incantatem, Harry could very well end up dead at the Graveyard. Of course we know looking from the outside that Rowling would not kill Harry that early in the story, but looking from "within the story" I'd say his death was VERY real possibility. Tonks: I am not saying that DD keeps him always from danger. The world is a dangerous place, especially the WW. By watching over I mean that DD is always there is some form when Harry needs him most, not that he watches him 24/7. Alla: And I disagree with that. Just my opinion, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 21:23:40 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:23:40 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122821 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ms_luna_knows" wrote: > Ms. Luna said: Got it! But, once again, following along your theory of > LV seeing Snape's memories in Harry's mind, I still think Snape may have done it to protect himself! I mean, if LV saw that or any of the other memories in Harry's mind, he would know that Snape had been helping the Order against LV. That would blow Snape's cover > with LV. Although you make a very good point about that specific memory with the maurader's in it. > Tonks now: I like your point too. We could combine theories and say that Snape took any memory that he had that he had not resolved his emotions about into the pensive. Any emotion of hate, fear, anger would arouse LV. Otherwise LV would not notice. Harry is aware when LV is angry, or I think there was one time when he was pleased about something. So it seems that emotions are an important key here. Maybe there were other, good emotions in the pensive too that we didn't see. So it could be that, as you say, Snape took the memories out so as not to arouse the suspicion of LV. Tonks_op From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 21:31:30 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:31:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050123213130.46645.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122822 > Alla: > > Cannot speak for everybody else, but I most certainly DON'T make > such assumption. What I do think though that his apparently unhappy > childhood ( and NO, we don't know for sure that he was abused at > all, as Charme said earlier - couple of memories don't necessarily > make unhappy childhood. We don't even know for sure if the boy in > those memories was Snape) often used as an excuse that Snape is > INCAPABLE of changing his behaviour and therefore it is OK for him > to stay that way. Am I being clear? I am not saying that Snape > necessarily knows how to behave normally, I am objecting to that he > should not be forced to change such behaviour. > And how many times has someone said oh it's not Sirius' fault that he's insensitive or reckless, the poor guy never had a chance to mature in Azkaban because he went there when he was 21/22 boo hoo hoo poor baby? THere are personality traits and mental processes that are hardwired by the time you're in your teens and there's not a lot that can be done to change them. 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. His all-or-nothing commitment to a cause doesn't indicate much exposure to tolerant viewpoints. His way of dealing with classes through intimidation of his forceful personality, his undoubted knowledge of his subject and his image of darkness shows that he is taking the easy way out when it comes to dealing with students. Trekgrrrl makes an excellent point. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 21:54:46 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:54:46 -0000 Subject: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122824 Magda: And how many times has someone said oh it's not Sirius' fault that he's insensitive or reckless, the poor guy never had a chance to mature in Azkaban because he went there when he was 21/22 boo hoo hoo poor baby? Alla: By that someone you must have mean JKR right? ;) Magda: There are personality traits and mental processes that are hardwired by the time you're in your teens and there's not a lot that can be done to change them. Alla: We differ on that one, because then many people would have stopped their personal development in their teens and that would have been very sad picture. JMO, Alla From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jan 22 19:29:37 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:29:37 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122825 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > As for these wonderful lessons everybody is talking about, the ones > that let a teacher get deep inside your head, are being taught by > somebody you do not trust! Oh and one more little thing, the lessons > make you feel terrible and DO NOT WORK; it's worse, the lessons are > counterproductive, they actually make you weaker. You complain about > this again and again up to the very end of your adventure but > receive no satisfactory explanation for this, or an explanation of > any sort for that matter. You are just ignored. Gerry: OoF Chapter 24: Occlumency p. 478-479 (Bloomsbury Edition)" 'Hermione told me to come and check up on you,' said Ron in a low voice, helping Harry to his feet. 'She says your defenses will be low at the moment, after Snape has been fiddling around with your mind ... still, I suppose it'll help in the long run, won't it? JKR interview (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0302-newsround-mzimba.htm) JKR: Absolutely right, I find that all the time in the book, if you need to tell your readers something just put it in her. There are only two characters that you can put it convincingly into their dialogue. One is Hermione, the other is Dumbledore. In both cases you accept, it's plausible that they have, well Dumbledore knows pretty much everything anyway, but that Hermione has read it somewhere. So, she's handy. Well, for me as a reader it is easy to assume Hermione read up on Occlumency, and found this out. It is also easy for me to assume that other wizards, like Lupin and Sirius know a bit more about Occlumency than Harry, so they won't take his complaints seriously. Notice that Harry does nothing to find more about Occlumency, he just has this nice, convenient theory and sticks to it. I found Harry where Occlumency was concerned behaving like a five year old. At eleven he was more mature than here at fifteen. Eggplant: > I have never even hinted that Voldemort is not an enemy, as for > Snape, he should certainly be treated as an enemy for the purposes > of the Occlumency lessons and I think even Snape and Dumbledore > would agree with that. Following your logic, Harry could also poison Snape's food, attack him in the corridor or put him into the vanishing cabinet. Or, if you want to restrict his resistance to the lessons itself borrow Hagrid's crossbow and take a shot at him the moment he enters his office. They could all work, and they really would make it hard for Snape to enter his mind. No Occlumency involved. Now he only has to learn how to keep LV out of his mind. There seems to be a skill for it, Occlumency I believe. Maybe it is a good idea if he would learn that.... OoP Bloomsbure Edition p. 458: 'Occlumency Potter, the magical defense of the mind against external penetration. An obscure branch of magic, but a highly useful one.' Eggplant: > Harry already knew that, but he couldn't see the urgency and at the > time neither could we the readers because as Harry said it may not be > much fun but without it Mr. Weasley would be dead. Nobody explained > exactly why it was important, they just said it was. Well, this reader easily could see the importance. I really, really could not understand that Harry was such a complete idiot here. He has all the clues, he has all the information needed. The only thing he needed to do was put it together, and for once in his life trust that others might know what they were talking about, even if he did not agree. The only reason I could come up with for him to be this idiotic is that he was so cock-sure that nobody, not even LV would be able to trick Harry Potter, and so all these fears of the grownups had no basis in reality at all. Of course he knew far better what LV was capable of than the people who lived through is reign and fought him. Well, he learned the hard way that he had been really, really stupid. Gerry From trekkie at stofanet.dk Sun Jan 23 22:18:37 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:18:37 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) References: Message-ID: <006201c50199$7c46b580$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122826 > Alla: > Cannot speak for everybody else, but I most certainly DON'T make > such assumption. What I do think though that his apparently unhappy > childhood ( and NO, we don't know for sure that he was abused at > all, as Charme said earlier - couple of memories don't necessarily > make unhappy childhood. We don't even know for sure if the boy in > those memories was Snape) often used as an excuse that Snape is > INCAPABLE of changing his behaviour and therefore it is OK for him > to stay that way. Am I being clear? I am not saying that Snape > necessarily knows how to behave normally, I am objecting to that he > should not be forced to change such behaviour. TrekkieGrrrl: Now, this may be a language issue, as english is not my native language, but... "force people to change their behaviour?" If by behaviour you mean personality, I can't see how that's doable. It would be forcing a blind to see. You can't. I know that there isn't that much canon proof of an unhappy childhood, but I hope we agree that with the marauders around, surely his school days can't have been exactely fun? Also, I think that JKR deliberately put *that* memory in the book so that we could see he DID have an unhappy childhood. And excuse me, but saying that the boy wasn't him? So the boy shooting own flies wasn't him either? So Snape is carrying around someone elses memories? Mebbe.. just doesn't make sense to me. And again, his behavioral patterns *DOES* duggest a boy with a "victim" complex, and it *IS* typical of children from households where abuse is taking place - be it alcohol/drug abuse or violent behaviour - can fall into two groups, those who feel guilty = victims (It's all my fault that my dad drinks and hits my mom) and those who gets tough - outwards - either as bullies or as the "resident clown" in the classroom. He has problems with attaching himself emotionally to other people, IMO he hides behind his snarky mask, and has probably been doing it since his schooldays - again, if you make sure noone likes you and wants to be with you, then noone can hurt you by leaving you. > > Magda: > And how many times has someone said oh it's not Sirius' fault that > he's insensitive or reckless, the poor guy never had a chance to > mature in Azkaban because he went there when he was 21/22 boo hoo hoo > poor baby? > > Alla: > > By that someone you must have mean JKR right? ;) > > Magda: > There are personality traits and mental processes that are hardwired > by the time you're in your teens and there's not a lot that can be > done to change them. > > Alla: > > We differ on that one, because then many people would have stopped > their personal development in their teens and that would have been > very sad picture. TrekkieGrrrl again: Many people HAVE stopped their personal development in their teens. Some of them are are addicted to something, a few are not. Sirius, as an example from the books. As Magda points out, we feel sorry for Sirius because he's been locked up in Azkaban. Well, Snape has been locked up inside himself longer than that.. IMO, that is. ~TrekkieGrrrl From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 23 22:18:11 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:18:11 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -The real reasons for DD not teaching Harry... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: Tonks: > I see Snape as cool and aloof. The only emotions you see him > display are hate and anger. People here have argued as to his > acting or really feeling the hate. I think sometimes he is acting a > bit, but mostly when it comes to Harry and Snape's memory of James > projected onto Harry, Snape is feeling hatred. But all other times > he is cold, unfeeling. Not the *heart on the sleeve type*. Geoff: This appears to me as being a contradiction in terms. How can someone be cool and aloof while displaying hate and anger? Let's take just one example.... 'And then, as they both took a fourth piece of chocolate from Madam Pomfrey, they heard a distant roar of fury echoing from somewhere above them... "What was that?" said Madam Pomfrey in alarm. Now they could hear angry voices, growing louder and louder. Madam Pomfrey was staring at the door. "Really - they'll wake everybody up! What do they think they're doing?" Harry was trying to hear what the voices were saying. They were drawing nearer - "He must have Disapparated, Severus, we should have left somebody in the room with him. When this gets out -" "HE DIDN'T DISAPPARATE!" Snape roared, now very close at hand. "YOU CAN'T APPARATE /OR/ DISAPPARATE INSIDE THIS CASTLE" THIS - HAS - SOMETHING - TO - DO - WITH - POTTER!" "Severus - be reasonable - Harry has been locked up -" BAM. The door of the hospital wing burst open. Fudge, Snape and Dumbledore came striding into the ward. Dumbledore alone looked calm. Indeed, he looked as though he was quite enjoying himself. Fudge appeared angry. But Snape was beside himself. "OUT WITH IT, POTTER!" he bellowed. "WHAT DID YOU DO?" "Professor Snape!" shrieked Madam Pomfrey. "Control yourself!" "See here, Snape, be reasonable," said Fudge. "This door's been locked. We just saw -" "THEY HELPED HIM ESCAPE. I KNOW IT!" Snape howled, pointing at Harry and Hermione. His face was twisted, spit was flying from his mouth. "Calm down, man!" Fudge barked. "You're talking nonsense!"..... (POA "Owl Post Again" pp.305/06 UK edition) ...and so it goes on. Snape goes on to the extent that even Fudge thinks he is unbalanced. This is our cool and aloof Potions Professor dealing with the situation in a calm, measured manner offering a balanced opinion on the turn of events. Revenge, they tell us is a dish best served cold - but not anger. This man is not cold. He seems to be in serious danger of spontaneously combusting.... No. I don't see Snape as a "parfait, gentil knight". Sorry. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sun Jan 23 05:55:13 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:55:13 -0000 Subject: Why I like Ginny! Quotes and more...(long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122828 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > vmonte: > The Sugar Quill has an interesting article on Ginny Weasley. > The article mentions the scene at the DoM where Ginny is transfixed > by the egg that transforms into a bird and back. Didn't Ginny also > offer Harry some of her Easter egg earlier in the year? I wonder if > there is something symbolically going on here. > > > > From > http://www.sugarquill.net/index.php?action==gringotts&st==ginny2 > " ... Ginny seems to be fascinated with time, for reasons which we > can only guess. Would she like more time? Does she have an affinity > to the concept ?" I do definitely think Ginny has a role in the future of the series. I just think it could be handled better (and I pray her role isn't HP's LI). There has to be a consequence to Tom Riddle pouring his soul into her. Sometimes I wonder if that was the reason for the jump started character in OOTP. Maybe V is doing something with her. Maybe she has her own connection with the dark lord. I think the most interesting thing that JK could do with Ginny would be to make her into a traitor. Someone corrupted by the dark lord. Their own version of Peter. I had forgotten that Ginny was supposedly stealing their brooms since she was six. For some reason I thought she was older than that when she started. Honestly that makes it even more unbelievable to me. Kids can be precocious but for her to do that and never get caught? It's stupidity of the highest order. Phoenixgod2000 From snholmes at email.unc.edu Sun Jan 23 06:29:14 2005 From: snholmes at email.unc.edu (snholmes at email.unc.edu) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:29:14 -0500 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? / prophecy In-Reply-To: <20050123025725.30213.qmail@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20050123025725.30213.qmail@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050123012914.xk76t7a9wk888wgo@webmail1.isis.unc.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 122829 Michele: > I think in considering all of this, we have to keep in mind that no > one out side of Harry and DD know about the prophecy. Steph: I'm pretty sure Prof. Trelawney herself would not remember the vision (just as she did not remember the vision (or whatever it was) she gave Harry that day after class in PoA when she predicted LV's servant would reunite with him.) Just wanted someone to clarify this. Also, who is the spy that overheard the prophecy being told in the Hog's Head? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 22:33:22 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:33:22 -0000 Subject: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: <006201c50199$7c46b580$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122830 Alla: Am I being clear? I am not saying that Snape necessarily knows how to behave normally, I am objecting to that he should not be forced to change such behaviour. TrekkieGrrrl: Now, this may be a language issue, as english is not my native language, but... "force people to change their behaviour?" If by behaviour you mean personality, I can't see how that's doable. It would be forcing a blind to see. You can't. Alla: English is my second language too and by "force to change his behaviour" I meant exactly that "changing behaviour". For example, Dumbledore should have a little chat with him - something like "Well, Severus, Hogwarts portects you from your former pals DE, if you want to be able to stay here, kindly refrain from doing what you have been doing towards Harry all these eyars" Snape IS able to think rational thoughts sometimes, isn't he? So, he should be able to figure out what is best for him, me thinks. Trekkiegrrl: I know that there isn't that much canon proof of an unhappy childhood, but I hope we agree that with the marauders around, surely his school days can't have been exactely fun? Alla: Yes, we do, although I do think that he was fighting back quite well and there was a reason for their mutual hatred. Trekkiegrrl: Also, I think that JKR deliberately put *that* memory in the book so that we could see he DID have an unhappy childhood. And excuse me, but saying that the boy wasn't him? So the boy shooting own flies wasn't him either? So Snape is carrying around someone elses memories? Mebbe.. just doesn't make sense to me. Alla: Again, I do agree that it is a strong possibility, but the boy in the Pensieve also could have been Snape's family member (Son? Cousin?) JMO, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 22:43:39 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:43:39 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency /was Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122831 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > In the very first lesson, Harry himself shows he understands the > stakes: > > [Snape speaking of Voldemort]: " '..he has realized that he might be > able to access your thoughts and feelings in return --' > " 'And he might try and make me do things?' asked Harry. 'Sir?' he > added hurriedly. > 'He might,' said Snape.... [OoP, p. 533] > SNIPPED a very good post. Thank you Amanda for helping me see this clearly. Tonks now: So Harry understands what is at stake. Because of his FEELING for Snape and his CURIOSITY, he does not practice Occulmence. He lies to his teacher and to his friend. What we have here is a classic case of temptation. Harry does not want to do the discipline that he needs to do to master the subject. It is not a fun subject, with a nice teacher. It is a hard subject with a difficult teacher. I am sorry to say that as much as I love Harry, that he has really messed up here. He has messed up in ways that we all do when faced with overcoming evil. Too hard, not interested, curious about what we know we shouldn't be curios about, etc. all lead to the downfall of Muggles and Wizards alike. I have just joined the ranks of those that think Harry was wrong. Breaks my heart. Sure it would be nice to blame it all on Snape, or DD. But this is all Harry's fault. He did not pass the test. The Dark Lord led him where he wanted him to go. Harry would not listen to the *still small voice* that sounded like Hermione's, and now Sirius is dead. I think Harry has some serious soul searching to do in the next book. First he wants to blame it on DD, then Snape, but I think that Harry is going to grow up and realize just where the blame really lies. And I think that DD will help him to forgive himself and go on. Tonks_op From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 22:44:27 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:44:27 -0000 Subject: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: <20050123213130.46645.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122832 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich wrote: > And how many times has someone said oh it's not Sirius' fault that > he's insensitive or reckless, the poor guy never had a chance to > mature in Azkaban because he went there when he was 21/22 boo hoo > hoo poor baby? THere are personality traits and mental processes > that are hardwired by the time you're in your teens and there's not > a lot that can be done to change them. Make a Snapethread, and a Black comparison is bound to come around eventually. They really MUST be twins, or something. (Structurally they are in many ways, but that's another thread.) My main problem with such is that the two situations do not have the same level of textual reality--at the present. The general suckage of an Azkaban stay is objectively established as textual fact (reinforced by two characters' experience and description thereof), and commented on by JKR in external interview source. As Alla pointed out, the Young!Snape memories are very possibly memories of a crappy childhood--but they aren't necessarily. We have a set of images that could easily be fit into several different interpretations. I happen to suspect that they ARE pretty face- value, but I can't say that with confidence at present. It's partially similar with the Hogwarts years--we have one incident that is genuinely painful to read, but we cannot textually confirm as of yet that our reading of that incident should extend to cover the entire period. Part of it is 'real', part of it is conjecture. We have a moderate problem of incommensurability again here: can we compare an Azkaban stay with a potentially abusive home situation and schooldays bullying? I don't know. > 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. His > all-or-nothing commitment to a cause doesn't indicate much exposure > to tolerant viewpoints. His way of dealing with classes through > intimidation of his forceful personality, his undoubted knowledge of > his subject and his image of darkness shows that he is taking the > easy way out when it comes to dealing with students. What is so interesting, then, is *why*. Why the conversion back to the white hats, and perhaps why the maintenance of such behavior. [For me, the why of conversion is The Big Question that will probably make things fall into place, both analytically and critically.] To state my own question, I wonder why or if being around someone like Dumbledore, in close contact with him for so long and most likely wanting his approval, taking him as a guiding force...why that hasn't had more positive effects than it has. It's a guess on my part that is has been positive, I admit; and this is probably to be filed in the 'hopeless optimist' category. I can't escape the idea of Dumbledore as a positive influence upon a character...and then we get into the question of "can't, or won't?", which is also unanswerable at the time being. Evidence can point either way. -Nora notes that this (for her) is another subject to be filed under 'inadequate canon: open book in summer 2005, please' From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 22:52:15 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:52:15 -0000 Subject: Regarding Snape's childhood and his job for the Order... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122834 >Trekkiegrrl wrote: Now, I haven't been am member of this group for long, but it amazes me that noone has mentioned more about Snape's childhood. I find it rather obvious that his own childhood has been the one of an abused child. And his behavioral pattern fits this very well. No wonder Snape hides behind his sarcastic mask. Better not let anyone get close to you - that way they can't hurt you! vmonte responds: Harry's home life wasn't a piece of cake either. >Trekkiegrrl: I don't think he's sadistic in the usual sense of that word either. But again it's the typical pattern:People who are beaten as kids are far more inclined to slap their own children. vmonte: But isn't it "our choices who define who we are?" I do have sympathy for someone who has been abused, but not if they turn around and do it to someone else. If they cannot control themselves, they should not be around what triggers the bad behavior. snip Trekkiegrrl: One of the reasons why Snape is at Hogwarts is, I believe, protection. He's not safe outside Hogwarts. And with his obvious skill as a Potions Master, he has a plausible reason to stay there. No, he's not an ideal teacher after our standards. But again, remember how old fashoined the Wizarding World is. Go back 75 years and he would have been a MILD teacher. Add to that that he's probably never recieved any formal education in how to teach, and I think he does a pretty good job. vmonte responds: We are however, missing some key information about Snape. I would like to know exactly in what capacity Snape is working for Dumbledore (besides being the Potions teacher). If he is a spy, in what capacity is he a spy? Is he getting information for Dumbledore? Or is he spreading misinformation? The only reason why I mention misinformation as a strategy is why wouldn't Dumbledore use Snape's talent at verbal manipulation to confound the enemy. (I'm thinking of Iago, from Othello.) If Dumbledore thinks like a strategist then he is using everything in his power to gain foreknowledge of the enemy: their disposition, future plans, and their condition. Which means that he is using more than one spy, right? By the way a "mole" would also be of great use to Dumbledore, no? Maybe there is hope for Percy yet. If he turns mole for Dumbledore he will really redeem himself in my eyes. It is one thing to be a part time spy who lives mostly in relative safety at Hogwarts, but it is another to be a mole that risks their life 24/7. Foreknowledge seems key in beating your opponent. And Dumbledore often seems to have foreknowledge. (IMO this is the reason why Voldemort fears Dumbledore, because he is always two steps ahead of his game.) Finally, I cannot help but think about Trelawny's prophecy. Without the prophecy Voldemort would have conquered the WW ages ago. It has actually stalled Voldemort from gaining complete power of the WW. (What better way to spread misinformation and cause the enemy to be confounded.) Voldemort's worst fear is death. The prophecy has caused Voldemort to lose his focus on controlling the WW, and refocused it on beating Harry. The problem is I'm pretty sure that Dumbledore had nothing to do with creating this prophecy. Vivian From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Sun Jan 23 22:53:44 2005 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:53:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why I like Ginny! Quotes and more...(long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122835 vmonte wrote: > > vmonte: The Sugar Quill has an interesting article on Ginny Weasley. > The article mentions the scene at the DoM where Ginny is transfixed > by the egg that transforms into a bird and back... Didn't Ginny also > offer Harry some of her Easter egg earlier in the year? I wonder if > there is something symbolically going on here. > From OotP > "Oh, look!" said Ginny, as they drew nearer, pointing at the very > heart of the bell jar. > > Drifting along in the sparkling current inside was a tiny, jewel- > bright egg. As it rose in the jar, it cracked open and a hummingbird > emerged, which was carried to the very top of the jar, but as it > fell... and by the time it had been borne back to the bottom of the > jar it had been enclosed once more in its egg. > "Keep going!" said Harry sharply, because Ginny showed signs of > wanting to stop and watch the egg's progress back into a bird. > > "You dawdled enough by that old arch!" she said crossly, but followed > him past the bell jar to the only door behind it. > > From > http://www.sugarquill.net/index.php?action=gringotts&st=ginny2 > ...Ginny seems to be fascinated with time, for reasons which we can > only guess. Very interesting, but is it time that Ginny is interested with? While the egg references could be time, I think that associating it fertility, spring, motherhood or new life makes more sense in the context. While the arch (and veil) that so fascinates Harry, seems to be associates with death or immortality. For me this is a new thought, and it may have relevance for Harry/Ginny ships. Barbara Roberts [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sun Jan 23 22:58:07 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:58:07 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122836 In a message dated 1/23/2005 2:30:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, snholmes at email.unc.edu writes: Steph: Just wanted someone to clarify this. Also, who is the spy that overheard the prophecy being told in the Hog's Head? **************************************** Chancie: Well, actually Steph, no one knows. It's just a lot of specialization on our part. One of the most suspected characters' would probably be Snape. But since there's no cannon implicating anyone, other than that it was someone who was working for Voldemort, we don't know. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 23:05:32 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:05:32 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -The real reasons for DD not teaching Harry... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122837 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Tonks: > > I see Snape as cool and aloof. The only emotions you see him > > display are hate and anger. Snip mostly when it comes to Harry and Snape's memory of James > > projected onto Harry, Snape is feeling hatred. But all other times he is cold, unfeeling. Not the *heart on the sleeve type*. > > Geoff: > This appears to me as being a contradiction in terms. How can someone be cool and aloof while displaying hate and anger? Tonks here: I do see Snape as basically an unemotional type, except where Harry and the Mauraders are concerned. Are you saying that he is really a very angry man? And his aloof air is really part of his anger? And if so, how could he be a good spy if he were that easy to ignite? Tonks_op From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 23:07:08 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:07:08 -0000 Subject: Why I like Ginny! Quotes and more... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122838 Barbara wrote: Very interesting, but is it time that Ginny is interested with? While the egg references could be time, I think that associating it fertility, spring, motherhood or new life makes more sense in the context. While the arch (and veil) that so fascinates Harry, seems to be associates with death or immortality. For me this is a new thought, and it may have relevance for Harry/Ginny ships. vmonte responds: And I'm all for a Harry/Ginny ship myself! :) By the way there is also the golden egg from GoF. I'm not sure how we can work that in though. Vivian From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 23:13:32 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:13:32 -0000 Subject: SHIP! Was: Re: Why I like Ginny! Quotes and more... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122839 Vmonte responds: And I'm all for a Harry/Ginny ship myself! :) By the way there is also the golden egg from GoF. I'm not sure how we can work that in though. Alla: Out of pure curiosity. As I said earlier I like Ginny's character very much and do not mind seeing her as Harry's love interest at all, but at the same time I also don't mind seeing Harry with Hermione or Luna or anybody for that matter. Could you convince me why Ginny is the best one for him? Please keep in mind, that I have no "hidden agenda" whatsoever. :o) I am just VERY willing to listen on this one. Just curious. Alla From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sun Jan 23 06:30:59 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:30:59 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122840 > Lupinlore said: > Who has earned Harry's trust (in terms of staff)? Certainly not > McGonagall, who shows herself time and again to be incompetent at > securing fair treatment for him (Snip) And yes, it IS McGonagall's > job to secure justice for Harry in these situations. This is > especially the case in that Harry has no parents to intercede for > him independently. (SNIP) > > Tonks now: > McGonagall is Harry's teacher, not his parent. Yes, he has no > parents, but things are tough all over. She is not his parent and > it is not her job. Her job is to teach and as Head of House to make > sure that the students are safe and well behaved. Actually doesn't McGonagall call the house you get sorted into your family at school? I would think that would be even more important for a student who's an orphan living with guardians who don't like magic. So yeah, I think that McG is letting Harry down in a lot of ways, probably at the behest of DD because she has exhibited concern over harry in the past. I too have a problem with DD. Fallibility or not, he's done a lot of bad things to Harry for some reasons that are less than stellar. Phoenixgod2000 From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 24 00:06:49 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:06:49 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -The real reasons for DD not teaching Harry... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122841 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: Geoff: > > This appears to me as being a contradiction in terms. How can > someone be cool and aloof while displaying hate and anger? Tonks: > I do see Snape as basically an unemotional type, except where Harry > and the Mauraders are concerned. Are you saying that he is really a > very angry man? And his aloof air is really part of his anger? And > if so, how could he be a good spy if he were that easy to ignite? Geoff: But you are moving the goalposts.... ..in your last post, you said: "People here have argued as to his acting or really feeling the hate. I think sometimes he is acting a bit, but mostly when it comes to Harry and Snape's /memory of James projected onto Harry/, Snape is feeling hatred". Now you are saying: "I do see Snape as basically an unemotional type, /except where Harry and the Mauraders/ are concerned". (My emphasis). These are not the same parameters. His aloofness, to me, is a form of arrogance towards his pupils. And, yes, I believe that he is very angry although he internalises it for much of the time. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 00:18:29 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:18:29 -0000 Subject: Imperius and Occlumency - Another Perspective In-Reply-To: <59.1fa62aa7.2f24ac22@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote: > > > > > Tonks wrote: > > > > Yes. LV would use Snape to kill Harry. Look at what Snape did when > > he saw Harry looking in the pensive. Snape lost his cool. LV would > > have looked through Harry into Snape, triggered Snape's rage and > > Harry would have been in very serious danger. Snape knew this. > > Snape knew his weakness and how the Dark Lord could use it. So he > > put this weak part into the pensive to protect Harry during the > > session. > Julie says: > ... it could explain one thing that bothered me about Snape's > reaction. WHY was he so angry that Harry saw this scene of the > Marauders bullying him? Yes, Snape didn't come off too well, but > James and Sirius come off much worse. ... You'd think Snape would > feel immense satisfaction at Harry having to face the "truth" about > James, .... Instead Snape is furious. But is he furious that Harry > witnessed his humiliation, or furious that Harry's action may have > put both their lives further at risk? > > > Julie bboyminn: In concept I agree with Tonks, but not in detail. I do believe that Snape knows things that could potentially be of danger to Harry relative to Voldemort. But I don't think the key is Snape's anger or emotions. Snape knows secrets, it's as simple as that. Snape knows things about Voldemort, Dumbledore, the Death Eaters, and the Order that are secret; logically, reasonably, and justfiably secret. Harry simply can not be allowed to know them. Illustration; what if Voldemort captures Harry and probes Harry's mind, what if Voldemort sees things there that Harry can't possibly know? That spells trouble in my book. So, there are some things that Snape knows that for practical reason must remain the secrets that they are. Now on a personal level, there are things in Snape's life, just as in each of our own lives, that he doesn't want people to know about, and very specific things he doesn't want Harry to know about. Both of those seem like perfectly justifiable reason for Snape to hide memories in the Pensieve. However, I'm sure Harry has his own /personal/ secrets. Things he feels he has every justifiable reason to hide. Unfortunately, he is not afforded the luxury of storing them in a Pensieve where they can safely remain his personal secrets. Imagine being forced into that situation like Harry was. Imagine the person you loath most, being allowed to probe your most intimate thoughts, desires, and memories. That would be extremely unpleasant and upsetting for anyone. As far as Occlumency making Harry's situation worse, well, it is a very *physically*, mentally, and emotionally stressful thing, and stress and aggitation are the very things that Harry needs to avoid. So, I'm not so sure that it is Occlumency itself, but rather the stress and strain of trying to learn it that are causing the problem. In addition, the stress and strain, mostly due to Umbridge, in Harry's daily life is also increasing. There are plenty of on-going, even accelerating, reasons for Harry's stress level to be increasing, and therefore his ability to cope with the stresss proportionally decreasing. Further, that stress, as it always does, is producing shallow and fitful sleep, which makes him more vulnerable to his connection to Voldemort. Regarding, Snape's teaching methods, I think Snape had no great desire to take on the task but realize that, at the same time, he was the most logical person to do it. That said, I don't think he did it with any enthusiasm. We've all had teachers like that. The coach who is assign to teach Biology, which he has no qualifications for, so he just goes through the motions and does the basic amount required. I think that's what Snape did, he truly did the job, but no more what was necessary to be able to say he did the job. Example, Snape says Harry can use any means or method to defend himself, but gives Harry no suggestions as to effective means or methods of doing so. Harry was just left to work it out on his own in the heat of the moment. Snape tells Harry to clear his mind especially before bedtime, but again gives him no means nor methods for doing so; no deep breathing excersizes, no creative visualization, no meditation techniques, no relaxation techniques, no warm cup of herbal tea, no pleasant distracting book to read before bed, despite the fact that these various methods are centuries old techniques. In addition, as a reader, after seeing how the Legilimency Charm works and seeing examples of Harry actively resisting it, I'm sure I could formulate an instructive explanation of how to resist the effect. In saying that, I realize the resistance is a very internal thing, and acknowledge I could only give illustrative instruction rather that literal, but I feel they would still be helpful and effective. In addition, I would take a progressive approach. Start by giving Harry time to marshal resistance until he showed some ability, then gradually create more difficult and demanding tests. You have to learn to walk before you can run. That's all pretty standard teaching technique. All that said, of course, Snape would never do any of that because JKR needed the story to go in the direction it did. She need Harry to do poorly at it, she needed Snape to be nasty, and she ultimately needed Harry to look into the Pensieve and see what he saw. Regarding Snape's reaction, certainly and logically, his first and foremost reaction would be regarding himself and his humiliation. No one ever wants to be humiliated, and certainly don't want other people to find out about it. Only later, absent the immediate emotions, would he be calm enough to see the potential for Harry to gain a new perspective on James and Sirius. That could very well appear in the next book. Bad as it was, I do feel, after some tense negotiation between them, the effects of the Occlumency leason will lead to a gradual easing of the hostility between Snape and Harry. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jan 24 00:53:55 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:53:55 EST Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) Message-ID: <1c2.22b7b664.2f25a123@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122843 > My point here, is that Eggplant's statement "Things went downhill > from the very first lesson" is only correct in terms of Snape/Harry > interpersonal relations. I think it is demonstrable from canon that > the Occlumency lessons *were* producing results. But they were doing > so very very slowly, possibly because Voldemort was resisting by > manipulating Harry's emotions. Added to this, Harry has never been > very good at acquiring skills gradually--the things he is good at, he > is immediately good at (and I include the Patronus charm, for he > mastered it very quickly, both we and Harry are told). > > Probably Harry had no chance all along, if Voldemort was blocking his > desire to learn Occlumency. But I disagree strongly that the lessons > were of no good, or "went downhill" from the first one. > > ~Amanda Julie says: I agree. When I first read OotP I saw two things happening as the Occlumency lessons progressed. One was that Snape was acting almost decent toward Harry, i.e., he was actually softening up a bit (albeit a small bit). He praised Harry (very mildly perhaps, but a far cry from his usual denigration of Harry's efforts), he accepted Harry's invasions into his mind as part of the lessons, etc. As I read this I actually thought "Wait! Is Snape and Harry's relationship actually starting to improve?!" And I think it was, at least on Snape's side. Then there was happening number two. Harry was making virtually no effort in the lessons. And it wasn't because he has little trust or respect for Snape. Or, to put it accurately, that was the smaller part of the equation. The larger part of Harry's inability to learn Occlumency was that he didn't WANT to learn it. He wanted the dreams to continue. Snape might not have been the best teacher, Dumbledore might have been mistaken not to give Harry more information, but mostly it was Harry's desire to get behind that door in the MoM that was his downfall. I suspect in his heart Harry realizes that, though he isn't ready to accept it yet (and how it plays into the death of Sirius). During the Occlumency scenes I was definitely more irritated with Harry than with Snape. Harry refused to try, berated his friends when they tried to help him, and ignored what he *had* been told (that Voldemort was in his mind and would try to make him do things). I felt sympathy for Harry, knowing he was a teenager, under great pressure, and used to keeping inside his own head rather than accepting help from others. But I was still irritated with him. And nevermore than when he delved into the Pensieve, which was simply wrong. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Snape is nice, or even good. I'm not excusing his past behavior, or his choices (such as discontinuing the lessons). And I'm not saying I dislike Harry, or that Harry didn't have understandable reasons for behaving as he did. But understandable doesn't make it right, and Harry blew it more than Snape did, IMO. And the possible beginning of a thaw in their relationship was one of the casualties. (Though Snape seems already over it, more or less, while Harry of course is not.) Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire, I was also a bit disappointed that Dumbledore castigated Snape for not being able to overcome his past (which is true) but did not even reprimand Harry for prying into Snape's pensieve. I wish he had, if only to make clear that Harry was wrong, though I understand that Harry was already suffering enough over Sirius's death. As with all matters HP, this has been only my opinion ;-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 01:11:16 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:11:16 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: <1c2.22b7b664.2f25a123@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122844 Juli: huge snip Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire, I was also a bit disappointed that Dumbledore castigated Snape for not being able to overcome his past (which is true) but did not even reprimand Harry for prying into Snape's pensieve. I wish he had, if only to make clear that Harry was wrong, though I understand that Harry was already suffering enough over Sirius's death. Alla: Ummm, I think that Dumbledore still did not reprimand Snape nearly close to enough, honestly speaking. If for example he would reprimand Snape for five years of his treatment of Harry then MAYBE I would feel that Dumbledore even had a right to bring the fact of Harry looking into Pensieve. That was the ONLY time after all, when I can arguably agree that Harry wronged Snape, IF the things are as they seem ( meaning that Snape was not helping Voldie to find his way in Harry's mind). On the other hand, I lost count how many times Snape wronged Harry. Just my opinion, Alla From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 01:21:27 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:21:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperius and Occlumency - Another Perspective References: Message-ID: <044401c501b3$0ab11b80$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122845 >> Julie says: >> ... it could explain one thing that bothered me about Snape's >> reaction. WHY was he so angry that Harry saw this scene of the >> Marauders bullying him? > that Harry >> witnessed his humiliation, or furious that Harry's action may have >> put both their lives further at risk? > > bboyminn: > > Example, Snape says Harry can use any means or method to defend > himself, but gives Harry no suggestions as to effective means or > methods of doing so. Harry was just left to work it out on his own in > the heat of the moment. > > All that said, of course, Snape would never do any of that because JKR > needed the story to go in the direction it did. She need Harry to do > poorly at it, she needed Snape to be nasty, and she ultimately needed > Harry to look into the Pensieve and see what he saw. > > Regarding Snape's reaction, certainly and logically, his first and > foremost reaction would be regarding himself and his humiliation. No > one ever wants to be humiliated, and certainly don't want other people > to find out about it. Charme: DD says that the reason he didn't teach Harry himself was because of the risk of Harry's open mind allowing LV to gain understanding that DD and Harry's relationship were more than headmaster and pupil and that this would provoke LV to try to "possess" Harry, a vulnerability DD didn't want for LV to exploit. That being said, I think Snape approached his "job" in the best way he could to benefit Harry: by being as difficult as Harry has already experienced LV to be. Isn't one of the strengths for Harry is that he thinks on his feet? Fake!Moody certainly didn't tell Harry how to throw off the Imperius curse, and yet Harry did so and Snape had been informed as much as he mentions it during their first Occulmency lesson. To me, Snape actually gives Harry grudging (in his own snarky, critical way) credit for the Stinging Hex he reacts with the first time the Legilmens is placed on him, and doesn't appear to be overly upset with Harry when Harry's Shield Charm results in Harry seeing some of Snape's own memories. It appears Snape does get upset/angry/annoyed when he sees Harry's memory of Cedric, Harry appears to have a vision (like that of the DoM) that Snape *can't or doesn't* seem to see completely, and then when Harry pokes his nose in the Pensieve. The latter I feel isn't because of the memory Harry saw, but the possibility Snape sees Harry's actions as "breaking the rules" yet again, only this time he breaks the rules where Snape is directly affected. The first, Harry's memory of Cedric, leads Snape to believe Harry isn't taking this effort of Occlumency as serious as Snape. The DoM vision Harry has interests me most: Snape doesn't see what Harry does in that instance, and only understands what was in Harry's vision when Harry is vocalizing his realization and asks Snape about the DoM. Snape even asks Harry why he would ask about the DoM, when I would think Snape would know what Harry saw if he'd seen it too. Probably would be pretty unnerving for the Potions Master, since while he gives us all the air he's "in command" and very self assured of his magical abilities - unless it has to do with LV. That DoM "vision" (and the one about Rookwood) I think falls under the LV category, doesn't it? Given DD's concerns in my first paragraph, I imagine Snape knew that by performing the Occlumency lessons with Harry, he was playing with fire and could get burned by LV in the process if he's really spying for the Order. And I also think that's why I agree with what Juli inferred: each time one of those "visions" Harry has during Occulmency relative to the LV category puts Snape himself at risk. Charme From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 01:46:09 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 01:46:09 -0000 Subject: SHIP! Was: Re: Why I like Ginny! The perfect match. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122847 Alla: Out of pure curiosity. As I said earlier I like Ginny's character very much and do not mind seeing her as Harry's love interest at all, but at the same time I also don't mind seeing Harry with Hermione or Luna or anybody for that matter. Could you convince me why Ginny is the best one for him? Please keep in mind, that I have no "hidden agenda" whatsoever. :o) I am just VERY willing to listen on this one. Just curious. vmonte responds: Well, I would have to say that I like the way Ginny is able to handle Harry. And she does it in a way no one else can. When Harry is upset, after Arthur is attacked (during OOTP), she snaps him out of it by reminding him that Voldemort also once possessed her. She reminds Harry that she could help him understand whether he was being possessed or not. (IMO, she is basically telling Harry that they have something in common.) Harry also has a tendency to get irritable (can you really blame him), and Ginny is always able to get him to stop feeling sorry for himself, and stop being self-centered. She also doesn't take any of his crap. When Harry tells her to stop staring at the bell jar at the DoM, Ginny tells him off. She reminds him that he wasted plenty of time staring at the curtain previously. (I've noticed that Hermione is never able to help Harry during one of his moods. She always lets him rant, and feeds into his desire to sulk.) Ginny is a tough cookie, not a silly girl, like Cho, but a girl that has grown up with 6 brothers and who knows how to deal with teenage boys. I also like that she went to the ball with Neville, even though she had the opportunity to go with Harry. To me this shows that she has a sense of honor--she didn't dump Neville to go out with Harry. She stuck up for Harry during CoS (the bookstore scene with Malfoy), Neville (when she told him that he was somebody), and Hermione (when she was called a mudblood). She is just as brave and loyal as her brother, Ron. She also has a sense of humor like Ron, but with the spunk and daring of Fred and George. I like this quote: "The thing about growing up with Fred and George," said Ginny thoughtfully, "is that you sort of start thinking anything's possible if you've got enough nerve." She also was a pretty good Seeker, beating Cho during the Quidditch match. (How interesting that JKR picked Ravenclaw for Gryffindor to fight against.) And I'm sorry to say I also loved that Cho started crying when she lost! So, what is JKR saying? Seeker Ginny is a lot like Harry and Cho is no match for her. And Ginny isn't trying to prove anything to Harry by being Seeker, because she later tells him that she prefers to be Chaser (because she likes goal scoring rather than Seeking). I think that in the end the only kind of girl that would be appropriate for Harry would be someone like Ginny. Someone who is strong willed and able to handle the kind of life Harry has to offer (as well as handle Harry). Harry also needs someone who is fun, has a sense of humor like Ron, and someone who's had common experiences. Ginny fills all these requirements. But that's just my opinion. Vivian From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 02:09:07 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:09:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: All about Lupin replies References: Message-ID: <04e201c501b9$b015bf80$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122848 > Pippin: > At least if Pettigrew confesses, there's a chance Lupin will let the > others go. But Peter never does admit to having been the spy, or > to the Muggle deaths. > > Charme: I'm sorry, I disagree with your statement Peter doesn't admit to being the spy: "Sirius, Sirius, what could I have done? The Dark Lord... you have no idea... he has weapons you can't imagine.... I was scared, Sirius, I was never brave like you and Remus and James. I never meant it to happen.... He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named forced me --" "DON'T LIE!" bellowed Black. "YOU'D BEEN PASSING INFORMATION TO HIM FOR A YEAR BEFORE LILY AND JAMES DIED! YOU WERE HIS SPY!" "He -- he was taking over everywhere!" gasped Pettigrew. "Wh -- what was there to be gained by refusing him?" If that's not Peter agreeing he was helping LV, then I must be having a reading comprehension problem ;) Furthermore, Peter also reveals LV would have killed him. As far as the ESE!Lupin theory, I'm not a fan, but I can see where certain parts of it could be possible if they were more substantiated in canon to my liking. Until that time, I'll raise you a Firewhisky that we find Lupin isn't and wasn't ESE... and if you're right, Pippin, I'll double the shots :) Charme From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 24 02:09:20 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:09:20 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Quirrell In-Reply-To: <20050123140219.42494.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122849 Betsy: > > The interesting thing to me is it seems like Snape didn't share > > his suspicions regarding Quirrell with Dumbledore. Magda: > No way, Jose. Snape tells Dumbledore EVERYTHING - to the point > where I'm sure Dumbledore wishes he'd give it a rest and shut up. > Dumbledore's comment in GOF when he and Harry look into the > pensieve and see Snape talking about the Dark Mark becoming > clearer and Dumbledore saying "I could have figured that out > myself" (not exact) proves it to me. Snape craves Dumbledore's > approval; there's NO way he wouldn't be up those stairs sharing > every single suspicion or thought or idea he has. SSSusan: Right. I believe it was Pippin (or CV?) who long ago pointed out that, from the time of the Quidditch match, where Snape saves Harry from falling to what might've been his death, we do NOT see Quirrell making any further attempts on Harry's life nor making a dash for the Stone -- until DD is away from Hogwarts. So it's possible that Snape *did* suspect Quirrell *and* that he told DD about it. Quirrell may have realized he was being watched and, thus, behaved himself 'til the opportune evening when DD was oh-so-conveniently called away from Hogwarts. As for those who have recently wondered how Voldy couldn't know Snape had switched sides after his little "where your loyalties lie" comment to Quirrell, there are a couple of reasonable excuses Snape could use. First, remember that at this point there's no REASON for Snape to know that Voldy was glommed onto Q's head. It could be argued by Snape at any necessary later time that he merely thought Quirrell was an evil man who was hoping to steal the stone for his own purposes. Thus, Snape could claim to have been merely "reminding" Quirrell that his loyalty should lie with Voldemort, not with himself. There's also the second excuse Snape could offer, which was that he had no way of knowing that Voldy was ever coming back and that he was merely reprimanding a Hogwarts professor for attempting to defy the headmaster of the school. Personally, I like the first explanation. Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 24 02:47:51 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 02:47:51 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin replies In-Reply-To: <04e201c501b9$b015bf80$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122850 > Charme: > > I'm sorry, I disagree with your statement Peter doesn't admit to being the spy: > > "Sirius, Sirius, what could I have done? The Dark Lord... you have no idea... he has weapons you can't imagine.... I was scared, Sirius, I was never brave like you and Remus and James. I never meant it to happen.... > > He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named forced me --" > > > > "DON'T LIE!" bellowed Black. "YOU'D BEEN PASSING INFORMATION TO HIM FOR > > A YEAR BEFORE LILY AND JAMES DIED! YOU WERE HIS SPY!" > > > > "He -- he was taking over everywhere!" gasped Pettigrew. "Wh -- what was there to be gained by refusing him?" > > > > If that's not Peter agreeing he was helping LV, then I must be having a reading comprehension problem ;) Pippin: Peter didn't answer the question. He asked another, "What was there to gain by refusing him?" --but that has implications for the current situation, where he is also being bullied by a more powerful wizard who is threatening to kill him. What has Peter to gain by refusing Sirius? Only more shouting --I think he just wanted it to end. JKR worked for Amnesty International; she knows how easy it is to get a false confession by bullying a prisoner. Pippin From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 03:09:26 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:09:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: All about Lupin replies References: Message-ID: <059801c501c2$1d4e2170$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122851 > > Pippin: > Peter didn't answer the question. He asked another, "What > was there to gain by refusing him?" --but that has implications > for the current situation, where he is also being bullied by a more > powerful wizard who is threatening to kill him. > What has Peter to gain by refusing Sirius? Only more shouting > --I think he just wanted it to end. > > > JKR worked for Amnesty International; she knows how easy it is > to get a false confession by bullying a prisoner. > > Pippin Charme: Maybe, maybe not. My perception of what I read was that Peter was backed into a corner by the confrontation of his deeds by people who trusted him - and notice Sirius trusted Peter when he convinced James and Lily to switch to Peter as the Secret Keeper. Even LV reveals Peter's flight from justice in GoF during the explanation he gives the DE's during this rebirthing: "And then, not even a year ago, when I had almost abandoned hope, it happened at last... a servant returned to me. Wormtail here, who had faked his own death to escape justice, was driven out of hiding by those he had once counted friends, and decided to return to his master. He sought me in the country where it had long been rumored I was hiding . . . helped, of course, by the rats he met along the way. Ok, so he faked his own death to escape justice? Hm, so we have Sirius and LV saying the same thing, independently in different situations and in different books. Why would Peter be escaping justice back in the GH days if he wasn't guilty of anything? Note LV says "a servant RETURNED to me." Sirius and LV have Peter's true nature better than everyone else, I think: he's not loyal to anyone, he just looks for stronger and better wizards to protect him. To your point about JKR - JKR has also made comments about Lupin being one of her favorite characters, and that he would be a teacher she would have liked to have. The Firewhisky bet is still on... Charme From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Mon Jan 24 04:22:22 2005 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 04:22:22 -0000 Subject: FILK: Cemetery Man Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122852 Tom Riddle **Senior** in his first-ever solo! Cemetery Man To the tune of Solitary Man by Neil Diamond MIDI at: http://www.garyrog.50megs.com/midi3.html THE SCENE: The Little Hangleton Cemetery. A mysterious voice is heard directly beneath the tombstone engraved with the name of TOM RIDDLE TOM RIDDLE, SR. Malignant was I So she died When I left her. Rude and rich "Get out, witch!" Then he crossed my lawn "I'm your son" Here's what he did Grandfolks slew Then I died too It seems that his will's Rather ill toward his daddy He bears my name And became quite a baddy That is why I am A cemetery man Cemetery man I'm stuck in this tomb Little room Quite a small world When he tried Parricide I hear he's undone Yet there's one Way to save him Pettigrew's Precious brew Since I'm in his clan Now his plan's to unearth me My bones he'll cook Then won't look so unearthly That's because I am A cemetery man Cemetery man (Instrumental bridge - Repeat final stanza) - CMC (OK, so it's not "unknowingly given") HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm When Pettigrew opened the coffin, he found Tom Riddle, Sr. sitting up, fully alert, rubbing the sheet music for this filk with an enormous eraser. "What are you doing, Mr. Riddle?" exclaimed Pettigrew. "What the hell does it look like I'm doing?" cried Mr. Riddle, "I'm decomposing!" From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Mon Jan 24 05:29:04 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 00:29:04 EST Subject: HBP page count Message-ID: <1ed.33e85a36.2f25e1a0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122853 Chancie: Hi all, I was just on Mugglenet.com and saw: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HBP Deluxe Edition: 704 pages The Deluxe Edition of Half-Blood Prince is listed as 704 pages on the Barnes & Noble _website_ (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=Ji0asaoAia&isbn=0439791324&itm=1) . No details have been released on exactly what this edition includes yet. Typically, it is just formatted slightly differently and contains a different jacket. They've also updated their hardcover edition page to make note of a 672 page count; the same as the library-binding edition posted earlier today. Remember: nothing is official yet. Thanks, Tina, for the tip! Posted by Andrew on 01/23 | _comments_ (http://www.mugglenet.com/#) [272] | _send to friend_ (http://www.mugglenet.com/#) | _submit news_ (http://www.mugglenet.com/submitnews.shtml) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I was really happy to see that HBP wasn't too much shorter than OOP. And please forgive me if this is a stupid question but why would they already have a DELUXE edition when the original hasn't even been released yet? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Mon Jan 24 05:44:25 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:44:25 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: <1c2.22b7b664.2f25a123@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122854 Julie: > Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire, I was also a bit disappointed > that Dumbledore castigated Snape for not being able to overcome > his past (which is true) but did not even reprimand Harry for prying > into Snape's pensieve. I wish he had, if only to make clear that > Harry was wrong, though I understand that Harry was already > suffering enough over Sirius's death. You know, the fact that Dumbledore said this and did not mention Harry's error in judgement, has always made me think that Snape didn't *tell* Dumbledore what happened. It sounds like Snape made up a reason, just like Harry did, and nobody but Snape and Harry knows what really occurred. Which brings up all manner of interesting possibilities. Did Snape not tell Dumbledore because he (Snape) was supposed to use the Pensieve to protect Order-related thoughts, and Snape didn't want to admit to Dumbledore that some of his personal memories were still painful enough to remove "just in case" as well? Does Snape not want Dumbledore to know he (Snape) lost it so, to a student? (For, remember, Dumbledore's immediate and angry defense of Marietta.) Or does Snape simply not want yet *another* person to have to know about his humiliation, even via the telling of the incident? Hm. Anyway, it never sounded to me like Dumbledore was aware of what really happened there. Otherwise I'm certain he would have said something to Harry. ~Amanda From darkthirty at shaw.ca Mon Jan 24 05:55:49 2005 From: darkthirty at shaw.ca (Dan Feeney) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:55:49 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122855 Pippin: > ...in OOP... everyone, from Dumbledore on down, very much including Harry, ignores this advice and pursues their personal agenda instead of the common good. Dan: I suppose it's possible, separating threads of the story, to divide things into some "common agenda" (to which we have no direct connection, or of which we have no direct evidence, which is, in other words, "common" only by assumption, as the plethora of theories about what's really going on continues on this forum and others) and "personal agenda". (Note that I remove the assumed "good" from the "common" part of the equation.) I frankly don't see the lines dividing this way, however. Or, rather, I don't see them dividing neatly along these lines. For example, if the Sorting Hat is some kind of founders chorus, then the only real "common" agenda is "working together," in a way embodied by the DA, with the notable exception of Slytherin (and the IS in opposition). My question, then, is, what is the "common agenda" beyond what the sorting hat sings - what IS the context of all these characters' actions? Does Rowling ever supply one? As far as I can tell, only for the DE and Voldemort himself - eternal life, in his case. Amanda: > Snape pursues the common good: attempts to teach Harry Occlumency. Result: Harry does begin to show a little resistance to the dreams (trace feelings that during the dreams that indicate a "monitor mind" separate from the desires of the dream). > Harry pursues his own agenda: secretly wants the dreams to continue, and so does not follow Snape's instructions or really concentrate on Occlumency. Result: very little progress and much frustration, and the door is opened for Voldemort's manipulations. Dan: In this equation, unfortunately, the message then, against everything we ourselves feel, as readers (compromised by our desire to see the story unfold, to see where the dream goes), and what we will soon KNOW to be directly involved with Harry and his future, at the end of the dream, is to ignore the content of the dream in favour of some idealogical deconstruction of its cause. (It's nothing but a bit of undigested Voldepotato, or the like.) It harkens back to older discussions about the problematic position of knowledge in the series - when, and how, is transparency useful? Is anything ever transparent in the series? Is the parcelling of knowledge always manipulation? Whether or not, as some have suggested, the memories set aside by Snape were a set-up, the pedagogic point is that they were available to be viewed so easily BECAUSE they were set aside, because they were parcelled. Removed from context, their sense is limited, their significance moot. The same holds true for the earlier pensieve scene snoop, in GoF, in the Headmaster's office. Amanda: > Snape pursues his own agenda: cannot accommodate the violation of his personal memories by Harry and refuses to teach him further. Result: Harry is left open to Voldemort's manipulation. Dan: I don't understand enough about how Occlumency works to judge either Snape or Harry's performance. Are we given parameters by which to judge this? Maybe Occlumency requires a kind of self-consciousness, an understanding of how oneself thinks or percieves things - requiring a kind of "working together" that was simply never going to happen with Harry and Snape. Learning the discipline, at any rate, would certainly provide the opportunity/excuse for asking personal questions. Harry's agenda, in this case, then, is to understand Snape and his role, and also his own place in the "common". Somehow, this, perhaps by way of the opacity of information I referred to above, becomes like an attack, according to some. If this is true, then Harry will always be percieved as headstrong and in pursuit of his "personal agenda" - no one is telling him what the "common agenda" is. It makes me wonder that the problematic position of knowledge might be either part of Rowling's cosmos itself, or part of the underlying theme of the books. Dan From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 06:35:45 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:35:45 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency, was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122856 First I want to thank Amanda Geist" for an intelligent well written post; although I disagreed with almost every line I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and responding to it. I know we agree on one thing, we both like Harry Potter. > his focus is not on improving in Occlumency, > but in solving the corridor puzzle: " 'I'm > getting bored walking down that corridor > every night....I just wish the door would open, > I'm sick of simply staring at it...' " [554]. Yea it's very boring walking down that same dumb corridor, I'd like something interesting to happen to break the monotony. And what's all this baloney about Occlumency? Dumbledore tells me it's all so very very super duper ultra important to learn this crap, but he won't give me one reason why it's so important. Well, Dumbledore has been wrong before, and besides, he hasn't talked to me or even looked at me for months. I once thought he liked me a little. Well to hell with Dumbledore, I can live without him, Mr. Weasley would be dead if I had taken his advice before. And my teacher hates me and I don't trust him one teeny tiny inch, too many of my previous teachers have tried to kill me. To Hell to with Snape too! Besides Occlumency lessons make me feel like I'm about to vomit, and I've got to tell you that's not much fun. > I'm also willing to bet that the first foray > into Occlumency, when Harry did resist Snape > to a degree, did strengthen Harry's mind a bit I'll take that bet because the world's greatest expert on Harry Potter's mind strongly disagrees with you, Harry potter himself. > Harry is using the existence of the Occlumency > lessons to give himself an excuse not to talk > to Dumbledore. It's Dumbledore who refuses to so much as look at Harry for month after month and doesn't provide the slightest clue of a reason for the snub. Are you really surprised Harry thinks Dumbledore doesn't give a damn about him? > He does *not* apply himself any harder. That's true, Harry didn't work harder to make himself weaker. > Harry *lies* to Snape about the number > of dreams he has had. Lying to an enemy is always a good policy. It is possible, even probable that Snape is indeed an enemy, at the very least he is an unfriendly bastard. > I feel Snape pegs him accurately?Harry does > want them [the dreams] to continue, because > he feels they are a valuable channel > into Voldemort's doings. Probably true and not an unreasonable wish for Harry to have, after all, such a channel had already saved Ron's father's life. > Snape's reaction, however, is not personal in the slightest. What?! > Snape is about the business at hand, > not some one-on-one power struggle. Snape is not above anything of the sort, he is one of the most petty characters in literature. The man is positively tiny. > He also may be angry because Voldemort was > making himself aware of Harry's mind mere > minutes after Snape has said to Harry that > he, Snape, was responsible for spying on the > Dark Lord. Harry, because he has failed to > apply himself adequately, may just have put > both the spy effort and Snape himself at risk. > I'd be angry myself, in Snape's position. Years ago Dumbledore testified in open court before hundreds of people that Snape spied on Voldemort for him, it's very hard to understand how it could all be a big surprise to the Dark Lord now at this late date. > Snape, as Eggplant has so often pointed out, > does nothing to remove the Pensieve before he > leaves the office on this occasion. I, though, > don't feel he should have needed to. Obviously Snape needed to take precautions; but he must have been living in some dream world because he thought he didn't need to hide the Pensive from Harry. The jackass! If the circumstances were reversed and Harry had removed his most secret memories to the pensive do you think he would be stupid enough to let Snape see him do it? And if he was that dumb do you think Harry would be moronic enough to leave Snape alone with the very same Pensive? And if Harry was that certifiably retarded do you seriously expect us to believe that Snape, of all people, would be too honest, noble and just too committed to fair play to look into Harry's Pensive??! If you really believe all that then I have some swamp land with oil on it I'd like to sell you, and a real nice bridge too. > He is on the same side as Harry. That is, to put it mildly, far from obvious. > it was a failing of Harry's that he betrayed > both Snape's and Dumbledore's Snape's trust? What on Earth are you talking about? > The Occlumency had been strengthening his mind, > albeit very slowly If that was true then I don't understand why JKR lets Harry believe up to and including the very last page of the book that Snape's Occlumency lessons made him weaker not stronger. Eggplant From chitrasahai at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 06:45:37 2005 From: chitrasahai at yahoo.com (hermys_quill) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:45:37 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122857 something else, I wanted to add here. I was reading OOP yesterday and Lupin said that he'll talk to Snape so that Harry can continue his occlumency lessons. What happened after that. Can we assume Snape and Lupin had talk and Snape ignored Lupin or Lupin never had a talk with Snape. Can Lupin be on evil side? I mean JKR once said that watch out for Draco and Snape. Draco is not going to be on light side. Has she stated something about Lupin also? Lupin can be on evil side, taking revenge or something. From zanelupin at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 07:13:07 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:13:07 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: <000801c50116$633122c0$9158aacf@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122858 Uh, er, I'm a little nervous taking on a L.O.O.N. Amanda wrote: >Lockhart was going to erase his and Ron's memories, and then leave them to die in the tunnels below Hogwarts. So he *was* trying to kill them.< KathyK: I disagree. My brain's a little fuzzy on the details but I had to wonder why Lockhart would bother with a memory charm if he were going to just leave Harry and Ron to die. So I double-checked CoS. ***** Lockhart says, US paperback p. 303: "I shall take a bit of this skin back up to the school, tell them I was too late to save the girl, and that you two *tragically* lost your minds at the sight of her mangled body--say good-bye to your memories!" ***** He doesn't say he'll take the boys with him out of the Chamber but I always took it as such because otherwise, "Yes, Potter and Weasley. They lost their heads. Completely useless now, so I thought I'd just leave them down there and bring back this lovely snake skin instead, useful only to me as proof of what a great hero I am. Once they see the skin, they'll instantly forget I left two children wandering confused in the Chamber of Secrets and praise my great courage." Lockhart leaving the boys to die in the Chamber makes no sense when you look at his plan. If he wanted them dead he would just leave them there and not breathe a word about the Chamber to anyone else. But good ol' cowardly yet opportunistic Lockhart will not let pass the chance for more glory. He wants everyone to know *he'd* found the Chamber of Secrets and taken on the basilisk. He'd already written off Ginny, but he couldn't go back spouting stories of the Chamber at all without Harry and Ron. Their absence would not go unnoticed. Plus, added bonus of *a* rescue. "I don't know what they were thinking, following me down there. At least I got them out alive." Yeah, so I don't think Lockhart meant to kill Harry at all. KathyK From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 24 07:14:05 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:14:05 -0000 Subject: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: <001001c5018b$c543bd40$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122859 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > Some of the discussions here has made me wonder if Snape is capable of making a patronus at all. > Valky: Like Alla said, there is a JKR interveiw that gives confirmation of this for you. Snape makes a patronus, but we aren't allowed to know what it is.... yet.. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm 'Ernie: I wonder if you can let us know what form will Professor Snape's Boggart and Patronus take? I am very curious. JK Rowling replies -> Well, I'm not going to tell you Ernie, but that's because it would give so much away. I wonder whether Ernie is your real name? (It was my grandfather's).' World Book Day Chat 2004 Trekkiegrrl: > Now, I haven't been am member of this group for long, but it amazes me that noone has mentioned more about Snape's childhood. Valky: ROFL! That because you haven't been a member long! , not because noone has mentioned it before. Look back through the archives, if you don't find a *very* large proportion of messages to be Snape defense, then I will eat my keyboard! ;D Now on to your issue... LOL Trekkiegrrl: > I find it rather obvious that his own childhood has been the one of an abused child. And his behavioral pattern fits this very well. > No wonder Snape hides behind his sarcastic mask. Better not let anyone get close to you - that way they can't hurt you! > Valky: In spite of that we can logically argue that we *don't* really know that, I believe you're right. I'm fairly sure that the hints can be taken quite for granted, Snapes childhood was very unpleasant... as were Lupin's and Sirius' in their own way. To some extent I will go down the path you suggest and imagine Snape's behaviour to be a psychological mask, but certainly not so far as you might. He's no angel underneath. And OcarWinner!Snape, IMO is about as wholly contrived and ridiculous as you can get. There is no calm spring of detachment guiding him in his inner being. OTOh there is a good point to what you're saying and Sevvie does keep the distance between him and others to prevent himself being vulnerable to them. But he does it to his detriment, really, because he is all too nice to some very unpleasant people and vice versa to the ones who *would* respect him. Trekkiegrrl: > I don't think he's sadistic in the usual sense of that word either. But again it's the typical pattern: People who are beaten as kids are far more inclined to slap their own children, and though I?m not saying Snape was physically abused (though I would very much think so, Valky: And I would agree with all you have said except one thing, but how can that defend Snape. In the end he chooses his own consequences. It is right be considerate of the typical pattern of abuse, but to accept it as an end of a persons existence is a gross underestimation of human potential. Snape has the power to change, he has a right to be loved and respected, the thing is he chooses to waive those things for whatever reasons, they are his own. And he does have a sadistic streak, actually IMHO that is the very thing that is the problem here. In the shrieking shack for example, the temptation is too strong for him, he could take the whole party up to the castle and have the whole ting promptly sorted, the children safe, justice served... but he craves his bitter revenge on Sirius and it comes first. Just put Dumbledore in Snape's place in that Chapter and you will see how someone *without* a sadistic streak would handle the situation. See how Snape pales in the light of logical Dumbledore steps...? > Trekkiegrrl: > Abused children show many "abnormal" patterns in their behaviour. and though some may grow up and act as "normal" responsible adults later on, some just can't. They do not have the basis for that. And Snape was one of the latter. > Valky: That, I am afraid, is just your basic narrow minded cop out. Nothing personal Trekkiegrrl. > Trekkiegrrl: > I doubt Snape had many friends in Slytherin too. Noone > seems to have in any way come to his defenses when the Marauders were picking on him at the "upside-down" episode. And int IS canon that it wasn't the first time they'd chosen Snape as their favourite victim. Some kids are natural victims, often kids from abusive households. I guess wizards can be alcoholics too, or be addicted to illegal potions and whatnot. And Snape's home might very well have been like that. it DOES fit his behavioral pattern as the "victim" > Valky: Children are afraid of Adult!Snape, Child!Snape knew more "scary" curses than even most of the oldest children in the school. I think its safe to presume that at least some of these children were afraid of Snape and James. Snape because he was a "scary dangerous weird boy" and James because he was dangerous to the dangerous. You must remember when reading the scene that Lily Evans was an exceptionally brave girl and bravery is not a key Slytherin trait while self-preservation IS. Trekkiegrrl: > And then comes this "F?hrer" in the shape of Voldemort and all of a sudden the underdog gets a chance to get POWER! > > WHO can't REALLY blame Snape for grasping that? > Valky: I agree, but Snapes past does not colour my veiw of his present. All in all he *is* still what he is now, and for as much as any reason it is by choice. Trekkiegrrl: > No, he's not an ideal teacher after our standards. But again, remember how old fashoined the Wizarding World is. Go back 75 years and he would have been a MILD teacher. Valky: A fair enough statement, and I am not so passionate, really, about it all. I prefer Harry to Snape and thats that. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 07:16:44 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:16:44 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122860 "festuco" wrote: Quoting Hermione: "I suppose it'll help in the long run, won't it?" > for me as a reader it is easy to assume Hermione > read up on Occlumency, and found this out." Hermione starts her remarks with "I suppose" and ends them with "won't it?" It sound to me like she is just making conversation and trying to make Harry feel better. To say she was unsure is an understatement. If you were Harry would that be enough to ignore your gut feeling that there is something fundamentally wrong with those lessons? Eggplant From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 24 07:47:12 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:47:12 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122861 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: Tonks: > > McGonagall is Harry's teacher, not his parent. Yes, he has no > > parents, but things are tough all over. She is not his parent and > > it is not her job. Her job is to teach and as Head of House to make > > sure that the students are safe and well behaved. Phoenixgod2000: > Actually doesn't McGonagall call the house you get sorted into your > family at school? I would think that would be even more important > for a student who's an orphan living with guardians who don't like > magic. So yeah, I think that McG is letting Harry down in a lot of > ways, probably at the behest of DD because she has exhibited concern > over harry in the past. Geoff: I don't know whether the situation has changed, but until I stopped teaching about 10 years ago, the UK legal position was that a teacher was "in loco parentis" (Latin=in the place of a parent). We were effectively in the position of a parent from the moment the pupil crossed the school threshold in the morning to the moment they stepped outside it at the end of the day. This was part of the job of form tutors and Heads of Houses. As a form tutor, I was expected to keep an eye on the doings of my form - their good deeds and their bad, to help and advise. When I first strated teaching, I had a great Head who really looked on 400 boys as his family. From snholmes at email.unc.edu Sun Jan 23 06:43:27 2005 From: snholmes at email.unc.edu (snholmes at email.unc.edu) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:43:27 -0500 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050123014327.ccclwqon44cc8ocw@webmail1.isis.unc.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 122862 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, snholmes at e... wrote: > > Steph: > I was just wondering whether or not anyone ever figured out what > happened to Sirius' motorbike (the one Hagrid rode on that Halloween > night to deliver Harry to the Dursleys'.) Tonks here: I think that everyone here decided that it probably made it way to Arthur Weasley's home. Steph: Thanks, Tonks. That sounds about right. :) From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 15:55:56 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:55:56 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122863 Eggplant: > I said it before I'll say it again, Snape was a coward to put > those memories in the Pensive when he didn't give Harry the > same opportunity for his most secret memories and Snape was a > fool to let Harry see him do it. Amanda: > We only know part of one of the memories. We have no idea what > the others were. There may well have been memories that, should > Harry have witnessed them, would have endangered Snape in his > role as a spy. Snape could easily have simply been taking > advantage of this safeguard put on the process, to "add" a few > of his personal memories as well. You jump to conclusions based > on limited canon. Tonks: > Yes. LV would use Snape to kill Harry. Look at what Snape did when > he saw Harry looking in the pensieve. Snape lost his cool. LV would > have looked through Harry into Snape, triggered Snape's rage and > Harry would have been in very serious danger. Snape knew this. > Snape knew his weakness and how the Dark Lord could use it. So he > put this weak part into the pensieve to protect Harry during the > session. Most of the time Snape IS in control of his emotions, but > not when thoughts of James come up. And Snape is wise to know this > and to take the necessary steps to protect Harry during the sessions. Becky: I disagree with Eggplant that this makes Snape a coward because (as has already been pointed out), he must have OOTP secrets to keep that Harry should not see. If Harry was to find them out, that could have awful consequences, including that LV would be able to find them in Harry's mind via the scar. I agree far more with Amanda's point that these memories might endanger Snape as a spy, but I think I have just shown how they might endanger far more people than just Snape. They might endanger just about everyone if LV was aware of OOTP secrets. I do have a question related to what Tonks is saying. I do feel that part of the reason Snape removed these memories is to control his emotion and his feelings towards Harry. But, if he has removed these memories and thoughts, how is it that he still seems able to recall them? If he is still able to recall them, they can't surely be removed enough for Harry *not* to see them should he be prove able to break into Snape's mind. This has always seemed a little odd to me. Is that *just* me, or can someone see an explanation? Becky From martyb1130 at aol.com Sun Jan 23 15:59:27 2005 From: martyb1130 at aol.com (martyb1130 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:59:27 EST Subject: SHIP! Re: GoF - Second Task Message-ID: <12b.55030283.2f2523df@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122864 How is it that Hermione is the one that Viktor will miss most? I'm sure that he has a friend or two at school. They only knew each other from their frequent visits in the library. Perhaps J.K. did this not to create a fight between Hermione and Ron. If Ron was not chosen to be the thing that Harry misses most then Hermione would have been. It is my belief that if Hermione was "available" it would have created a bit of a fight between the two. Who would Harry choose as the thing he would miss most? I would think that Harry would miss Sirius most, but that would create too much commotion. I think that Dumbledore chose the people he did for specific reasons. Brodeur From deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 23 17:47:01 2005 From: deatheaterjames at yahoo.co.uk (deatheaterjames) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:47:01 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Ghost Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122865 Tonks_op: > What is the story here? We now know that this is Unicorn blood. > How did Harry and Seamus know it was blood when it was silver? I > guess because of his name. What is the story behind the Bloody > Baron?? TrekkieGrrrl: > Hmm, I've never though of it as unicorn blood. Sure it's silver, > but isn't that because the ghost itself is more or less silver? > I've always imagined ghosts as somewhat monochrome. So blood on > them would also be white. Or silver, if you'd describe the ghost > itself as silvery. DEJ: Surely if he has Unicorn blood on him it's because he wanted to become immortal(?) As I think I remember Unicorn blood doing, (please correct me). Which would be unlikely as he is dead and therefore he hasn't drunk the blood, possibly he was about to but got killed. More likely it's just the colour of blood in ghost form as TrekkieGrrrl says. I don't think there is much of a mystery here as JKR doesn't really use many clues in PS/SS that are very relevant to the entire series. DEJ From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jan 23 23:05:58 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:05:58 -0000 Subject: That Time Turner... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122866 Hello everyone, this is my first ever post - and I'm almost finding my way around this site... Anyway, I'm writing in because I just don't get the time line of Harry in the Prisoner Of Azkaban. Maybe someone can put me straight on it? It didn't occur to me until I watched the dvd, and now it spoils it all. My headache is tricky to explain but I'll have a go. When Harry and Sirius are being attacked by the Dementors by the lake, the natural result ie NO interference from his future self, is that he would have been left in a very, very bad way - and we're never told what should have happened. That's Time Line A, okay? No interference from the future Harry is the natural course of events. However, the natural course is ignored by JKR. It never happens because the 'future' Harry interferes by going back in time and stopping the Dementors and the story carries on along the new Time Line B. But how? JKR seems to have completely skipped over a very simple principle, ie if the Dementors had never been forced away by the 'future' Harry, the 'future' Harry would have never been in a position where he could go back and force them away. I hope that makes sense, because it drives me round the twist. A simpler way of showing the principles is this : Imagine Harry goes to cross a road and gets hit by a bus and terminally damaged. But before it hits him, someone calls to him from behind, he turns to see someone who looks a bit like himself, and the bus therefore misses him because he never steps into the road. Time has been altered by his future self. But how? See, Time Line A would have him getting hit by the bus and possibly killed, certainly wrecked for a while. But we ignore that, because Time Line B takes over and a 'future' Harry stops the bad thing happening. And that's what I don't get. How did Harry skip the consequences of Time Line A in order to be on Time Line B which is how he saved himself? Ohh my head. Feel free to ignore this if you like, but if you do get it thn please put me on track. Thank you! Sandra. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 00:58:57 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:58:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: Incomprehensible comparison of Sirius and Aragorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050124005857.31658.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122867 Alshain wrote: ...edited... > I've several times, on several sites, seen HP fans > compare Sirius Black and Aragorn, obviously I've > missed some crucial character development here, > because I can't see these similarities at all. Juli: Really? I read LOTR long before HP, and since the first read I fell in love with Aragon, then I read HP and the same thing happened all over, I think Sirius and Aragon are kindred souls, they seem to have the same core. Sure they seem completly different, almost opposites, all you said is right (just read up thread), but you forgot the goodness in both of them, the desire to make things right, not for themselves but for the world and those around him. Aragon grew to become a king of both Gondor and Anarion, for decades he fought evil, he put his personal gains last. And now Sirius, he spent half his life in Azkaban, then got out looking for justice, but not for himself but for his best friends. If this isn't a good heart I don't know what is. There's also the physical aspect, from their descriptions (not the movies), they kinda look alike, both incredibly sexy. Juli, hoping one day she'll marry either Aragon or Sirius (why, oh why, can't they be real?) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com From kellielewis75 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 04:52:34 2005 From: kellielewis75 at yahoo.com (kellielewis75) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 04:52:34 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Ghost In-Reply-To: <005301c50167$b4b0ebc0$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122868 Tonks_op: > > What is the story here? We now know that this is Unicorn blood. > > What is the story behind the Bloody Baron?? TrekkieGrrrl: > But if it IS indeed unicorn blood the Bloody Barin is splattered > with, it sure raises some questions as to when and where he died. > And why. Just to add -- if the Bloody Baron is indeed covered in unicorn blood (keen observation, by the way), then he would have been cursed and doomed to a half life, according to SS. -Kellie Lewis From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 24 10:23:45 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:23:45 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122869 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > Julie wrote: > I hadn't thought of it this way, but it could explain one thing > that bothered me about Snape's reaction. WHY was he so angry > that Harry saw this scene of the Marauders bullying him? Yes, > Snape didn't come off too well, but James and Sirius come off > much worse. Valky: But I really don't Snape would be able to see it that way. In Snapes eyes Harry is just like his father. Hence Sevvie would assume that Harry found the whole scenario as amusing as James did. Come to think of it, in *that* light the verbal battering Lily gave James looks entirely like it's inconsequential to Snape. Either Snape has forgotten that part of the memory or he really doesn't care one way or the other what kind of person Lily was. Sevvie only reacts to Harry seeing his father's besting and humiliation of him. Julie: > Snape already taunted Harry about James not > being the wonderful person Harry imagines. Why not use this > scene to drive that nail in deeper? You'd think Snape would feel > immense satisfaction at Harry having to face the "truth" about > James, given Snape's feelings. Instead Snape is furious. But > is he furious that Harry witnessed his humiliation, or furious > that Harry's action may have put both their lives further at risk? > Valky: You make a good point, and I concede fully that Tonks may be right on this one. With the exception of one thing, the scenario contradicts itself. First, Sevvie is so emotionally weakened by his memory of the marauders his inability to deal with it rationally makes him vulnerable to Voldemort in Harry, then in the same sentence we are saying that Snape is so mature and rational about these memories he can invoke the foresight to remove them in front of Voldemort in Harry. Contradiction. The most likely scenario is that Dumbledore warned Snape to remove the painful memories to protect him and Harry. For me that works and also it means that Harry was right and it *was* DD's pensieve. > vmonte said: > Is it possible that Snape was already aware that the maurauders were animagi? Valky: Definitely not. He didn't know who the black dog sitting at Harry's feet was at the end of GOF. vmonte: > Because he doesn't want Dumbledore to know that he was already aware of the marauders. And this is why he tells Harry to keep his mouth shut. > Valky: To be honest, I think he told Harry to keep his mouth shut because he believes that Harry will lark fun at him about it, in public, like his father did thereby undermining the scary composed image Sevvie has carefully built himself in the years since. It's a simple case of mistaken identity, IMO. From apzdcmsw at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 24 06:00:20 2005 From: apzdcmsw at yahoo.ca (Matt) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:00:20 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122870 >> Gerry wrote: >>Well, this reader easily could see the importance. I really, really >>could not understand that Harry was such a complete idiot here. He >>has all the clues, he has all the information needed. The only >>thing he needed to do was put it together, and for once in his >>life trust that others might know what they were talking about, >>even if he did not agree. >>The only reason I could come up with for him to be this idiotic is >>that he was so cock-sure that nobody, not even LV would be able to >>trick Harry Potter, and so all these fears of the grownups had no >>basis in reality at all. Of course he knew far better what LV was >>capable of than the people who lived through is reign and fought >>him. Well, he learned the hard way that he had been really, really >>stupid. > Juli wrote: > > huge snip > > Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire, I was also a bit > disappointed that Dumbledore castigated Snape for not being able > to overcome his past (which is true) but did not even reprimand > Harry for prying into Snape's pensieve. I wish he had, if only to > make clear that Harry was wrong, though I understand that Harry > was already suffering enough over Sirius's death. > Alla wrote: > > Ummm, I think that Dumbledore still did not reprimand Snape nearly > close to enough, honestly speaking. > (snip) > ...Harry looking into Pensieve. That was the ONLY time after all, > when I can arguably agree that Harry wronged Snape, IF the things > are as they seem ( meaning that Snape was not helping Voldie to > find his way in Harry's mind). On the other hand, I lost count how > many times Snape wronged Harry. Matt now: This has been a very interesting thread to follow! Several people have mentioned that Harry is fully responsible (or majorly responsible) for the break down with Snape in Occlumency lessons, and the horrible results this led too. Although I would agree that Harry has some responsibility for not working on these classes, and I also agree that he should not have looked into the pensieve, I must say that I can't see Harry as being the primary reason why things spiralled so far out of control. The reason I say that is for what happens to Harry in OotP. Look at it from his standpoint. Harry has done brave act after brave act ever since he has been at Hogwarts. He stopped LV from getting the stone, he stopped the basilisk, and most recently he witnessed a fellow student murdered. He has certainly been through more trauma in four years of school then most other students at Hogwarts! In addition, he has the stress of dealing with the threat of LV on his tale, not to mention STILL having to live with the Dursleys every summer. Then, he comes back to Hogwarts for year 5, and what happens? Lots of secret activity that he doesn't know about, a lot of secrets in the opening that frustrate Harry to no end, and a lovely person by the name of Umbridge who takes wicked pleasure in torturing him. All in all, not exactly a light-hearted year at Hogwarts! He then is asked to learn Occlumency from Snape, who has never treated Harry with kindness, and who Harry believes is a person who hates him and his family. Harry is suffering a great deal more emotionally than people his age, and naturally, at the age of 15, he is starting to become very angry and annoyed about this. Why then should we be surprised that he doesn't put his whole heart into lessons that he doesn't fully understand? Why should we be surprised when he doesn't take to Snape's instruction? True, the stakes are very high for Harry, but when the lessons are done by a teacher who snears and seems to despise you, and the lessons also seem to make you weak, they don't motivate you to keep at them, do they? I think the problems in Occlumency and what follows is actually more so the fault of Snape and even DD as opposed to Harry. We have to remember that these are the Professors and Teachers and Adults, while Harry is still only a 15 year old wizard, albeit a very powerful 15 year old wizard. Although he should definitely be attributed some of the blame for what happens, there is plenty of blame to be held by Snape, and even DD to some degree. After all, they should know how students act and think, and they should also have considered more carefully the precarious situation that they had put Harry in, by asking him to do difficult classes with someone who really despises Harry (even if it is only because he reminds Snape of James). The explanations and emotional assistance they provide Harry is also rather questionable at best. I know it is not there job to be Harry's parents, but considering the tasks they were giving him and his lack of family in the WW, it fell to someone in Hogwarts to consider these factors. Anyways, to end, I don't believe Harry is absent of all blame. Of course he could have done better in Occlumency, and he shouldn't have gone into the pensieve. However, I agree completely with Alla, that Snape has done many more wrong things to Harry over the years, and those items were why Harry didn't trust Snape to begin with. It is difficult for a teenager to learn from someone when they believe and have evidence in their mind that their teacher hates them. Just my opinion, Matt MSW From cynjo at earthlink.net Mon Jan 24 06:37:39 2005 From: cynjo at earthlink.net (kaye60c) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:37:39 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and Snape and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122871 Does anyone else out there think Snape will be teaching Harry Occlumency in book 6? Doesn't someone have to? I think they should be forced to work together. Might be good for both of these stubborn men. "kaye60c" From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 24 10:40:19 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:40:19 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Ghost In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122872 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > This has probably been discussed before, since almost everything has as least once. But forgive an old Auror's memory. > Valky: If it has, it's before my time. > I was rereading PS/SS and came to the part just after the sorting > when they meet the ghosts. Sir Nick says the Bloody Baron is the > Slytherin ghost. ""Harry looked over at the Slytherin table and saw a horrible ghost sitting there, with blank staring eyes, a gaunt face, and robes stained with silver blood." > Unicorn blood. ..........? > > Tonks_op Valky: Really good observation Tonks! Ok, well theres heaps of canon stuff to back it up. Ghosts are people who were afraid of death and unicorn blood will keep you alive if your nearly dead... lets say that adds up neatly. Bloody Baron is s Slytherin ghost, bent to the side on self- preservation I expect, so I can imagine he'd drink it in spite of the curse. I am not a believer that all Slytherins are evil, in fact I honestly think old Sally was probably a really great guy, I think that Snape is OK too. But Slytherin house asks for specific traits from it's members and one of them *is* a good dose of self interest. All in all the chances are good that the silvery blood on BB is Unicorn blood. Perhaps *this* is his power over Peeves, maybe he never really died just faded out into a cursed ghostlike existence, maybe he has a spooky kind of residual magic left that exists between life and death. hmmm From ladymlb777 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 23 22:33:49 2005 From: ladymlb777 at yahoo.com (ladymlb777) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:33:49 -0000 Subject: Who overheard the prophecy? (was Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? / prophecy) In-Reply-To: <20050123012914.xk76t7a9wk888wgo@webmail1.isis.unc.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122873 Steph: > Also, who is the spy that overheard the prophecy being told in > the Hog's Head? Whoever it was that overheard the prophecy didn't hear the entire thing. So no one outside of DD and Harry would know the part that one has to die for the other to live. Chancie: > One of the most suspected characters would probably be Snape. > But since there's no cannon implicating anyone, other than that > it was someone who was working for Voldemort, we don't know. I actually don't think that it was Snape that overheard the prophecy, I think that it was Mundungus. I think that it was a little odd that he was spying on the DA in Hog's Head, hiding because he had been kicked out for something. Which is the same place that the proph was overheard; the eavesdropper being thrown out. Just a thought. "Michele" From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 10:59:23 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:59:23 -0000 Subject: Harry and Sirius and Pain (was Re: Harry and Boggarts) In-Reply-To: <20050123153932.43203.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122874 Magda wrote: Of course they LIKED being together. But they weren't together often enough to really KNOW each other for WHO they were (Harry, Sirius) rather than for WHAT they were (my best friend James' son, my dad's best friend). They thought they had time, once Harry was out of Hogwarts, once Voldemort was defeated, once a few years had passed, to develop a real relationship rather than the patchwork occasional interactions they had in GOF and OOTP. Laurasia: I agree. IMO, Sirius and Harry responded to what the other represented because they reassure each other that all the pain they have suffered was not pointless. Sirius spent 12 years under the rule of the Dementors in Azkaban; alone, desperate, unhappy and innocent. All for the loyalty of his friends. Harry represents a purpose to all of that. Harry is proof that all that suffering was not just for nothing. That he really was hanging onto something. Comparatively, Harry spent 12 years under the control of the Dursleys in Privet Drive; alone, mistreated, unhappy and innocent. And he didn't understand why. He just wanted a family. To Harry, Sirius represents that there was a point to enduring the Dursleys' abuse; proof that there is a real parent-figure at the end of the tunnel. The reason why Harry and Sirius latch onto what the other one represents is because they both need reassurance that they can cope with their past and continuing pain. I think that both if them keep the other one at a bit of a distance in OotP because neither of them really want to confront their own pain. Whilst they are consoled by the other's presence, there is the inescapable fact that Harry also represents James and Lily's death and 12 long years in Azkaban for Sirius. And Sirius, the parent-figure that he is, also reminds Harry that he spent 12 years being trampled by the Dursleys. And even if Harry is better at dealing with the Dursleys these days, memories of their torment still plague him in the Occlumency lessons in this expansive collection of worst experiences. Harry has tried to stand up to the Dursleys his entire life, but at the start of PoA we see him going alone with Vernon's and Marge's cruelty (until he snaps). The start of GoF is when we truly see Harry defy them- his insistence on going to The Quidditch World Cup, refuse to adhere to Dudley's diet. These are post-Sirius. Sirius gave Harry enough hope to stand up to his abusers. Will Harry's defiant rejection of the Dursleys' authority continue in HBP? When Harry doesn't have Sirius as a *real* parent-figure to trust in any more? In HBP will Harry even try to resist their mistreatment? Or will he just think that it's all he deserves? IMO, part of Harry's devastation with Sirius' death is because it made all his years of enduring the Dursleys' abuse revert back to meaninglessness. And it removes a lot of faith he could have for his continuing maturation into adulthood. Sirius represented a solution to Harry's inherent pain (his inherent pain being, IMO, always being alone, whether by orphaning or prophecy). Harry grieves for the return of his own old pain, as well as this new pain of losing Sirius. ~<(Laurasia)>~ From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Mon Jan 24 11:00:41 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:00:41 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin's Ghost In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2FE04790-6DF7-11D9-BC39-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 122875 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: >> I was rereading PS/SS and came to the part just after the sorting >> when they meet the ghosts. Sir Nick says the Bloody Baron is the >> Slytherin ghost. ""Harry looked over at the Slytherin table and > saw a horrible ghost sitting there, with blank staring eyes, a > gaunt face, and robes stained with silver blood." >> Unicorn blood. ..........? >> I always assumed it just looked silvery because ghosts are semi-transparent. However even if it is unicorn blood (interesting point) the Baron may not have been the one who slew the unicorn. He could have been slain by the slayer of the unicorn (or his/her associate) - possibly even while trying to DEFEND the unicorn. Possible? Jocelyn From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 24 11:09:36 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:09:36 -0000 Subject: That Time Turner... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122876 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sandra87b" wrote: > > Hello everyone, this is my first ever post - and I'm almost finding my way around this site... > Hello Sandra welcome to HPGFU.... and BTW, same to all the other 100 or so people who joined this week *WOW*. > Anyway, I'm writing in because I just don't get the time line of > Harry in the Prisoner Of Azkaban. Maybe someone can put me > straight on it? It didn't occur to me until I watched the dvd, and > now it spoils it all. > My headache is tricky to explain but I'll have a go. > Valky: Ummm the answer to that is probably no. You see JKR has interpreted the concept of a time paradox, that's a huge unsolvable scientific mystery risen from theories of manipulating the time-space continuum. Science and logic don't give a solid answer to it because science has raised the question and in real life has not been able to answer it. That makes it Sci-Fi/Fantasy fodder, there is no right or wrong answer, just endless possibilities. > When Harry and Sirius are being attacked by the Dementors by > the lake, the natural result ie NO interference from his future > self, is that he would have been left in a very, very bad way - and we're never told what should have happened. That's Time Line A, > okay? No interference from the future Harry is the natural course > of events. > > However, the natural course is ignored by JKR. It never happens > because the 'future' Harry interferes by going back in time and > stopping the Dementors and the story carries on along the new Time > Line B. But how? JKR seems to have completely skipped over a very > simple principle, ie if the Dementors had never been forced away by the 'future' Harry, the 'future' Harry would have never been in a > position where he could go back and force them away. > Valky: Your logic is good Sandra, in Theory. The question is, test it and see if thats what happens. Because theoretically JKR's logic is equally sound. Let me explain. You say that the natural progression is that Timeline A doesn't have future Harry in it until timeline B is played out. Fair enough. Jo's theory for the purposes of her story is that there is no time line B. All are one. The eternal question of the time paradox is if one was to return in time to the past and destroy ones chance of going back in time.... does any of it happen? See Star Trek NG All Good Things episode for an interpretative answer. Likewise Jo has written the paradox in its mirror image, If Harry wasn't to go back in time he would not survive to go back, so could it be any other way? To put it bluntly, there isn't supposed to be an answer. It is what it is, and that is I suppose JKR's take on the eternal question. Sandra: > I hope that makes sense, because it drives me round the twist. A > simpler way of showing the principles is this : > Imagine Harry goes to cross a road and gets hit by a bus and > terminally damaged. But before it hits him, someone calls to him > from behind, he turns to see someone who looks a bit like > himself, and the bus therefore misses him because he never > steps into the road. Time has been altered by his future self. But > how? > Valky: But you see JKR never let Harry get hit by the bus the first time round. Time forwardly and backwardly created ONE scenario only, no alternative. *One reality* created by time approached from two directions. Is that starting to become clearer? From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 11:29:15 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:29:15 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122877 Sandra wrote: However, the natural course is ignored by JKR. It never happens because the 'future' Harry interferes by going back in time and stopping the Dementors and the story carries on along the new Time Line B. But how? JKR seems to have completely skipped over a very simple principle, ie if the Dementors had never been forced away by the 'future' Harry, the 'future' Harry would have never been in a position where he could go back and force them away. vmonte responds: There are several theories regarding what happened in PoA. I know about two. In one version Dumbledore saves Harry the first time around, then sends Harry the second time around to save himself. The second theory is that time-line A never happened because Harry had always saved himself; which means that time is not as rigid and linear as we believe. This second version is difficult to understand, but you can use the same principle to explain Hermione's warning about wizards that have killed their past and or future selves. Logically killing your past self would make no sense right? How would you get to the future/present if you killed your past self? Apparently in JKR's world, these things are somehow possible because she says so, and applying any logic to the situation will fail. Vivian From phil at pcsgames.net Mon Jan 24 12:28:58 2005 From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:28:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin's Ghost References: Message-ID: <04da01c50210$56482c70$6600a8c0@phil> No: HPFGUIDX 122878 wrote: > > > > This has probably been discussed before, since almost everything > has as least once. But forgive an old Auror's memory. > > > > > I was rereading PS/SS and came to the part just after the sorting > > when they meet the ghosts. Sir Nick says the Bloody Baron is the > > Slytherin ghost. ""Harry looked over at the Slytherin table and > saw a horrible ghost sitting there, with blank staring eyes, a > gaunt face, and robes stained with silver blood." > > Unicorn blood. ..........? > > > > Tonks_op Now from Phil: I am sorry to bust your theory but in COS chapter 17 it says: "Oh, well ... I'd just been thinking ... if you had died, you'd have been welcome to share my toilet," said Myrtle, blushing silver. So since she blushes silver, then red blood on a ghost will probably look silver. Phil From trekkie at stofanet.dk Mon Jan 24 15:25:09 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:25:09 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) References: Message-ID: <005301c50228$e41e3720$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122879 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > Some of the discussions here has made me wonder if Snape is capable of making a patronus at all. > Valky: Like Alla said, there is a JKR interveiw that gives confirmation of this for you. Snape makes a patronus, but we aren't allowed to know what it is.... yet.. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm 'Ernie: I wonder if you can let us know what form will Professor Snape's Boggart and Patronus take? I am very curious. JK Rowling replies -> Well, I'm not going to tell you Ernie, but that's because it would give so much away. I wonder whether Ernie is your real name? (It was my grandfather's).' World Book Day Chat 2004 TrekkieGrrrl again: OK. I've read the books. Not all the interviews. Yet. Trekkiegrrl: > Now, I haven't been am member of this group for long, but it amazes me that noone has mentioned more about Snape's childhood. Valky: ROFL! That because you haven't been a member long! , not because noone has mentioned it before. Look back through the archives, if you don't find a *very* large proportion of messages to be Snape defense, then I will eat my keyboard! ;D Now on to your issue... LOL TrekkieGrrrl again: OK so some things have been answered before. Sorry. Also sorry that I find Yahoo groups a pest to search in. I wasn't aware that it was a laughing matter to ask for something just because it has been discussed before. Just in that time I HAVE been following this group - in silence - I have seen the same issues brought up multiple times. Still with a new or different angle. Trekkiegrrl: > I find it rather obvious that his own childhood has been the one of an abused child. And his behavioral pattern fits this very well. > No wonder Snape hides behind his sarcastic mask. Better not let anyone get close to you - that way they can't hurt you! > Valky: In spite of that we can logically argue that we *don't* really know that, I believe you're right. I'm fairly sure that the hints can be taken quite for granted, Snapes childhood was very unpleasant... as were Lupin's and Sirius' in their own way. To some extent I will go down the path you suggest and imagine Snape's behaviour to be a psychological mask, but certainly not so far as you might. He's no angel underneath. And OcarWinner!Snape, IMO is about as wholly contrived and ridiculous as you can get. There is no calm spring of detachment guiding him in his inner being. OTOh there is a good point to what you're saying and Sevvie does keep the distance between him and others to prevent himself being vulnerable to them. But he does it to his detriment, really, because he is all too nice to some very unpleasant people and vice versa to the ones who *would* respect him. Trekkiegrrl: > I don't think he's sadistic in the usual sense of that word either. But again it's the typical pattern: People who are beaten as kids are far more inclined to slap their own children, and though Im not saying Snape was physically abused (though I would very much think so, Valky: And I would agree with all you have said except one thing, but how can that defend Snape. In the end he chooses his own consequences. It is right be considerate of the typical pattern of abuse, but to accept it as an end of a persons existence is a gross underestimation of human potential. Snape has the power to change, he has a right to be loved and respected, the thing is he chooses to waive those things for whatever reasons, they are his own. And he does have a sadistic streak, actually IMHO that is the very thing that is the problem here. In the shrieking shack for example, the temptation is too strong for him, he could take the whole party up to the castle and have the whole ting promptly sorted, the children safe, justice served... but he craves his bitter revenge on Sirius and it comes first. Just put Dumbledore in Snape's place in that Chapter and you will see how someone *without* a sadistic streak would handle the situation. See how Snape pales in the light of logical Dumbledore steps...? TrekkieGrrrl again: I do not agree fully that Snape has the power to change. I agree - of course - that he has a right to be loved and respected, but I don't think he's AWARE of why people doesn't like him. And sorry but I just don't LIKE Dumbledore all that much. I'm not sure he hasn't got a sadistic streak too, depending of course of how you define that. > Trekkiegrrl: > Abused children show many "abnormal" patterns in their behaviour. and though some may grow up and act as "normal" responsible adults later on, some just can't. They do not have the basis for that. And Snape was one of the latter. > Valky: That, I am afraid, is just your basic narrow minded cop out. Nothing personal Trekkiegrrl. TrekkieGrrrl again: Personal or not I find that a strange accusation. I DO know about abused children FYI. > Trekkiegrrl: > I doubt Snape had many friends in Slytherin too. Noone > seems to have in any way come to his defenses when the Marauders were picking on him at the "upside-down" episode. And int IS canon that it wasn't the first time they'd chosen Snape as their favourite victim. Some kids are natural victims, often kids from abusive households. I guess wizards can be alcoholics too, or be addicted to illegal potions and whatnot. And Snape's home might very well have been like that. it DOES fit his behavioral pattern as the "victim" > Valky: Children are afraid of Adult!Snape, Child!Snape knew more "scary" curses than even most of the oldest children in the school. I think its safe to presume that at least some of these children were afraid of Snape and James. Snape because he was a "scary dangerous weird boy" and James because he was dangerous to the dangerous. You must remember when reading the scene that Lily Evans was an exceptionally brave girl and bravery is not a key Slytherin trait while self-preservation IS. TrekkieGrrrl again: I'm sure there were many who were afraid of Child!Snape - and many of Child!James. But likely not the same children. Trekkiegrrl: > And then comes this "Fhrer" in the shape of Voldemort and all of a sudden the underdog gets a chance to get POWER! > > WHO can't REALLY blame Snape for grasping that? > Valky: I agree, but Snapes past does not colour my veiw of his present. All in all he *is* still what he is now, and for as much as any reason it is by choice. TrekkieGrrrl again: And this is where we differ. I don't think he HAS this choice. He has never HAD much of a choice as I see it. Trekkiegrrl: > No, he's not an ideal teacher after our standards. But again, remember how old fashoined the Wizarding World is. Go back 75 years and he would have been a MILD teacher. Valky: A fair enough statement, and I am not so passionate, really, about it all. I prefer Harry to Snape and thats that. TrekkieGrrrl again: Oh I like Harry too, though I think he did an unforgivable thing by putting his nose into Snape's Pensieve. It is Harry's everpresent curiosity that makes him disregard the necessety of the Occlumency lessons and it's the same curiosity that makes him peep in the Pensieve. It just doesn't make it right. I won't say I prefer Snape to Harry. I like both of them for very different reasons. But if I have to choose, I would save Snape ;o) ~TrekkieGrrrl From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 15:23:01 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:23:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122880 > Betsy: > Has Dumbledore been wrong time and again? He *was* fooled by Crouch! > Moody, and the big reveal in OotP is that puppetmaster!Dumbledore is > a myth (thank God!) but Harry is still alive, still learning, and > Voldemort has paid dearly for every step forward he's made, because > of Dumbledore's actions. Finwitch: Or despite of them. Dumbledore *has* erred several times... PS: Dumbledore erred to follow a fake letter, supposedly from the Ministry. As result, Harry feels compelled to go down there and attempt to rescue the stone. Harry nearly dies, and was barely saved by his Mother's love-you-enough-to-die-for-you-mark on his skin. Of course, Dumbledore came back just early enough to help Harry into the hospital wing. CoS: Well, there was the whole Flying-car fiasco, and Dumbledore's error in assuming that he'd have no choice but to expel the two if they ever did something against the rules... well, I don't know if sending Hedwig had worked - who says Dobby couldn't have intercepted it? He DID take all letters Ron&Hermione had sent to Harry, after all. The more dangerous error, however, was hiring Lockhart - this fraud WAS causing danger-- he nearly turned Ron&Harry into not much more than someone KISSED BY DEMENTOR would be near the end, before he removed Harry's bones, set pixies loose etc. Interesting that the most serious consequence of the Car-incident (Ron's broken wand) was the thing that SAVED them from the fate Lockhart had in mind. He left Fawkes behind so that 'he had not truly left Hogwarts so long as at least one remained loyal to him', and 'help would always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it'. PoA: This one reveals several errors shared by Dumbledore & every single teacher/adult except for Sirius & the pet-shop worker so far as we can tell: believing Sirius betrayed James, despite of knowing how close they were. Not noticing anything odd about Ron's rat - living so long, lacking a finger... but most importantly, that of not giving Sirius a chance to defend himself (which becomes clearer in the GoF, but is presented here). Snape in particular is guilty of not listening to the truth of Peter Pettigrew. What happens: Harry almost gets Kissed by a Dementor, if not for Hermione's TimeTurner, and the Patronus Harry could now produce, thinking that he'd go live with Sirius... Oh well, at least Dumbledore gives Sirius a chance NOW - the chance he should have given him 12 years ago. No wonder Harry doesn't trust Snape. Not after the Events in the Shrieking Shack. GoF: Dumbledore failed to recognise fake!Moody (and only got it after Harry got himself out of danger once into danger again). Result: BC Jr. turns the goblet into a portkey, leading directly to the death of Cedric Diggory, and Harry's battle against Voldemort. OOP: All that 'don't tell Harry anything'- crap, along with keeping Harry at distance. Also, having Harry stay at the Dursleys (with watchers) all Summer was an error that may have caused the loss of Harry (AND Dudley) to Dementors sent by Dolores Umbridge. Plus it lessened available resources. Wouldn't it have been more beneficial and effective to have Harry stay at the 12 Grimmauld Place earlier? > Betsy: > This is the crux of the matter. Harry has never fully trusted > *anyone* and understandably so. I am of the opinion that Harry's > lack of trust is a strength in many ways. He thinks things through > for himself. Finwitch: I agree, (except for Sirius whom Harry trusts like none other). That is his strength - and I believe that it is mainly due to this independence that gave Harry the ability to resist Imperius. Not to do anything just because you're told to do so. Snape's instruction on how to do Occlumency was 'It's like resisting Imperius'. Which *is* what Harry's doing. Resisting Imperius is practically disobeying and/or not listening to anyone telling you to do things without telling you why. When Harry *tried* to calm his mind before bed, he *found himself* instead focusing on how much he loaths Snape and Umbridge. You know, if attempt to calm yourself only makes you *focusing* on an emotion, it's only logical to quit what you were doing. At least you'd not be on ADDED emotions. Or at least, Harry doesn't know how to calm himself before bed. Despite of how Harry blames himself, I think he did do all he could. Finwitch From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 24 15:27:32 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:27:32 -0000 Subject: Incomprehensible comparison of Sirius and Aragorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122881 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alshainofthenorth" wrote: > > Tossing a Mr Black-related meta-subject among the Snape-lovers and crouching in the trench, hoping that there are Tolkien fans at HPFGU. Pippin: Me! Me! Er, couldn't you guess? :) Alshain: > I've several times, on several sites, seen HP fans compare Sirius Black and Aragorn (II, if we want to be precise) of the D?nedain and come to the conclusion that they could be long-lost twins as they are so similar to each other. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, obviously I've missed some crucial character development here, because I can't see these similarities at all.< Pippin: I couldn't either at first. But thinking about your question, I realized a similarity. I am not sure that Aragorn lovers or Sirius lovers will thank me for pointing it out, though ;-) ::prepares to duck brickbats:: I see a resemblance between Aragorn's treatment of Gollum and Sirius's treatment of Kreacher. In each case, a usually noble, kind and generous man errs by failing to see the possibility of latent good in an inferior. Here's Aragorn, speaking of Gollum's capture: -- He will never love me, I fear, for he bit me, and I was not gentle. Nothing more did I ever get from his mouth than the marks of his teeth. I deemed it the worst part of all my journey, the road back, watching him day and night, making him walk before me with a halter on his neck, gagged, until he was tamed by lack of drink and food, driving him ever towards Mirkwood. --LOTR, The Fellowship of the Ring, Book Two ch 2. ----- Contrast this with the way that Frodo treats Gollum after taking him prisoner. When Gollum screams incessantly at being tied up, Frodo does not gag him. Instead, he looses Gollum and makes a pact with him, even though he knows Gollum will most likely prove faithless. All in all, Aragorn's treatment of Gollum is, as Tolkien might put it, better suited to Saruman in his decline than to a defender of the West. Indeed it is comparable to what Merry and Pippin receive as prisoners of Saruman's Orcs. This lapse in an otherwise admirable person has its effect. Gollum is able to hide his treacherous intentions behind his resentment of Aragorn: 'I ask you again, [Frodo] said:' is not this secret way guarded?' But the name of Aragorn had put Gollum into a sullen mood. He had all the injured air of a liar suspected when for once he has told the truth, or part of it. He did not answer. --LOTR, The Two Towers, Book Four, ch 3 Gollum, of course, does betray the Hobbits at the secret way, Cirith Ungol. The Orcs take Frodo's possessions, and they are in due course delivered to the Dark Tower, so that Aragorn's sin can come home to roost. At the Black Gate Aragorn finds his own shadow self, a Black Numenorean, with the tokens of Cirith Ungol in his hands. Fortunately Frodo himself escaped, and thanks ultimately to his kindness in sparing Gollum, both Aragorn and Frodo were saved. Sirius falls into a similar trap. He considers Kreacher too far beneath him, too wretched and hate-filled, even as Gollum is, to be trusted with freedom. Rowling has both Hermione and Dumbledore tell Harry that this was wrong, and that Kreacher, despite his wretchedness and hate, should be treated with kindness and respect. But instead of freeing Kreacher and trying to come to terms with him, Sirius tried to keep Kreacher faithful by force, and paid the price for it. Pippin hoping that Alshain's teeth will hurt a bit less when she thinks of Aragorn now. From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 24 15:29:07 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:29:07 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? (was Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen...) In-Reply-To: <20050123155925.95106.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122882 > > > Not a bad scenario, Lupinlore, although I disagree with some of your > assumptions, most importantly the idea that Dumbledore fails if he's > less than omniscient (in other words, if he's human). Depends on what you mean by failure. I think this is actually a very ambivalent word and can have many different connotations. I am as guilty as anyone else in this, as I often slide back and forth in a single discussion between definitions of failure. Mostly I think what I mean by failure is that "goal A is not obtained." In that sense failure is simply an objective fact and has no moral connotations. If you intend to make 100 on a test and make that your specific goal, and make "only" 96, then you have failed. That is, you have not achieved your standard. You did very well indeed, but nevertheless failed. This is the way the word "failure" is often used in formal scientific and operational discussions of the type I have dealt with for some years. "The military exercise failed to achieve all of its stated objectives. The experiment failed to validate the hypothesis. Dumbledore failed to achieve his goals with regard to Harry." That is to state that something is a failure is simply to say that it did not achieve the intended results. Now, there is another meaning of the word, in which "failure" implies some type of moral flaw. In Anglo-American culture, drenched in the theories and practices of capitalism and deeply influenced by the demanding religious traditions of Calvinism and Millenialism, one is not supposed to fail if one is a morally worthy person. Therefore, we tend to unconsciously, and often consciously, wrap a pronouncement of failure up in the language and intent of moral judgment. What I was trying to say (I think) is that it is not hard to come up with a scenario in which Albus is the "epitome of goodness" and still a failure in the first, objective sense. That is, if he is the EoG then he would undoubtedly have planned for things to go very differently at many points. They did not, ergo he has failed. It is simply an objective fact. However, in that he remains the EoG, he is not a failure in the second, moral sense. > > But I really disaggree that Dumbledore brought in Lupin to be some > kind of parent-sub for Harry. I think Lupin was brought to Hogwarts > to keep him out of the way of the escaped Sirius Black. IMO > Dumbledore was afraid that Lupin would fall in with Black (who was > always the stronger personality of the two), and that might prove > somehow dangerous for Harry. So he brought Lupin to Hogwarts to keep > him away from falling under the sway of his old school pal again. > > Did Dumbledore have doubts about Sirius' guilt? He probably had a > hard time accepting that Sirius could have turned on James after > being closer than brothers for over 10 years, but in the absence of > an explanation about the SK betrayal, probably felt there was no > other option. > > Magda Actually, as I said in my first post, I don't believe in this scenario either, it's only one way of allowing Albus to fail in the objective sense without failing in the moral sense. But, to take your objection and run with it, I see no reason why Albus has to do anything for only one reason. Why in the world can't he want to do something about the lack of emotional support in Harry's life while at the same time thinking that it's best for Remus to be at Hogwarts away from Sirius? For goodness sake, no one ever does anything out of only one motivation, even in the most formal and rule constrained of environments, much less in anything meant to represent "life!" Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 24 15:36:27 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:36:27 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122883 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > Neri: > Sheldon Kopp is obviously influenced by Zen and Tao ideas. Now, I > wouldn't recommend trying to explain to a Zen master that his > philosophy is "existential". He might hand you a mighty blow with his > stick, and then ask you if your feeling of being wronged is not realty > ;-D > > Neri Ah, that explains much! Chuckle. Lupinlore's philosophy of dealing with Zen Masters: If they strike you when you ask questions, have them thrown in the slammer for assault and advise them, "Ah, Grasshopper, this is an excellent time to meditate on the importance of our communications skills." Lupinlore From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 15:44:05 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:44:05 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122884 "bleckybecs" wrote: > I disagree with Eggplant that this makes > Snape a coward because (as has already > been pointed out), he must have OOTP > secrets to keep that Harry should not see. The only memories we know for sure in Snape's Pensive contained no OOTP secrets, just a memory of some embarrassing childhood taunts and bullying from 20 years ago that he didn't want Harry to see. Harry also had memories he didn't want Snape to see but he too was unsuccessful in protecting some of them. > these memories might endanger Snape as a spy The memories Harry saw certainly won't endanger Snape, just embarrass him. And it's very difficult to understand how Snape could still be a spy after Dumbledore told the entire world in open court years ago that Snape had been a spy. Fame is usually a good thing but not if you're a spy. The term "famous spy" is a bit of a non sequitur. Eggplant From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 24 15:54:07 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:54:07 -0000 Subject: Innocent Albus? (was RE: Why should Harry...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122885 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" > wrote: > > Lupinlore said: > >When JKR speaks of DD she is speaking about the "epitome of > >goodness" that exists in her mind, NOT about the figure that exists > >in her books, for whom the title "epitome of goodness" often seems > >rather inappropriate. > > > Tonks replies: > I understand the difficulty of taking what you have in your mind and > putting it on paper in such a way as to convey what you really mean. > However, I do not think that JKR has a problem with that. I see DD > as the *epitome of goodness*. I see his as a very wise, very saintly > figure, so she conveyed her meaning to me. > Excellent! In that case, as you say, I and others like me have a difficulty with the books you do not. That is perfectly fair. > Lupinlore said: > >But, back to the redemptive scenario for Alby. Here's how one such > >sequence might play out, starting from Harry's arrival at Hogwarts: > > >Albus knows that Harry lacks adult emotional support of the kind a > >parent would provide. (SNIP) > >The two obvious adults to "bring in" as a kind of support structure > >for Harry would be Sirius and/or Remus. (Snip) > > > Tonks replies: > I don't think for one moment that DD is concerned with providing a > parental figure for Harry. Harry is coming of age. He has had his > parent figures (FLAWED that they be) Yes, and whose fault is THAT? Why, DD's of course! Yes, Harry most definitely DOES need loving adult figures in his life to replace those he was denied by Dumbledore. And yes, it IS DD's moral responsibility to address that problem. He made the decision that led to Harry being abused for ten solid years. It is now his place to give Harry recompense. and it is time for him to move > out into the world. DD is there and Harry turns to him when needed. > Harry does get emotional support from Hagrid, as an adult friend. > Harry is not a whimpering little boy that needs a mother to cling > to. True at one point in GoF he gets the emotional comforting that > he needs from Molly. That was very appropriate since Harry had been > through a very traumatic situation. But for the most part Harry is > strong and able to cope. Like most children his age his peer group > is his main support. > > Lupinlore: > >But, the events of the first year prove that Albus has indulged his > >usual (but lovable) flaw of being too optimistic. Harry just isn't > >ready to trust anyone, even someone so positive toward him as > Hagrid. > > > Tonks here: > I disagree. Optimism is not a flaw. It is when it leads you into making mistakes. Again. And Again. And Again. And Again. And Harry DOES trust. He trust > Hagrid and DD. He trusts his new friends. Harry is not lacking in > basic trust. > > > Lupinlore said: > >Year Four is brittle and somewhat desperate. (Snip) By now DD is in > >a state of panic. Not only has he singularly failed to provide an > >appropriate emotional support system for Harry, Harry is himself in > clear danger. > > > Tonks replies: > > OH GIVE ME A BREAK! Kindly do not yell on these here electrons. DD is not *in a state of panic*. DD is always > confident, and optimistic (as you have said yourself). And I don't > think that with DD around that Harry is ever in as much danger as we > all think. I think that DD watches over Harry pretty well. > > Tonks_op > (Wand still out and pointed>>>>>) And kindly drop all the silly wand business. It was cute the first time. You are well past that point. Lupinlore From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 15:59:43 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:59:43 -0000 Subject: HBP to come in at 672 pages Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122886 Some may be interested to know that Amazon has announced that Half Blood Prince will be 672 pages, that makes it slightly shorter than Goblet of Fire but considerably longer than Azkaban. Eggplant From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 24 16:13:06 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:13:06 -0000 Subject: Incomprehensible comparison of Sirius and Aragorn In-Reply-To: <20050124005857.31658.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122887 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > Sure they seem completly different, almost opposites, > all you said is right (just read up thread), but you > forgot the goodness in both of them, the desire to > make things right, not for themselves but for the > world and those around him. Alshain: But lots of characters in books are good or have good hearts. Lots of people want to make the world a better place in the real world, but it doesn't prevent them from leading different lives or having different personalities and motivations. Compare Oskar Schindler to Mother Teresa, for example. For literary heroes it's almost a requirement. If I wanted to compare Sirius to anyone it'd have to be Edmond Dant?s, AKA the Count of Monte Cristo, and even that comparison doesn't fit 100 %. Monte Cristo is much colder and more calculating, even less a part of the world. Then again, it's generally a good sign that one can't find exact parallels, isn't it? JKR draws up her characters to be unique, to be what the story demands of them, uses bold strokes and vivid colours, making all of them stand out even if in a somewhat exaggerated way. (I was going to write, "drawn a bit larger than life", but some are actually drawn smaller. "Cartoonish" might be a better description, but even so, they all seem realistic.) Most of them are three- dimensional, they have their own voices and flaws. The only characterisation I really object to is that of the villain. The most chilling murderer in D.L. Sayers' Peter Wimsey novels fully goes in for the Nietzschean Ubermensch ideal, yet he's praised as a saint by a Russian emigr?, since he treats her daughter's PTSD for free. If I'm allowed another parallel to Middle-earth, Sauron once bowed down to the King of N?menor (with ulterior motives, but partly from fear), and long before that, wanted to repent though his pride got the better of him. Voldemort/Tom Riddle, on the other hand, has no such humanising traits (he doesn't show any in the CoS flashbacks, and Ron points out that he commits one of the largest sins a schoolboy can commit -- that of being a tattletale and a prig) and IMO that makes him less believable. It seems that human inconsistency went down the drain with all other resemblances to a human being. It gives me a niggling suspicion that JKR conveniently stripped away his humanity to make it more OK for Harry to kill him and easier for him to come to terms with it. And given that she's dealt with moral dilemmas before, it'd feel like a cop-out if she suddenly shied from the largest dilemma of all, that there are situations where your only alternative is to kill another person and live with that decision for the rest of your life. Alshain (also madly in love with Aragorn as a 13-year-old) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 24 16:16:58 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:16:58 -0000 Subject: JKR on Lupin was Imperius Resistance etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122888 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hermys_quill" wrote: > watch out for Draco and Snape. Draco is not going to be on light side. Has she stated something about Lupin also? Lupin can be on evil side, taking revenge or something.< Pippin: Heh, heh! You've come to the right place . But to answer your questions, JKR has said some very nice things about Lupin, such as that he's her favorite character among the grown-ups, a great, wonderful man, and the teacher she would like for her own daughter. But.. she's also said that he has a failing http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2003/0626-alberthall-fry. htm 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 afailing 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. and he's damaged... http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2002/1102-fraser-scots man.html It took me five years to plan the series out, to plot through each of the seven novels. I know what and who's coming when, and it can feel like greeting old friends. Professor Lupin, who appears in the third book, is one of my favourite characters. He's a damaged person, literally and metaphorically. I think it's important for children to know that adults, too, have their problems, that they struggle. His being a werewolf is a metaphor for people's reactions to illness and disability. I almost always have complete histories for my characters. If I put all that detail in, each book would be the size of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but I do have to be careful that I don't just assume that the reader knows as much as I do. --- JKR sounds pretty bitter about the indignities she endured as a single parent, forced to live in poverty as Lupin is: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2002/0602-mirror-goldwi n.htm And she also has issues about the treatment of disabled people, (see above) so I could see her casting Lupin as a sort of 'fire next time' character -- if people are denied their rights too often, they'll rise up to fight for them, and they may not want to look as closely as they should at who their allies are. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 24 16:26:10 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:26:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122889 Finwitch: > Dumbledore *has* erred several times... > > PS: Dumbledore erred to follow a fake letter, supposedly from the > Ministry. SSSusan: Are you assuming that DD is omniscient? If not, how exactly was he supposed to know that the letter was fake? Finwitch: > CoS: The more dangerous error, however, was hiring Lockhart - this > fraud WAS causing danger-- he nearly turned Ron&Harry into not much > more than someone KISSED BY DEMENTOR would be near the end, before > he removed Harry's bones, set pixies loose etc. SSSusan: While I don't believe DD could have known how Lockhart's incompetence would play out -- in particular, how serious the consequences would be -- I will agree with you that hiring him was stupid. Wasn't it kind of early in the "The Hogwarts DADA position is jinxed" rumor mill for people to have been wary of the job? NOBODY else was available? Finwitch: > PoA: This one reveals several errors shared by Dumbledore & every > single teacher/adult except for Sirius & the pet-shop worker so far > as we can tell: believing Sirius betrayed James, despite of knowing > how close they were. > Not noticing anything odd about Ron's rat - living so long, lacking > a finger... but most importantly, that of not giving Sirius a > chance to defend himself (which becomes clearer in the GoF, but is > presented here). SSSusan: I'm not sure I can go along with these two. It sounds to me as if there might have been some *reason* to have suspected Sirius as the spy -- or at least not to have suspected Peter. I think this is one of those bits of backstory about which we are missing key details. I also don't think DD should have *known* Sirius was innocent. And he was shuffled off to Azkaban w/o a trial, so that's hardly DD's fault. OTOH, it doesn't make much sense that he didn't, in the intervening 12 years, at least attempt to go talk w/ Sirius. That part has me puzzled & disappointed in DD. As for Scabbers, why should DD or any other teacher notice anything about him? One pet amongst presumably HUNDREDS at Hogwarts? Why WOULD anyone be suspicious of a rat with one toe missing? The only adults who might've been surprised at his long life would've been Arthur & Molly, but honestly, do many of us question how long a pet has lived? Do we say, "Gee, I wonder why that ol' rat doesn't just kick it?" I would think that mostly we're just grateful that an old pet *hasn't* kicked it yet and don't question it. In short, I just disagree that there was really anything about Scabbers to have drawn much attention, as well as little or no reason to have been looking for an alternative explanation to GH since it seemed so obvious that Sirius had been to blame. Finwitch: > OOP: All that 'don't tell Harry anything'- crap, along with keeping > Harry at distance. Also, having Harry stay at the Dursleys (with > watchers) all Summer was an error that may have caused the loss of > Harry (AND Dudley) to Dementors sent by Dolores Umbridge. Plus it > lessened available resources. Wouldn't it have been more beneficial > and effective to have Harry stay at the 12 Grimmauld Place earlier? SSSusan: I agree with you about DD's not telling Harry more details about all kinds of things--The Order, what they suspected about Voldy, why Occlumency was essential in DD's mind, etc. I think many posters here agree that this was a huge mistake, and DD himself acknowledges it. With the Dursleys vs. Grimmauld Place, though, we're getting into "Hindsight is 20/20" territory, I think. WHY should DD or any other adult have expected a ministry official would set Dementors onto Harry in Little Whinging? Again, unless you're arguing for an omniscient DD, it seems way too much to expect of him. Siriusly Snapey Susan, willing to blame DD for some things but not quite so much as this. From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 24 16:30:51 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:30:51 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and Snape and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122890 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kaye60c" wrote: > > Does anyone else out there think Snape will be teaching Harry > Occlumency in book 6? Doesn't someone have to? I think they should > be forced to work together. Might be good for both of these stubborn > men. > > "kaye60c" Well, certainly many fanfics have Snape and Harry working together in Occlumency in Year 6. It seems to be a favorite scenario in some regions of the fandom. Let's see what we can make of the issues: 1. Does Harry still need to learn Occlumency? This is an interesting question. Occlumency seems to be about clearing your mind and blocking your emotions. Yet, it was the exact OPPOSITE of this that saved Harry in OOTP. One could argue that the Harry/Voldy axis is a special case, I suppose. Snape in fact admits as much in OOTP. Sigh, I just don't know. At present this issue seems hopelessly muddled, and unfortunately I think it will remain so. This kind of situation is JKR's perennial hobgoblin. JKR just isn't very good when it comes to consistency and clarity in her plot points, or in the magical system she imagines for her world. My guess, based on nothing more than instinct about where the story seems to be heading, is the Harry will have Occlumency lessons in Book 6, but that, as with Book 5, they will function as narrative opportunities for plot development and character interaction, and that Occlumency per se will not figure large in Harry's confrontation with Voldy. 2. Will Snape teach Harry Occlumency? Once again, we have potential here for a fearful muddle. At the end of OOTP, Dumbledore states clearly and emphatically that HE should have taught Harry Occlumency. He also clearly states that it was a mistake to choose Snape as Harry's teacher. On the basis of this, there is no way Snape could teach Harry Occlumency in Book 6 without generating a glaring and ham-fisted plot contradiction. But this raises another problem. The Snape/Harry dynamic is one of the central threads of the series. For it to develop Snape and Harry have to have interaction. Where? It seems unlikely that Harry will get an O on his Potions OWL and enter Snape's NEWT class, or that he would want to. Many fanfic writers therefore seize on Occlumency as a way of perpetuating the Snape/Harry dynamic. In this particular instance I'm more inclined, however, to put trust in McGonagall's promises over Snape's policies, and in Harry's desire to get up Snape's nose over his desire to avoid the man. I am officially guessing that Harry WILL be in NEWT level potions by hook or by crook, and that someone else will teach Harry Occlumency. 3. Who will teach Harry Occlumency? Good question. The obvious answer is Dumbledore, and this would certainly create a situation where he could spill some of the cards he has been holding tightly to his chest. However, it would also be an excellent opportunity to bring in that stalwart of all HP novels, the new DADA professor. I really just don't know, although if pressed against the wall I'd have to guess that DD will take over this duty. 4. Should Snape and Harry be forced to work together? Well, that failed monstrously in OOTP. I don't think it would be a good idea to leave them alone to work together. Being forced to work together under the close watch of another party might, however, be fruitful. Lupinlore From trekkie at stofanet.dk Mon Jan 24 16:36:50 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:36:50 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) References: Message-ID: <00d001c50232$e7c2a280$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122891 ----- Original Message ----- From: "vmonte" To: Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 12:29 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) > > > Sandra wrote: > > However, the natural course is ignored by JKR. It never happens > because the 'future' Harry interferes by going back in time and > stopping the Dementors and the story carries on along the new Time > Line B. But how? JKR seems to have completely skipped over a very > simple principle, ie if the Dementors had never been forced away by > the 'future' Harry, the 'future' Harry would have never been in a > position where he could go back and force them away. > > vmonte responds: > > There are several theories regarding what happened in PoA. I know > about two. In one version Dumbledore saves Harry the first time > around, then sends Harry the second time around to save himself. > > The second theory is that time-line A never happened because Harry > had always saved himself; which means that time is not as rigid and > linear as we believe. This second version is difficult to > understand, but you can use the same principle to explain Hermione's > warning about wizards that have killed their past and or future > selves. Logically killing your past self would make no sense right? > How would you get to the future/present if you killed your past self? > Apparently in JKR's world, these things are somehow possible because > she says so, and applying any logic to the situation will fail. > TrekkieGrrrl tries to understand the timeline problems: Isn't the point that timeline B isn't created until you make a timejump, thereby disturbing Timeline A? So if timeline A lets you be, say 50 years old and you then jump back to when you are20 and kill yourself, you are not creating THAT timeline until that very point. So we actually have branching timelines. Not as much the "All Good Things" scenario, but more like the Star Trek NG episode "Cause and Effect" where Worf encounters several timelines AT THE SAME TIME. - all branching from the same moment where he meets an anomaly. In HP the anomaly is created by the use of a Time Turner but the result is the same. And if Harry and Hermione had each their timeturner they could have left Timeline A and created both Timeline B and C, as they would have each their timeline, branching from timeline A, but what Harry did to Hermione in Timeline B wouldn't affect Timeline C and vice versa. Gah. Now my head spins. ~TrekkieGrrrl (who loves timetravel stories) From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 24 16:48:08 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:48:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > I also don't think DD should have *known* Sirius was innocent. And > he was shuffled off to Azkaban w/o a trial, so that's hardly DD's > fault. OTOH, it doesn't make much sense that he didn't, in the > intervening 12 years, at least attempt to go talk w/ Sirius. That > part has me puzzled & disappointed in DD. This raises an interesting question. WAS DD HEAD OF THE WIZENGAMOT WHEN SIRIUS WAS SENT TO AZKABAN? If he was not, then I tend to agree that I am still disappointed in him. However, if he WAS, then the questions of morality become monstrous. The Chief Warlock appears to be the Chief Legal Officer of the WW. As such, it would be primarily his responsibility to prevent miscarriages of justice, and failure would be both a professional and a moral stain. Now, we are dealing with a world in which Veritaserum and Legilimency are available. Given that: 1) Sirius is accused with seemingly good evidence. DD does not know about the change of Secret Keepers. However, DD knows how close Sirius was to James. 2) A five minute session of Veritaserum or Legilemency could, as far as we know, have cleared things up beyond question. Surely this would be especially important if you are dispensing with a trial? 3) If DD was the Chief Warlock, failure to devote five minutes to getting at the truth of the matter becomes, as I said above, monstrous. If he was not, his actions or lack thereof are still disappointing. On a related note, this seems to be one of the clearest examples of the deep flaws running through the WW. People in the Wizarding World are often very powerful. However, wizards in general seem to be astoundingly incompetent. Which is why, by the way, I tend to think the muggle world has nothing really to fear from Wizards. Were their existance ever to become known wizards would be overwhelmed, albeit with high losses, by cultures that not only greatly outnumber them but are as systems vastly more competent in every signficant area outside of magic itself. Lupinlore From happydogue at aol.com Mon Jan 24 16:51:05 2005 From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:51:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust. Message-ID: <6A0FF3B0.2138BF11.0B4B226A@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122893 As to Lockhart - the guy had a wonderful resume. Look at all the books he wrote. As someone who has hired many an employee, you never really know them until they work for you for a while. Some people interview really well and can tell you a good line and never work out on the job. If you were to sit in on an interview with Gildaroy I think you'd never know that he really didn't do all the things that were in his books. Joan From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 17:07:55 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:07:55 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Ghost In-Reply-To: <04da01c50210$56482c70$6600a8c0@phil> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122894 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phil Vlasak" wrote: > wrote: Sir Nick says the Bloody Baron is the > > > Slytherin ghost. ""Harry looked over at the Slytherin table and > > saw a horrible ghost sitting there, with blank staring eyes, a > > gaunt face, and robes stained with silver blood." > > > Unicorn blood. ..........? > > > > > > Tonks_op > > Phil said: > I am sorry to bust your theory but in COS chapter 17 it says: > "Oh, well ... I'd just been thinking ... if you had died, you'd have been welcome to share my toilet," said Myrtle, blushing silver. > > So since she blushes silver, then red blood on a ghost will probably look silver. Tonks now: Well maybe. But I still think that it is a clue to something. Look at the way JKR writes it. We get an interesting introduction to Sir Nick. Then the description of the Barron. Ron asks Nick about the blood. Nick says that he has no idea because he has never asked the Barron how he died or why he is covered in blood. And the story moves on. Much later in the story we learn about Unicorn blood. And one would think that it would fit with a Slytherin to slay a unicorn. When I saw the description of the Barron when rereading it sounded like LV to me, but then I realized that I had skipped his name in the previous paragraph. DEJ said: Surely if he has Unicorn blood on him it's because he wanted to become immortal(?) As I think I remember Unicorn blood doing, (please correct me). Snip) I don't think there is much of a mystery here as JKR doesn't really use many clues in PS/SS that are very relevant to the entire series. Tonks now: Unicorn blood does not make you immortal. It only keeps you going for alive for awhile. And I wouldn't be too sure that JKR doesn't use many relevant clues in PS/SS. She just doesn't want you to find them. ;-) Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 24 17:28:53 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:28:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122895 Lupinlore: > This raises an interesting question. WAS DD HEAD OF THE WIZENGAMOT WHEN SIRIUS WAS SENT TO AZKABAN? > > If he was not, then I tend to agree that I am still disappointed in > him. < Pippin: Dumbledore was not in charge of the trials, Crouch was. Sirius is very clear that Crouch is the one who sent him to Azkaban. In the Pensieve it is clear that Dumbledore does not have the powers you suggest to oversee all justice in the wizarding world. He did not have them even when he was head of the wizengamot. Otherwise dementors would not be in use. I am curious why you think that Dumbledore would think he could have extracted the truth with legilimency. He had it at his disposal while he was looking for the spy, yet he failed to discover who it was. If the spy in the Order were not an occlumens he would have been found out as soon as he was questioned, just as Kreacher was. As for veritaserum, we don't know what the side effects are. Crouch Jr doesn't seem to be doing well during his interrogation; his insane smile becomes wider and wider and then he drops into a stupor. Who knows if these effects can be permanent? Dumbledore doesn't ask that veritaserum be used on Hagrid, even though it might establish his innocence. I agree that wizards are often astoundingly incompetent, however the recent discoveries with DNA evidence have shown that Muggle justice is often astoundingly incompetent as well. I don't understand when people say that Sirius shouldn't have been suspected just because he was close to the Potters, when it had been established that someone close to the Potters was the spy. Pippin From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 17:32:49 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:32:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > > Betsy: > > Has Dumbledore been wrong time and again? He *was* fooled by Crouch! Moody, and the big reveal in OotP is that puppetmaster! Dumbledore is a myth (thank God!) but Harry is still alive, still learning, and Voldemort has paid dearly for every step forward he's made, because of Dumbledore's actions. > > Finwitch said: > > Or despite of them. Dumbledore *has* erred several times... > Finwitch goes on to list all of the time.... Tonks now: In defense of DD. DD does not know everything and does not predict events. As it has been said he is not a puppet master. He allows people to be and do what they will, up to a point. He is the sort of a teacher that lets the student learn the hard way. Some can only learn life's lessons that way. He gives sage advise and direction. He makes suggestions like telling Harry that he should learn occulmency. Then it is up to Harry or whoever to follow or not to follow his advise. It is their choice. In OOTP Harry makes many poor choices and we see the consequences of those choices. And this is a lesson for us all. All DD promises it that he will be there when really needed and called upon. Harry does not call upon him often, but when he does DD has never failed him. Tonks_op From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 24 17:40:38 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:40:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122897 SSSusan: > > I also don't think DD should have *known* Sirius was innocent. > > And he was shuffled off to Azkaban w/o a trial, so that's hardly > > DD's fault. OTOH, it doesn't make much sense that he didn't, in > > the intervening 12 years, at least attempt to go talk w/ Sirius. > > That part has me puzzled & disappointed in DD. Lupinlore: > This raises an interesting question. WAS DD HEAD OF THE WIZENGAMOT > WHEN SIRIUS WAS SENT TO AZKABAN? > > If he was not, then I tend to agree that I am still disappointed in > him. However, if he WAS, then the questions of morality become > monstrous. SSSusan: This is, indeed, The Big Question in this area, isn't it? Do you think it's just one of JKR's "didn't think that one through so fully" areas that no one used Veritaserum or Legilimency on Sirius after his arrest? [Not that JKR has said she has these areas; but many an HPfGUer has remarked about them.] Now, Legilimency I think is overrated as a truth-divining device. As Snape [whoops, *Professor* Snape] reminded Harry, Legilimency isn't mind-reading; I gather it's more about ascertaining emotions or general thoughts or images. "The mind is not a book, to be opened at will and examined at leisure. Thoughts are not etched on the inside of skulls, to be perused by any invader. The mind is a complex and many-layered thing... It is true, however, that those who have mastered Legilimency are able, under certain conditions, to delve into the minds of their victims and to interpret their findings correctly." -- Severus Snape, OotP So I can't say Legilimency could've been utilized with Sirius with full confidence. But why Veritaserum was not utilized, I can't say. Not standard procedure? Not considered necessary in this "clear cut" case? And why did no one, as far as we know, object to sending Sirius off w/o a trial? As you ask, Lupinlore, who was in charge of such matters? I didn't think canon provides any info on when DD joined the Wizengamot, and a quick search at the Lexicon confirms this. Lupinlore: > On a related note, this seems to be one of the clearest examples of > the deep flaws running through the WW. People in the Wizarding > World are often very powerful. However, wizards in general seem to > be astoundingly incompetent. Which is why, by the way, I tend to > think the muggle world has nothing really to fear from Wizards. SSSusan: Is this "incompetence" due to an overreliance on magic, do you think? To a feeling that they've had no need to learn about many things because magic can take care of everything? You say the MW would have nothing much to fear from wizards. I'll bet, though, that if their already-impossible-for-Muggles-to- duplicate magical skills were accompanied by an introduction to Muggle technology such as Uzis and AK-47s, it would level things out a bit. Though that may not have been your point. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From inkling108 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 17:56:33 2005 From: inkling108 at yahoo.com (inkling108) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:56:33 -0000 Subject: It's a girl! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122898 Mugglenet reports JK Rowling gave birth to a healthy baby girl yesterday, January 23! Mother and daughter doing well, more info to come on JK's website! Inkling From happydogue at aol.com Mon Jan 24 18:04:47 2005 From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:04:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust Message-ID: <421A1317.7AB2A7EC.0B4B226A@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122899 >You say the MW would have nothing much to fear from wizards. I'll >bet, though, that if their already-impossible-for-Muggles-to- >duplicate magical skills were accompanied by an introduction to >Muggle technology such as Uzis and AK-47s, it would level things out >a bit. Though that may not have been your point. ;-) > >Siriusly Snapey Susan I always wondered why no one ever thought of going after the DE's or V with firearms. If your body is destroyed to the point that you bleed to death or your organs are destroyed, you can't live or repair yourself no matter how magical you are. Joan From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 24 18:10:35 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:10:35 -0000 Subject: Incomprehensible comparison of Sirius and Aragorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122900 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pippin: > Me! Me! Er, couldn't you guess? :) Oh. Right. I forgot. :-) > Pippin: > I see a resemblance between Aragorn's treatment of Gollum > and Sirius's treatment of Kreacher. In each case, a usually > noble, kind and generous man errs by failing to see the > possibility of latent good in an inferior. > Alshain: Very good point, as there's more than a whiff of old aristocracy and "entitledness" about them both. Still, I'm willing to excuse Aragorn somewhat more than I'm willing to excuse Sirius, as Gollum was the one to attack him physically (and it surprises me that Aragorn didn't die of blood poisoning long before they reached Mirkwood!) Kreacher is just being a toerag unwilling to adjust to new circumstances, which isn't a crime. [TANGENT]Speaking about entitledness, one could compare Sirius and Lucius as characters. In additions to being cousins by marriage, their basic setup seems rather similar, not because of personal idiosyncracies but because they're pureblood aristocrats. Sayers wrote somewhere about "six centuries of possessiveness" and how they leave their mark on a person. It's the old-world class society as an inspiration again (at least, that's the way it seems to me as a European. Other continents have their own skeletons.)[/TANGENT] > Contrast this with the way that Frodo treats Gollum after taking > him prisoner. When Gollum screams incessantly at being tied > up, Frodo does not gag him. Instead, he looses Gollum and > makes a pact with him, even though he knows Gollum will most > likely prove faithless. > If we put Kreacher in the role of Gollum, I'd rather cast Sirius as Sam, both in terms of unwavering loyalty and sheer pigheadedness. He knows that Kreacher/Gollum can't be set free and that they need his presence, but he doesn't like it at all and doesn't do Gollum/Kreacher the courtesy of concealing it. (Thereby dehumanising him. One doesn't have to be polite to a piece of furniture.) He remains mulishly set in his point of view, determined always to think the worst of his adversary. As in the beautiful scene where Gollum almost sees the light, immediately before Cirith Ungol: "A strange expression passed over his lean hungry face. The gleam faded from his eyes, and they wnet dim and grey, old and tired. A spasm of pain seemed to twist him, and he turned away, peering back up towards the pass, shaking his head, as if engaged in some interior debate. Then he came back, and slowly putting out a trembling hand, very cautiously he touched Frodo's knee -- but almost the touch was a caress." (The Two Towers -- The stairs of Cirith Ungol.) Then Sam wakes up, and convinced that Gollum wants to hurt Frodo, he verbally abuses him and cements their fate. It's only after Sam has used the Ring himself that he's able to empathise with Gollum. A revelation that Sirius never had, more's the pity. On the other hand, Sirius is caught in a situation he can't escape without doing violence to his values and his love for Harry (whatever else he may be, he doesn't desert the battlefield or leave his friends without assistance, regardless of personal costs), and Kreacher provides an outlet for his frustration. > Pippin > hoping that Alshain's teeth will hurt a bit less when she thinks of > Aragorn now. They only hurt occasionally. Alshain From vidarfe at start.no Mon Jan 24 18:15:35 2005 From: vidarfe at start.no (vidar_fe) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:15:35 -0000 Subject: Petunia, Dudley, magical ability? (was Re: Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122901 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "minervakab" wrote: > > > Chancie: > > And why since Uncle Vernon hates Hedwig to begin with, would > > he attach a present for Harry whom he also hates? Something > > just doesn't add up to me. Perhaps there is more to thing > > than meets the eye. JKR said we would be learning more about > > Petunia. Perhaps she doesn't dislike Harry as much as we think > > and it's more of a show for Vernon? Who knows? Thoughts anyone? > > > Minervakab: > > I think Petunia treats Harry the way she does so that Vernon won't > find out about her own magical background. She knows more about magic > that any muggle should. She seems to me to be over-compensating much > as reformed (prostitutes, drug addicts, fill in your own word) do when > they "find" god. Can you choose to be a muggle? > > I read a prediction once, written by a little girl before one of the > previous books was published, that Petunia gave in to Dudley all the > time and gave him everything he wanted because she didn't want him to > get angry and show that he also is magical like Harry. When magical > children are frightened or angry, they do magic without thinking so > she kept Dudley from anger just so he would never do accidental magic. > It made perfect sense to me at the time. I still think the theory is > valid and could play out in book six or seven. > > This prediction still makes sense with the new information we have > been given such as Dudley being attacked by the dementors. Would a > muggle even know a dementor was in the vicinity? Yet Dudley > definitely felt them if he did not see them. And we do know from a > JKR interview that someone becomes magical late in life. This could > be Dudley and if so then he is a possiblility for the HPB. In this > case "prince" would be used in a derogatory manner rather than a royal > title. > > I wonder if the note from Dumbledore "Remember my last" was reminding > Petunia that Dudley's name was written on the Hogwarts list at his > birth and Dumbledore agreed to not send a letter to Dudley when he > turned eleven only if Petunia kept Harry at her home. Dumbledore > could have made a deal with her to keep quiet about Dudley being > magical in exchange for her keeping Harry safe. Maybe Petunia is > keeping the house safe with her own magic. > > I think magical Petunia dislikes Harry because she has to work even > harder at appearing to be pure muggle with him around. It would be > easier to blend into the muggle world if she kept away from all > contact with the wizarding world. Harry is a reminder of what she > left behind and also a reminder of the deal she made with Dumbledore. > It also has to be irritating to look at Harry and see your "perfect" > sister's eyes staring back at you. > > Of course, none of this theory works if you cannot choose to be a > muggle. So if someone can show me that it is impossible to turn your > back on the wizarding world, please let me know. > > Minervakab vidar_fe: IMHO you can't choose to be a muggle. If you are born with the ability to use magic, it's logical that you keep that ability all your life. However, you might choose to leave the wizarding world and never do magic again, but you will still be a wizard/witch. think it's a bit like having musical talent. If you are born with it, you will always have it. Of cause you can choose to burn your instruments and never produce any music again, but you will still be musically talented. JKR has confirmed that "there is more to Petunia that meets the eye", and it would be very interesting if it turned out that she's a witch:-) But IIRC Jo has also said that this is not the case with Duddykin. I think her word were: What you see is what you get. Vidar From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Mon Jan 24 18:26:59 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:26:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] It's a girl! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050124182659.99979.qmail@web52004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122902 inkling108 wrote: Mugglenet reports JK Rowling gave birth to a healthy baby girl yesterday, January 23! Mother and daughter doing well, more info to come on JK's website! Inkling Luckdragon: What a year for Jo! Congratulations on a new baby, new book, and new movie. 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 darkthirty at shaw.ca Mon Jan 24 18:40:46 2005 From: darkthirty at shaw.ca (Dan Feeney) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:40:46 -0000 Subject: Competence (Was Re: Dumbledore's serious errors...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122903 Competence (Was Re: Dumbledore's serious errors...) Lupinlore: > On a related note, this seems to be one of the clearest examples of the deep flaws running through the WW. People in the Wizarding World are often very powerful. However, wizards in general seem to be astoundingly incompetent. Which is why, by the way, I tend to think the muggle world has nothing really to fear from Wizards. Were their existance ever to become known wizards would be overwhelmed, albeit with high losses, by cultures that not only greatly outnumber them but are as systems vastly more competent in every signficant area outside of magic itself. Dan: Perhaps our RW systems can look more competent (particularly if we aren't in the process of dealing with large, legal issues in our own lives, or in a situation where some investment in technical ordinance could have saved a hundred thousand people from death by drowning, say) than those of the depicted WitchWizard World, but do the muggle ones? We're really not shown much of the muggle world aside from the disfunctional Dursleys, Dudley's gang, the half-deaf gardener, the unfortunate flying muggles at the QWC, and poor Mr. Roberts. We are given the idea that muggles are, generally, considered clueless by the WitchWizard World, with exceptions, of course. We aren't, however, shown systems. We are shown either victims of WitchWizard malice, or Extremely Caricatured People (ECP). Is incompetence evil, or rather, as the opposite of competence, is it what sustains the shabby (the mundungial! even the dumbledorian!) or the awry? Would a small explosive nuclear device have an effect on Hogwarts? Does the WitchWizard world have the means to unpollute a lake? (Aside to Carol's notes.) Where exactly do the lines between incompetence and malice diverge? A headline in today's paper in Canada says "No one heard soldier's story about Nazi Death Camps". To what degree does this become a question of competence? If one's expectation of what admitting the return of Lord Thingy entails is realistic, it is an action that has vast consequences. What I mean is, is Fudge's incompetence instead more like fear, a kind of conservative dread at what the future will bring? If this is so, does it colour-correct the light in which we see his actions? Lupinlore: > In Anglo-American culture, drenched in the theories and practices of capitalism and deeply influenced by the demanding religious traditions of Calvinism and Millenialism.... we tend to unconsciously, and often consciously, wrap a pronouncement of failure up in the language and intent of moral judgment. > That is, if he is the EoG (Epitome of Good) then he would undoubtedly have planned for things to go very differently at many points. They did not, ergo he has failed. It is simply an objective fact. However, in that he remains the EoG, he is not a failure in the second, moral sense. Dan: Ah, but there is in fact a kind of flaw here, which is made explicit in the second last chapter of OoTP, and which is huge. "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." What is not said, but is what in fact happens, is that Harry NEVER has peace of mind, his life is consistantly put into danger, etc. etc., by this very decision of Dumbledore's. In other words, Dumbledore is as deluded as Fudge. In a sense, Dumbledore is confessing a proprietorial relationship to Harry's being. This is, uh, not good. It's not that, had Dumbldore told Harry what he knew, Harry would have necessarily been any better off in terms of safety, peace of mind and the like, but he would have understood some of the "suggestions" and actions of those around him better, and that quest for understanding is what Harry is about, often enough - from the pensieve scenes to his questioning of Snape and so forth, his motivation. Does his reluctance to see James as James arise from the enforced ignorance about himself that characterizes both Dumbledore's approach and Petunia and Vernon's? Is Dumbledore more accountable because he in fact knows more than they do, and is not predisposed to speak of magic as impossible? I'd say so. Tonks: > Then it is up to Harry or whoever to follow or not to follow his advise. It is their choice. In OOTP Harry makes many poor choices and we see the consequences of those choices. And this is a lesson for us all. Dan: And the lessons in the book, what are they? If we examine the outcomes, emotionally, spiritually, in terms of plot etc., the lessons include - those who won't look at you or be open with you (Dumbledore, Snape) are hiding something important - the government will avert its eyes, given the chance - rely on your friends - look for allies - do not be afraid of your dreams... Given that Harry is, in fact, the ultimate commodity in this fight against Voldemort, and has been treated as such, though not openly, these choices look pretty good to me. Dan From editor at texas.net Mon Jan 24 19:17:56 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:17:56 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency, was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122904 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > First I want to thank Amanda Geist" for an intelligent > well written post; although I disagreed with almost every line I > thoroughly enjoyed reading it and responding to it. (blushes) Thanks. Eggplant speaking for Harry: > Yea it's very boring walking down that same dumb corridor, I'd like > something interesting to happen to break the monotony. And what's all > this baloney about Occlumency? Dumbledore tells me it's all so very > very super duper ultra important to learn this crap, but he won't give > me one reason why it's so important. I am away from my books at the moment, and cannot give an exact quote, but I think what Phineas Nigellus tells Harry is quite apropos to Eggplant's interpretation of Harry's attitude. Phineas points out that Dumbledore may well not share every reason for every decision with Harry. And I will add that he has no reason to. It is not incumbent upon Dumbledore to obtain Harry's approval, or to ensure Harry's understanding. It is incumbent upon Dumbledore, as a general in this struggle, to issue clear direction. And he has done so. This reminds me of my children. If I tell my daughter to do X, many times she will not do X. Instead, she will do something else that she thinks will acccomplish the *reason* I wanted her to do X, without her having to do X at all. Problem is, her understanding is limited and she is often wrong about what my reasons were. Understand: I often do provide her my reasons. But I can't always. I may not have had time to explain, or it may have been an emergency, etc. My point is: I am her parent. I *must* be able to trust her to do as I say when it comes down to the point, or bad things can result (and they have). And Dumbledore, as an authority figure, *must* be able to trust Harry to do his bidding even if the reasons don't seem good to Harry's more limited understanding. Basically, I totally understand Harry's line of reasoning, but still find it totally wrong. > Well, Dumbledore has been wrong > before, and besides, he hasn't talked to me or even looked at me for > months. I once thought he liked me a little. Aww, izzums neglected? This is *such* a selfish, childish line of thinking. See above. Harry would do well to remember that he does not know everything. > I'll take that bet because the world's greatest expert on Harry > Potter's mind strongly disagrees with you, Harry potter himself. I will not concede this point, because Harry Potter himself was unable to detect Voldemort's machinations in his dream visions. People are not always the best judges of their own fitness, sanity, or mental abilities, because they are of necessity looking through the filter they purport to be judging objectively. Objectivity is almost impossible--even *if* Harry had conscious access to the levels that Voldemort was manipulating (which he does not). > It's Dumbledore who refuses to so much as look at Harry for month > after month and doesn't provide the slightest clue of a reason for the > snub. Are you really surprised Harry thinks Dumbledore doesn't give a damn about him? No, not surprised. But I am surprised that Harry is immature enough to put things in such a personal, childish, Harry-centric frame when he should clearly understand that Dumbledore and most of the adults he is in contact with are involved in a huge struggle for the safety of the wizarding world. He makes himself an obstruction, rather than trying to honestly understand and rise to the challenge. > Lying to an enemy is always a good policy. It is possible, even > probable that Snape is indeed an enemy, at the very least he is an > unfriendly bastard. Aw. Poor baby. I think Harry limited himself in his working with Snape, because of his persistence in thinking there is some bizarre power struggle happening. Snape is a grown man with better things to do; he throws the occasional snide comment, but if he wanted to harm Harry, Harry would be significantly harmed already. That Harry allows himself to consider Snape any kind of enemy probably accounted for his forgetting that he was in the Order, which could have saved Sirius. It also explains his baffling double-think, when Harry realized he could not speak freely in front of Umbridge when trying to talk to Snape, but then blamed Snape when he showed no sign in front of Umbridge for understanding. > Probably true and not an unreasonable wish for Harry to have, after > all, such a channel had already saved Ron's father's life. If I am a mother with toddlers, and I find a second-story window open, and from that window see and avert a potential catastrophe--I will *still* shut the window because it is a danger to my children. If I miss another fluke catastrophe-aversion? Too bad. The greater good maintains. > > Snape's reaction, however, is not personal in the slightest. > > What?! He fixes the broken jar, straightens some things on his desk to allow himself time to regain his composure, and then says "Let's try again." If your reading of the passage shows some emotional revenge- bent response I missed, please provide it. > Years ago Dumbledore testified in open court before hundreds of people > that Snape spied on Voldemort for him, it's very hard to understand > how it could all be a big surprise to the Dark Lord now at this late > date. We do not know the particulars of Snape's arrangement; it is still in fact only speculation (albeit strongly supported) that Snape is spying. But as a "superb Occlumens," Snape has the skill to lie to Voldemort, and as a master of Hogwarts, Snape has a position Voldemort would want to take advantage of--and so, I maintain that even if Voldemort knows Snape is a traitor, he is keeping that knowledge to himself and Snape is still spying, having given Voldemort a reason that appeared to be accepted. If, however, Voldemort *was* behind the curiosity that took Harry to the Pensieve, as he was behind the corridor-curiosity, as I said in an earlier post, Snape is likely toast. > Obviously Snape needed to take precautions; but he must have been > living in some dream world because he thought he didn't need to hide > the Pensive from Harry. The jackass! He thought he didn't need to hide it because they are on the same side and working for the same goal. Because he believes that Dumbledore trusts Harry; and because he has certain expectations of propriety. I don't hide my purse at work, either; I don't think it's unreasonable to expect my office-mate not to rifle it. > If that was true then I don't understand why JKR lets Harry believe > up to and including the very last page of the book that Snape's > Occlumency lessons made him weaker not stronger. Harry is not necessarily the best judge of Harry's state of mind, as most of the last section of OoP show. And the easiest answer is: because it's needed for the plot. LIke Dumbledore not explaining everything to Harry--JKR has no obligation to explain everything to us. And our understanding is limited and so the conclusions we reach can seem good to us, but still be wrong. Will we be Harry, absolutely certain that we're right and demanding an accounting of JKR or the hell with her? Or will we be mature and accept that our understanding may be limited? ~Amanda From yutu75es at yahoo.es Mon Jan 24 20:42:08 2005 From: yutu75es at yahoo.es (fridwulfa) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:42:08 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY References: Message-ID: <006f01c50255$40416370$8000a8c0@casa> No: HPFGUIDX 122905 > > Julie wrote: > I hadn't thought of it this way, but it could explain one thing > that bothered me about Snape's reaction. WHY was he so angry > that Harry saw this scene of the Marauders bullying him? Yes, > Snape didn't come off too well, but James and Sirius come off > much worse. Snape already taunted Harry about James not > being the wonderful person Harry imagines. Why not use this > scene to drive that nail in deeper? You'd think Snape would feel > immense satisfaction at Harry having to face the "truth" about > James, given Snape's feelings. Instead Snape is furious. But > is he furious that Harry witnessed his humiliation, or furious > that Harry's action may have put both their lives further at risk? Me (Fridwulfa): Well, James and Sirius come off much worse, no doubt about it, but I think Snape thinks Harry to be exactly like his father, so if James found the whole thing funny, so would Harry. That's probably what Snape thinks, that Harry will be as amused as his father was and will see no harm or wrong in James' behaviour. He'll probably think that Snape had it coming or got what he deserved. Snape has a perception of James as the prankster and arrogant teenager that he once was. We don't know if he had a chance to meet James later on, when he was a responsible adult, so he probably never had a chance to come to terms with him. He's proyecting this image of James on Harry. He just doesn't stop to think that Harry may be disgusted with his father's behaviour, he simply thinks: "oh, my, here comes another Potter to laugh at me and make my life miserable", and that's why, IMO, he reacts the way he does. Cheers, Fridwulfa From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 24 20:49:53 2005 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (megalynn44) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:49:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122906 > Finwitch: > > Or despite of them. Dumbledore *has* erred several times... I have read through multiple posts like these, where it seems a number of people on this board do not feel OOTP was the first time Dumbledore made a mistake. I however, feel OOTP was the first time DD FAILED Harry. The reason being, there is a very big difference between being deceived, and making a bad decision. All the instances in teh first four books were cases of Dumbledore being deceived, but he always made the right decision with the information he had. In OOOTP he was not being deceived. He knew the situation and DECIDED to keep Harry in the dark which proved to be a detrimental mistake. Because of this, I think there will be a huge schism between Harry and DD. It will be much harder for Harry to blindly trust Dumbledore, and that's the big point here. ~Megs From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 21:08:06 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:08:06 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122907 Tonks writes: >I totally disagree. A teacher or anyone in a position to be one's >superior is to be treated with the respect afforded their office. I can't agree with that one. I once had a Supervisor that was as useless as she was good at sucking up to those above her. I was once called into the Manager's office and told that I had to respect my Supervisor simply because she was my Supervisor. I told him that if that Supervisor managed to slither her way up to being the President and CEO of the company that I would STILL not have one iota of respect for her because she was not worthy, regardless of title. I believe Harry has reached this point with Snape. He gave Snape cursory respect when he was young because Snape was a Professor. Now Harry is growing up and has realized that a title means nothing, and he no longer has any respect for the person beneath Snape's title. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 21:10:27 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:10:27 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122908 Lupinlore writes: >Certainly Harry cannot trust Snape, and >DEFINITELY not Dumbledore, whose sins against Harry are so numerous >that they can't be numbered. (SNIP) >By now DD is in a state of panic. Not only has he singularly failed >to provide an appropriate emotional support system for Harry, Harry is >himself in clear danger. I agree with Lupinlore and those other few not waving pompons for Dumbledore. He seemed to have things pretty much together in the first few books, but after Crouch!Moody and Harry nearly being killed by Voldemort in PoA, he really seemed to be losing it. And then the total stupidity in OoP of trying to keep Harry in the dark and basically accomplishing nothing. My issues with DD go back much farther. While reading CoS the other day, I was struck by Harry mentioning his "worst birthday ever" and that the Dursleys rarely even acknowledged his birthday. (How would Harry even know when his birthday was? I find it hard to believe the Dursleys would EVER have brought it up, or even bothered to remember in the first place... but I digress.) My issue with DD is this: He takes a baby, drops it on the doorstep of the "worst sort of Muggles imaginable" and never bothers to check on the child again, except to have Arabella Figg (who is FAR from the kindly grandmother sort, as Harry hated every minute he spent at her house, also) keep an eye on him from afar. Why in the heck didn't DD have someone drop in once in awhile and keep the Dursleys in line? Or at least keep them from starving him. They wouldn't have to reveal that they were wizards, a simple, "I used to be a friend of your parents and like to drop by now and again to BUY YOU A DECENT SET OF CLOTHES" would suffice. And what about Lupin? The son of his best friend gets sent away to live with nasty Muggles and he never once in ten years tries to contact the boy? Fine, perhaps DD didn't fully trust Lupin to reveal where Harry was, but if I were Lupin I would have bloody well tried to convince DD and at least maybe write to the child once in awhile. Maybe a birthday card?? I just find it revolting to think that good and kindly Dumbledore allowed Harry to be raised in an environment that was not only devoid of the magic he had inherited, but also devoid of kindness, compassion, and love. How can Harry, growing up now, not feel resentment for that? Sending Harry back to the Dursleys instead of letting him stay at Grimmauld Place with Sirius was the icing on that little cake. And people wonder why Harry had a bit of anger going in OoP. Nicky Joe From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 21:26:50 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:26:50 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency, was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122909 "Amanda Geist" wrote: > It is not incumbent upon Dumbledore to > obtain Harry's approval, or to ensure > Harry's understanding. It is incumbent of Dumbledore to explain some things to Harry if he expects Harry's enthusiastic cooperation, especially when his instincts are telling him there is something very wrong with those lessons. Harry's instincts have saved his life before (grab hold of Quirrell's face, stab the book with the fang, force the beads of light away from your wand, etc). Harry will not and should not ignore his gut feeling just because somebody he is fast loosing respect for says, do it because I say so. > Dumbledore and most of the adults he is in contact > with are involved in a huge struggle for the safety > of the wizarding world. He makes himself an > obstruction [ ] This reminds me of my children. > If I tell my daughter to do X, many times she will > not do X. Instead, she will do something else that > she thinks will acccomplish the *reason* I wanted > her to do X, without her having to do X at all. > Problem is, her understanding is limited and she > is often wrong about what my reasons were. Dumbledore is not dealing with a toddler, or some silly little twerp of a kid who just fell off a turnip truck; he may still be a boy but nobody on the planet has more experience in these matters than Harry has, and that includes Dumbledore. By my count Harry has saved the entire Wizarding world at least 3 times, he rescued an innocent man from execution, he has received all three unforgivable curses and triumphed over them all and engaged in magical are wrestling with He Who Must Not Be Named himself, the most powerful Dark wizard in a thousand years and Harry won. If from time to time some of these thoughts enter Harry's consciousness it is not arrogance it is just cold hard reality and explains his fury when he is patted on the head and told, just do what I say little boy. After all he's done and suffered for the Wizarding World Harry thinks he deserves some respect and I think he's right. > I maintain that even if Voldemort knows Snape > is a traitor, he is keeping that knowledge to > himself and Snape is still spying, having given > Voldemort a reason that appeared to be accepted. I don't understand this at all. How could Voldemort not know Snape was once his spy, how could the entire world not know after Dumbledore spilled the beans? > they are on the same side and working > for the same goal. Snape sure didn't seem to be acting like they were on the same side to me and I think Harry would agree. But time will tell and perhaps you will turn out to be right, but I wouldn't bet my life on it, and that's what you're asking Harry to do with those Occlumency Lessons. > he [Snape] has certain expectations of propriety. Now that's funny. Eggplant > From happydogue at aol.com Mon Jan 24 21:38:24 2005 From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:38:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Innocent Alby? Message-ID: <4B785EB6.58E74168.0B4B226A@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122910 Harry would probably know when his birthday was because he, as a small child, probably asked innocently thinking something special might happen on that day. Even if he didn't he would have found out in school from seeing forms, classroom birthday activity etc. His Teachers, as teachers do in this country, may have done things to celebrate each kids birthday in the classroom. Summer birthdays a usually celebrated sometime during the winter. Teachers will do things like put balloons on the desk, make the kid the student of the day, excuse home work for the day etc. Some caring teachers will even supply a treat for the class if it is known that this kid's parents are unable to supply a treat. So, Harry would have known when his birthday was. From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 24 21:44:44 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:44:44 -0000 Subject: Incomprehensible comparison of Sirius and Aragorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122911 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > I see a resemblance between Aragorn's treatment of Gollum > and Sirius's treatment of Kreacher. In each case, a usually > noble, kind and generous man errs by failing to see the > possibility of latent good in an inferior. > > > Here's Aragorn, speaking of Gollum's capture: > -- > He will never love me, I fear, for he bit me, and I was not gentle. > Nothing more did I ever get from his mouth than the marks of his > teeth. I deemed it the worst part of all my journey, the road back, > watching him day and night, making him walk before me with a > halter on his neck, gagged, until he was tamed by lack of drink > and food, driving him ever towards Mirkwood. --LOTR, The > Fellowship of the Ring, Book Two ch 2. > ----- > > Contrast this with the way that Frodo treats Gollum after taking > him prisoner. When Gollum screams incessantly at being tied > up, Frodo does not gag him. Instead, he looses Gollum and > makes a pact with him, even though he knows Gollum will most > likely prove faithless. Geoff: I think the flaw lies in comparing Kreacher, who is a nasty, snivelling character who can create minor mayhem with the schizophrenic Gollum who has been under the influence of the Great Ring for over 500 years (c.2463-2941 Third Age according to LOTR: Appendix B "The Tale of Years"). Kreacher's most serious mischief was to mislead Harry into thinking that Sirius had gone to the Ministry: "Master will not come back from the Department of Mysteries!" he said gleefully. "Kreacher and his mistress are alone again!" (OOTP "Out of the Fire" p.653 UK edition) When Gollum is freed from the elven rope in "The Two Towers", Frodo uses a weapon to make Gollum obey which Aragorn does not possess... '"No, I will not take it off you," said Frodo, "not unless -" he paused a moment in thought - "not unless there is any promise that you can make that I can trust." "We will swear to do what he wants, yes, yess," said Gollum, still twisting and grabbing at his ankle. "It hurts us." "Swear?" said Frodo. "Smeagol," said Gollum suddenly and clearly, opening his eyes wide and staring at Frodo with a strange light. "Smeagol will swear on the Precious." Frodo drew himself up and again Sam was startled by his words and his stern voice. "On the Precious? How dare you?" he said. "Think! One Ring to rule them all and in the Darkness bind them. Would you commit your promise to that, Smeagol? It will hold you. But it is more treacherous than you are. It may twist your words. Beware!"' (LOTR:TTT "The Taming of Smeagol") Frodo did not make a /pact/ with Gollum. He threatened Gollum with the Ring. There is another point in the text which I cannot immediately locate where Frodo tells Gollum to forget ever having the Ring; in the last event, Frodo would use the Ring to force Gollum to leap into a ravine (or some similar violent end). He is not mollycoddling Gollum. Just before this, Gollum had violently attacked the hobbits and had to be forcibly restrained by Frodo with Sting. Aragorn's dealings with Gollum were that Gandalf had enlisted his aid to find the miscreant about 3001 Third Age and he spent much of 3009- 17 searching for him. Your quote is when he has been found and it is obvious that he has been held prisoner in Mordor where the secret of the Ring has been prised from him. Aragorn wasn't looking for latent goodness but was trying to get an obstinate and devious captive by the quickest and most efficient way to a place where he could be held securely. Kreacher and Gollum are no way in the same league. I wouldn't agree that Sirius and Aragorn are either. Sirius, although a likeable guy and obviously a great support to Harry lacks the long years of experience and patience which Aragorn has had to endure in order to be a rallying point for the forces of Middle Earth, to restore the kingship to Gondor and, as a issue separate to the great matters of the time, to be allowed to marry Arwen. From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 24 21:51:54 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:51:54 -0000 Subject: HBP to come in at 672 pages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122912 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: Eggplant: > Some may be interested to know that Amazon has announced that Half > Blood Prince will be 672 pages, that makes it slightly shorter than > Goblet of Fire but considerably longer than Azkaban. Geoff: Now, which edition are we talking about? If I put those figures into comparison with the Bloomsbury UK editions, I get: POA 317pp GOF 636pp HBP 672pp OOTP 766pp From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 24 22:09:06 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:09:06 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: <00d001c50232$e7c2a280$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: TrekkieGrrrl: > So if timeline A lets you be, say 50 years old and you then jump back to > when you are20 and kill yourself, you are not creating THAT timeline until > that very point. So we actually have branching timelines. Not as much the > "All Good Things" scenario, but more like the Star Trek NG episode "Cause > and Effect" where Worf encounters several timelines AT THE SAME TIME. - all > branching from the same moment where he meets an anomaly. In HP the anomaly > is created by the use of a Time Turner but the result is the same. And if > Harry and Hermione had each their timeturner they could have left Timeline A > and created both Timeline B and C, as they would have each their timeline, > branching from timeline A, but what Harry did to Hermione in Timeline B > wouldn't affect Timeline C and vice versa. > > Gah. Now my head spins. Geoff: I think the whole point of "Cause and Effect" wasn't several timelines, but umpteen thousand parallel universes which I don't think are quite the same thing. In the past, I have quoted Miles O'Brien in the episode where he meets his future self from five hours ahead (I can't locate the title at the moment) and they sit side by side and comment "I hate temporal mechanics!" Somewhere in the distant past, during 2004 I think, there was a thread on this and someone constructed a timeline to accommodate both Harrys. Unfortunately, I didn't post to this thread so I have no reference in my own archive. If someone has the patience to sit down with Yahoo and a long drink......... Geoff Enjoy a virtual visit to Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway Visit http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 24 22:23:33 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:23:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122914 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > > Lupinlore: > > This raises an interesting question. WAS DD HEAD OF THE WIZENGAMOT > > WHEN SIRIUS WAS SENT TO AZKABAN? > > > > If he was not, then I tend to agree that I am still disappointed in > > him. However, if he WAS, then the questions of morality become > > monstrous. > > > SSSusan: > This is, indeed, The Big Question in this area, isn't it? > > Do you think it's just one of JKR's "didn't think that one through so > fully" areas that no one used Veritaserum or Legilimency on Sirius > after his arrest? [Not that JKR has said she has these areas; but > many an HPfGUer has remarked about them.] Oh, I think this is definitely one of those "didn't think through that very far" episodes that tend to bedevil JKR. > > SSSusan: > Is this "incompetence" due to an overreliance on magic, do you > think? To a feeling that they've had no need to learn about many > things because magic can take care of everything? I think that it comes from several factors, perhaps most specifically an overwhelming and totally unacknowledged fear. Wizards must be constantly aware of being a tiny minority living in a sea that would rise as a hurricane if their existance were ever publicly revealed. Their society seems totally dependendent on Muggles for any basic invention or insight not associated directly with magic. Hogwarts is nothing more than a Muggle king's palace magically grown to enormous size. The robes wizards wear in most cases are only slightly more elaborate versions of the dress used by muggle scholars and legal professionals in certain eras, which in its own turn was derived from religious robes. Even the more elaborate Wizard robes such as Dumbledore's look to be direct rip-offs from the medieval clergy. They speak muggle languages, eat muggle foods (by and large) and have art and paintings done in readily recognizable muggle styles. Their government employs terms used in muggle law and constitutional theory, and even their titles and the the organization of institutions such as hospitals and schools have a distinctly muggle air -- albeit often an antiquated one. Given this, I think they have an enormous psychological pressure to cling to whatever they have that is unique, and to rely on it for everything. And even this brings no clear comfort, as persons with their powers regularly appear DE NUOVO in the Muggle world (i.e. the Muggleborns), while they produce Squibs who might be reasonably expected to bear little love for the Wizarding World (while having enormous intimate knowledge of it) and who might be reasonably expected to side with the Muggles should push come to shove. > > You say the MW would have nothing much to fear from wizards. I'll > bet, though, that if their already-impossible-for-Muggles-to- > duplicate magical skills were accompanied by an introduction to > Muggle technology such as Uzis and AK-47s, it would level things out > a bit. Though that may not have been your point. ;-) > Given the time and ability to change, that's true. However the Wizards have not shown themselves to have a great ability to change swiftly. Most Squibs, with their enormous knowledge of the Wizarding World, might well be willing to throw in with the Muggles. And the true wild cards of course are the Halfbloods and Muggleborns. If there were ever an open rift could the Wizards really count on 100% loyalty, or would large numbers of Half-Bloods and Muggleborns be willing to lend their services to the other side of their ancestry? You make the point that Muggles can't duplicate magic, which is true. However, they might very well find themselves with allies that could provide the magic they lack. Many other Half-bloods and Muggleborns would likely drag their feet and generally sap the strength of the Wizarding World (and there have to be very large numbers of Half-bloods and Muggleborns, as Hagrid indicated that were it not for them Wizards would have long ago become extinct). Thus things would come down to a numbers game, at which point the wizards lose unless they are willing to press the issue all the way to mass destruction. I rather suspect that most wizards have an instinctive understanding of these things. Most of them understand that, should push come to shove, they can't hope to win in a fight with the Muggles because the Half-bloods and Muggleborns wouldn't allow it. And I think this is the true source of the fear and hatred that families like the Malfoys direct at "Mudbloods." Lupinlore From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 21:54:03 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:54:03 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122915 Eggplant: The only memories we know for sure in Snape's Pensive contained no OOTP secrets, just a memory of some embarrassing childhood taunts and bullying from 20 years ago that he didn't want Harry to see. Harry also had memories he didn't want Snape to see but he too was unsuccessful in protecting some of them. Becky: these memories might endanger Snape as a spy Eggplant: The memories Harry saw certainly won't endanger Snape, just embarrass him. And it's very difficult to understand how Snape could still be a spy after Dumbledore told the entire world in open court years ago that Snape had been a spy. Fame is usually a good thing but not if you're a spy. The term "famous spy" is a bit of a non sequitur. Becky now: Ok, while there isn't any proof that any OOTP memories were in there, I think they were, but we'll have to disagree on that point. Having said that, I do think that those memories that we know were in the pensive (the ones about his school days) were there to help him control his feelings towards Harry. The scenes that Harry sees are (IMO) the main reasons for his hate towards James. If the memories are removed, the anger created by them should, in theory, also be removed, to a certain extent at least. (Obviously, nothing could stop all of his anger towards James). In this way, it should be helpful to Harry, not merely to Snape. The point where I thought this was at the very least part of the reason is in DD's explanation in OOTP. `I thought Professor Snape could overcome his feelings about your father - I was wrong'. Overcoming feelings put there by someone who bullied you is immensely difficult, as anyone who has been bullied knows. I'm sure that removing some of those memories would at least help the situation. While this quote clearly doesn't prove it one way or the other, that would be my interpretation. When all is said and done, I just find it hard to think of Snape as a coward, no matter what the situation. I can't think of any other scene where he appears cowardly ( no doubt someone can prove me wrong J ). He may have a lot of dislikeable qualities (jumping instantly to conclusions, favouritism, inability to forgive, etc), but cowardliness is not one of them, especially if it is true that he has switched to DD`s side, as I believe he has. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the Snape lovers, but I just can't imagine him not having a better reason for using the pensive. Whether or not he meant Harry to look into when he left the room, whether he was good at teaching him, etc. is obviously a different issue, but I don't see that I could blame him for using the pensive. You clearly can, but then I can totally see where you're coming from too. Guess it's just another situation that's particularly open to interpretation. Becky From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 24 19:34:16 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:34:16 -0000 Subject: That Time Turner... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122916 > Valky: > But you see JKR never let Harry get hit by the bus the first time > round. Time forwardly and backwardly created ONE scenario only, no > alternative. *One reality* created by time approached from two > directions. > Is that starting to become clearer? Sandra: Thank you for taking so much effort, Valky. You've tipped me over the edge and I now think I'm a duck called Shirley. But apart from that, your answer was really interesting and I appreciate your thoughts! Thanks. I see your point about time forwardly and backwardly creating one situation only, but time had to move forward before it could move backward - rather like the first chicken had to have laid its own egg before it could ever exist, hence both chicken and egg appeared at the same time. That last thought made my brain wobble.... I love those time paradox scenarios, because the actual answer always remains elusive due to so many potential answers being right... or wrong. Sometimes a writer tries to tackle them by suggesting theories, rather than leaving them for readers/viewers to wonder about (or miss completely). Have you read The Guardian Of Time? That's what got me started on all this Time Line theorising - there are whole sections intended to 'help' but nobody understands them even in the book. I love to laugh without being made to feel foolish at my own intelectual limitations! Of course, there is another issue here - the 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? Sandra From yutu75es at yahoo.es Mon Jan 24 22:11:21 2005 From: yutu75es at yahoo.es (fridwulfa) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:11:21 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HBP to come in at 672 pages References: Message-ID: <010e01c50261$a4a83ee0$8000a8c0@casa> No: HPFGUIDX 122917 > Eggplant: >> Some may be interested to know that Amazon has announced that Half >> Blood Prince will be 672 pages, that makes it slightly shorter than >> Goblet of Fire but considerably longer than Azkaban. > > Geoff: > Now, which edition are we talking about? > Me (Fridwulfa) Scholastic editions: library binding and hardcover. No word yet from Bloomsbury. Cheers, Fridwulfa From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 21:57:25 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:57:25 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: <00d001c50232$e7c2a280$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122918 Gah. Now my head spins. ~TrekkieGrrrl (who loves timetravel stories) Just to add, from PoA (end of chapter 'Hermione's Secret' pg. 301 in Bloomsbury),`'I knew I could do it this time,' said Harry, ` because I'd already done it? Does that make sense?'' Hermione replies that she doesn't know. If Hermione doesn't get it when she`s been using it for the whole year, what hope have we got?! Becky - whose personal favourite time travel TV is always Red Dwarf From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 24 19:44:08 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:44:08 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122919 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > vmonte responds: > Apparently in JKR's world, these things are somehow possible because > she says so, and applying any logic to the situation will fail. > > Vivian Hello Vivian, Thank you for replying, I appreciate that! There's been a couple of responses, which has really surprised me. What a friendly group this is! I'm relieved it's not just me who finds the time-crux a little bewildring - and I am pleased that you mentioned the role of Dumbledore. If JKR had worked out his contribution, I could sleep easier at night! Ha ha. I love those time paradox scenarios, because the actual answer always remains elusive due to so many potential answers being right... or wrong. Sometimes a writer tries to tackle them by suggesting theories, rather than leaving them for readers/viewers to wonder about (or miss completely). Have you read The Guardian Of Time? That's what got me started on all this Time Line theorising - there are whole sections intended to 'help' but nobody understands them even in the book. I love to laugh without being made to feel foolish at my own intelectual limitations! I mentioned this bit to the other people who replied to me, so please don't feel as if I'm being lazy - if I had read yours first, I would have typed this out first for you, and copied it for the other people! See my message http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122916 Sandra From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 22:30:12 2005 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (nkafkafi) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:30:12 -0000 Subject: Zen and the Art of Vanquishing Voldemort (was: Why should Harry be expected...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122920 > > Neri: > > Sheldon Kopp is obviously influenced by Zen and Tao ideas. Now, I > > wouldn't recommend trying to explain to a Zen master that his > > philosophy is "existential". He might hand you a mighty blow with his > > stick, and then ask you if your feeling of being wronged is not realty > Lupinlore: > Ah, that explains much! Chuckle. > > Lupinlore's philosophy of dealing with Zen Masters: If they strike > you when you ask questions, have them thrown in the slammer for > assault and advise them, "Ah, Grasshopper, this is an excellent time > to meditate on the importance of our communications skills." > Neri: Don't you know that if a Zen master strikes you with his stick, you immediately have a satori and you become his disciple and finally the next Zen master in the lineage? I doubt you'd want to throw him in the slammer after that . Trying desperately to yank this sub-thread back on topic, did you ever consider looking at DD as a Zen master? It might be the key to the mystery of his character. True, he doesn't use a stick (pretty redundant when he has Snape in his toolbox) but he seems to share the extremely annoying philosophy that Zen (erm... I mean vanquishing Voldy) cannot be taught. Harry must make the voyage himself. In order to get the hang of this philosophy, just go to amazon.com and take a look inside the first pages of Sheldon Kopp's book: "If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him: The Pilgrimage Of Psychotherapy Patients" (sorry, the link is much too long to paste here. Just type some of the title's words in Amazon's search box and you'll get there. You can look inside the book by clicking on it). This book is about the psychotherapist and his patient as a Guru and his disciple. Now try the following exercise: substitute "Dumbledore" instead of "therapist", "Harry" instead of "patient", and "vanquishing Voldemort" instead of "getting well" (or "cure"). Immediately you'll get sentences that might give you the shiver: "DD's task is simply to watch, as Harry wrestles with well-nigh paralyzing conflict". "DD is an observer and a catalyst. He has no power to vanquish Voldemort. This is entirely out of his hands. He can add nothing to Harry's inherent capacity to vanquish Voldemort, and whenever he tries to do so he meets stubborn resistance which slows the progress of the struggle" "You may then ask, `of what sustained value is the presence of DD to Harry?' " [yes, this is a direct quote from the book with the above substitutes]. "The seeker [the original term!] comes in hope of finding something definite, something permanent, something unchanging upon he can depend. He is offered instead the reflection that life is just what it seems to be: a changing, ambiguous, ephemeral mixed bag". And now to another crazy thought. Kopp's book is just one of a several books that are influenced by Zen and Tao ideas, and are especially popular not only among psychiatric patients, but also among terminally ill patients (perhaps because they stress living in the present). For example, you might have noticed that the link I've found for the Eschatological Laundry List (also from Kopp's book) comes from the personal webpage of a cancer patient: http://tombrazaitis.com/ BTW, another book I've found in a list of books for cancer patients, and is also strongly influenced by Zen ideas, is Jampolsky's "Love is Letting Go of Fear". Take a look inside it in Amazon, you'll find sentences like "love is the total absence of fear" and "fear can offer us nothing because it is nothing". Hmm. Didn't we have a discussion here, two weeks or so ago, if Fear is the opposite of Love? As you perhaps have read in her website, JKR's mother was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when JKR was fifteen. She died during the time JKR was writing the first book, and JKR said that that this changed the book a lot. Now, I wonder if during the time of her mother's illness JKR was exposed to this kind of literature, and used it as the basis of the Potterverse "cosmology" (as Nora terms it). According to the print dates, both Kopp's book and Jamplosky's book were already in print at the time. And another thought: isn't Harry's situation when hearing the prophecy similar to the situation of a kid who hears that he has a potentially terminal illness? And isn't DD's dilemma whether to tell him about it similar to the doctor's dilemma if to tell the truth to this kid? And is it a coincidence that Harry hears the truth at the same age that JKR heard about her mother's diagnosis? Neri, out on a metaphysical limb. From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 24 22:30:26 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:30:26 -0000 Subject: HBP to come in at 672 pages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122921 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > Geoff: > Now, which edition are we talking about? > > If I put those figures into comparison with the Bloomsbury UK > editions, I get: > > POA 317pp > GOF 636pp > > HBP 672pp > > OOTP 766pp The numbers Eggplant is using appear to be drawn from the Scholastic editions published in the USA. These are the editions that Amazon.com (as opposed to Amazon.co.uk) will bring up on a first search. Lupinlore From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 24 20:01:52 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:01:52 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: <00d001c50232$e7c2a280$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122922 > Gah. Now my head spins. > > ~TrekkieGrrrl > (who loves timetravel stories) Hello TrekkieGrrrl, I am SO sorry for starting this one! Headaches all round, and more to come.... Anyway, thanks for replying, your ideas were great to read! I was doing fine until you started on the Timeline B and Timeline C theories, and then something exploded inside my head... now I'm not sure of my own name anymore... I love those time paradox scenarios, because the actual answer always remains elusive due to so many potential answers being right... or wrong. Sometimes a writer tries to tackle them by suggesting theories, rather than leaving them for readers/viewers to wonder about (or miss completely). Have you read The Guardian Of Time? That's what got me started on all this Time Line theorising - there are whole sections intended to 'help' but nobody understands them even in the book. I love to laugh without being made to feel foolish at my own intelectual limitations! I'm going to apologise to you for repeating the next section from replies I gave to other people about all this, so please don't feel I'm being lazy. This next bit occurred to me when Sirius died in Book 5: There'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? By the way, if you love time-travelling stories do have a look at The Guardian Of Time. It's my absolute favourite book, and turned my brain to mush with all the Parallel Time Lines and Temporary Alternate Realities... it's very funny, but I hardly know anyone who's read it. I love the Harry Potter series, and that one is a nice diversion! Sandra From trekkie at stofanet.dk Mon Jan 24 22:35:51 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:35:51 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) References: Message-ID: <001101c50265$0f515cb0$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122923 > > TrekkieGrrrl: > >> So if timeline A lets you be, say 50 years old and you then jump > back to >> when you are20 and kill yourself, you are not creating THAT > timeline until >> that very point. So we actually have branching timelines. Not as > much the >> "All Good Things" scenario, but more like the Star Trek NG > episode "Cause >> and Effect" where Worf encounters several timelines AT THE SAME > TIME. - all >> branching from the same moment where he meets an anomaly. In HP the > anomaly >> is created by the use of a Time Turner but the result is the same. > And if >> Harry and Hermione had each their timeturner they could have left > Timeline A >> and created both Timeline B and C, as they would have each their > timeline, >> branching from timeline A, but what Harry did to Hermione in > Timeline B >> wouldn't affect Timeline C and vice versa. >> >> Gah. Now my head spins. > > > Geoff: > I think the whole point of "Cause and Effect" wasn't several > timelines, but umpteen thousand parallel universes which I don't > think are quite the same thing. TrekkieGrrrl responds: Argh.. I'm mixing things up sorry. Cause and Effect was the one where Enterprise is blown up. The one where they're caught in a time loop. The episode with Worf and the parallel universes is of course the one called Parallels. Heh the writers of Trek sure loved to mess with the concept of time. So cause and effect doesn't work here. Parallels does in a way, if you believe that by creating a new timeline, you create an alternate universe. > > In the past, I have quoted Miles O'Brien in the episode where he > meets his future self from five hours ahead (I can't locate the title > at the moment) and they sit side by side and comment "I hate temporal > mechanics!" TrekkieGrrrl responds: That episode is Time Sqared and that's actually a better example than both Parallels and Cause and Effect because here we have two versions of the same characters. At the same place. But still one of them are disconnected from the "real" now, because you can't exist twice at the same time without something going awry. I still think you can compare creating a new timeline with creating a parallel or alternat universe. That way, things CAN affect each other - in ONE reality, but not in the one you came from, thus making it possible to kill yourself as a child. ~Trekkie From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 24 22:46:43 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:46:43 -0000 Subject: Zen and the Art of Vanquishing Voldemort (was: Why should Harry be expected. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122924 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" wrote: > > Trying desperately to yank this sub-thread back on topic, did you > ever consider looking at DD as a Zen master? It might be the key to > the mystery of his character. True, he doesn't use a stick (pretty > redundant when he has Snape in his toolbox) but he seems to share the > extremely annoying philosophy that Zen (erm... I mean vanquishing > Voldy) cannot be taught. Harry must make the voyage himself. > Hmmm. This is interesting, but it slides to close to all the "alchemical" posts for me. And I freely admit we are dealing with matters of taste here. My gut instinct, however, is that whereas JKR does have pretty strong moral, philosophical, and even theological ideas, she is not setting about to write an allegory or to specifically exemplify a set of theories or approach to the world. On somewhat firmer ground, I think this way of seeing Dumbledore is slightly undercut by DD's admissions at the end of OOTP. There he doesn't talk about letting Harry develop for himself (although he has almost certainly been doing some of that), but rather that he just couldn't give Harry needed information because he couldn't bring himself to hurt Harry in that way (and I personally suspect that finding Harry with the Mirror of Erised way back in '91 was a key turning point in the way DD reacts emotionally to Harry). At this point DD doesn't appear so much a Zen Master as a deeply conflicted man who just honestly doesn't know what to do. Lupinlore From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Mon Jan 24 23:34:35 2005 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:34:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <81ADC283-6E60-11D9-AD1B-000A95DC8A32@bellsouth.net> No: HPFGUIDX 122925 > > This raises an interesting question.? WAS DD HEAD OF THE WIZENGAMOT > WHEN SIRIUS WAS SENT TO AZKABAN? Didn't Crouch, Sr. send Sirius to Azkaban without a trial and without going before the Wizengamot? I don't think that DD ever got to talk with Sirius after his arrest, and had no say in the matter. When Sirius finally got to talk with DD in PoA, DD was receptive and fair. Barbara Roberts [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From trekkie at stofanet.dk Mon Jan 24 23:40:04 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:40:04 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) References: Message-ID: <005101c5026e$0779ad40$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122926 > >> Gah. Now my head spins. >> >> ~TrekkieGrrrl >> (who loves timetravel stories) > > > Hello TrekkieGrrrl, > > I am SO sorry for starting this one! Headaches all round, and more to > come.... > Anyway, thanks for replying, your ideas were great to read! I was doing > fine > until you started on the Timeline B and Timeline C theories, and then > something exploded inside my head... now I'm not sure of my own name > anymore... Don't be sorry. Youve given me reason to talk about Star Trek in a Harry Potter forum ;o) > > I love those time paradox scenarios, because the actual answer always > remains elusive due to so many potential answers being right... or wrong. > Sometimes a writer tries to tackle them by suggesting theories, rather > than > leaving them for readers/viewers to wonder about (or miss completely). > Have > you read The Guardian Of Time? That's what got me started on all this Time > Line theorising - there are whole sections intended to 'help' but nobody > understands them even in the book. I love to laugh without being made to > feel > foolish at my own intelectual limitations! > > I'm going to apologise to you for repeating the next section from replies > I > gave to other people about all this, so please don't feel I'm being lazy. > This > next bit occurred to me when Sirius died in Book 5: > > There'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? > Yes. Unless you go for the alternate realities theory. So when Harry from Timeline A uses the timeturner and thus creates Timeline B, timeline A will still continue too. In an alternate time/universe. But I agree that it was a very dangerous idea to introduce timetravel at all in HP, at least in a seemling so accessible form. Sure TimeTurners aren't something everybody has, but they're available. And that's a mistake IMO, because it raises the question: When Harry could go back and save Sirius from the Dementors, why can't he do it again and save him from falling thru the veil?! (as well as a lot of other things, which you mentioned yourself) So, although it's a nice plot device, it opens far too many holes in the future. I agree with you on that one. IMO it had been better if a timeturner was something EXTREMELY RARE (as in one single one in existance) and that one then was (accidentally) destroyed. > By the way, if you love time-travelling stories do have a look at The > Guardian > Of Time. It's my absolute favourite book, and turned my brain to mush with > all > the Parallel Time Lines and Temporary Alternate Realities... it's very > funny, > but I hardly know anyone who's read it. I love the Harry Potter series, > and that > one is a nice diversion! I don't know that one but it sounds like one I'll have to read :o) Thanks for the rec. ~Trekkie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 24 23:50:34 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:50:34 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency, was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122927 Amanda wrote: I am away from my books at the moment, and cannot give an exact quote, but I think what Phineas Nigellus tells Harry is quite apropos to Eggplant's interpretation of Harry's attitude. Phineas points out that Dumbledore may well not share every reason for every decision with Harry. And I will add that he has no reason to. It is not incumbent upon Dumbledore to obtain Harry's approval, or to ensure Harry's understanding. It is incumbent upon Dumbledore, as a general in this struggle, to issue clear direction. And he has done so. Alla: I'd like to disagree with this statement very strongly. IF Harry was just the usual, potential member of the resistance, I may have agreed with you, but without Harry (at least how it seems now) all Dumbledore plans worth... I would say nothing. Harry IS Dumbledore's weapon in fight against Voldemort. But he is also a person who deserves at least to know what awaist him in the future. So yes, I would say if Dumbledore has a bit of morality in himself ( and I think he does), Dumbledore has a reason to share significantly more with Harry than he previously did, IF he wants Harry to fight for him and whole WW. Moreover, I think he OWES Harry to share things with him. Somebody said that in HBP we will have a rift between Dumbledore and Harry. I personally hope so very much, because I think that if Harry forgives Dumbledore right away it would not be realistic. Amanda: snip. And Dumbledore, as an authority figure, *must* be able to trust Harry to do his bidding even if the reasons don't seem good to Harry's more limited understanding. Alla: Why? Amanda: No, not surprised. But I am surprised that Harry is immature enough to put things in such a personal, childish, Harry-centric frame when he should clearly understand that Dumbledore and most of the adults he is in contact with are involved in a huge struggle for the safety of the wizarding world. He makes himself an obstruction, rather than trying to honestly understand and rise to the challenge. Alla: Again, without Harry their struggle will not be very succesful. Amanda: Aw. Poor baby. I think Harry limited himself in his working with Snape, because of his persistence in thinking there is some bizarre power struggle happening. Snape is a grown man with better things to do; he throws the occasional snide comment, but if he wanted to harm Harry, Harry would be significantly harmed already. Alla: When you said "poor baby", I thought at first you were talking about Snape. :o) I think that he harmed Harry many times already, personally. And sorry, but judging by Snape/Harry interactions, Snape does not remind me of grown man much. Just my opinion of course, Alla From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 00:17:06 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:17:06 -0000 Subject: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: <005301c50228$e41e3720$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122928 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > Trekkiegrrl: > > Now, I haven't been am member of this group for long, but it > amazes me that noone has mentioned more about Snape's childhood. > > Valky: > ROFL! That because you haven't been a member long! > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > OK so some things have been answered before. Sorry. Also sorry that I find Yahoo groups a pest to search in. I wasn't aware that it was a laughing matter to ask for something just because it has been discussed before. > Valky: There's no need to be sorry, it's not called Yahoomort for nothing. ;D My laughter wasn't meant to come across as rude, really. I was just trying to let you know that you are in good company here, there are many Snape admirers at HPFGU, and each plenty as passionate as the next one. I guess my message didn't come across well. > Valky then: > And he does have a sadistic streak, actually IMHO that is the very > thing that is the problem here. In the shrieking shack for example, > the temptation is too strong for him, he could take the whole party > up to the castle and have the whole ting promptly sorted, the > children safe, justice served... but he craves his bitter revenge on Sirius and it comes first. > > Just put Dumbledore in Snape's place in that Chapter and you will > see how someone *without* a sadistic streak would handle the > situation. See how Snape pales in the light of logical Dumbledore > steps...? > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > I do not agree fully that Snape has the power to change. I agree - of course - that he has a right to be loved and respected, but I don't think he's AWARE of why people doesn't like him. > > And sorry but I just don't LIKE Dumbledore all that much. I'm not sure he hasn't got a sadistic streak too, depending of course of how you define that. > Valky again: Just a question for question's sake. If Snape is such a hopeless case in your opinion, then what exactly *is* good about him. I mean if you don't see him as intelligent and independently cognisant.... how can you see him as intelligent and independently cognisant? > > Trekkiegrrl: > > Abused children show many "abnormal" patterns in their behaviour. > and though some may grow up and act as "normal" responsible adults > later on, some just can't. They do not have the basis for that. And > Snape was one of the latter. > > > > Valky: > That, I am afraid, is just your basic narrow minded cop out. Nothing personal Trekkiegrrl. > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > Personal or not I find that a strange accusation. I DO know about abused children FYI. > Valky: It would be a strange accusation, if it was an accusation. I was directing the point at the point. Again, if Snape is not able to think for himself, then how does he think for himself? I know about abused children too, believe it or not. There are boys who, as you say "can't" act as normal responsible adults, but normal is a farce anyway, if they choose to accept love and respect when it is given to them they *do* become better for it, better than normal. > > Trekkiegrrl: > > I doubt Snape had many friends in Slytherin too. Noone > > seems to have in any way come to his defenses when the Marauders > were picking on him at the "upside-down" episode. > > > > Valky: > I think its safe to assume that at least some of these children were afraid of Snape and James. Snape because he was a "scary dangerous weird boy" and James because he was dangerous to the dangerous. You must remember when reading the scene that Lily Evans was an exceptionally brave girl and bravery is not a key Slytherin trait while self-preservation IS. > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > I'm sure there were many who were afraid of Child!Snape - and many of Child!James. But likely not the same children. > Valky: My point was in answer to your question why the Slytherins didn't come to his rescue. yes Kids were afraid of Snape and James, they were both fearfully powerful for a couple of 15 year olds. Lily came to Snapes defense because she was a brave girl. And among the Slytherins that weren't afraid quite probably was a bunch of self interested kids who weren't going to put themselves in harms way for anyone. Trekkigrrl also said: >And int IS canon that it wasn't the first time they'd chosen Snape as their favourite victim. Some kids are natural victims, often kids from abusive households. I guess wizards can be alcoholics too, or be addicted to illegal potions and whatnot. And Snape's home might very well have been like that. it DOES fit his behavioral pattern as the "victim" Valky: I just wanted to isolate this for a moment and comment. I agree that Snape does fit the victim pattern of a child from a household with someone akin to a drug abuser. But his reaction to Lily suggests that young Snape was also in a pattern of refuting the worth of genuine kindness towards him, he takes this attitude with Dumbledore too. Later in your post you say we can't really blame Snape for jumping at the opportunity being a DE gave him to have power. Which is true, especially since Snape as an adult is able to see it in hindsight as some kind of a mistake. The only thing is none of that negates Sevvies preoccupation with weilding power and having a sense of supremacy and personal glory, he conciously chooses those things and always has. The difference between him and James/Dumbledore/Lupin as adults is that they embraced humility, conciously. Even Sirius had a go at it. Snape is afraid of humility. (Just as an aside: That is why I think Oscar!Winner Snape is just a bad joke. I know you haven't cited OW!Snape here trekkiegrrl so its just an offhanded comment in general.) > Trekkiegrrl: > > And then comes this "F?hrer" in the shape of Voldemort and all of > a sudden the underdog gets a chance to get POWER! > > > > WHO can't REALLY blame Snape for grasping that? > > > > Valky: > I agree, but Snapes past does not colour my veiw of his present. All in all he *is* still what he is now, and for as much as any reason it is by choice. > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > And this is where we differ. I don't think he HAS this choice. He has never HAD much of a choice as I see it. > Valky: Yes that is definitely where we differ. Just again, if Snape *never had* choice then what was he exercising when he defected from the DE's? Or do you believe he is an ESE DE and always will be? > Trekkiegrrl: > > No, he's not an ideal teacher after our standards. But again, > remember how old fashoined the Wizarding World is. Go back 75 years > and he would have been a MILD teacher. > > Valky: > A fair enough statement, and I am not so passionate, really, about > it all. I prefer Harry to Snape and thats that. > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > Oh I like Harry too, though I think he did an unforgivable thing by putting his nose into Snape's Pensieve. It is Harry's everpresent curiosity that makes him disregard the necessety of the Occlumency lessons and it's the same curiosity that makes him peep in the Pensieve. It just doesn't make it right. > > I won't say I prefer Snape to Harry. I like both of them for very different reasons. But if I have to choose, I would save Snape ;o) > Valky: I don't think *anything* is entirely unforgivable. And I am sure that sometime in a future book Lily will make this point for us. From sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 00:25:09 2005 From: sevenhundredandthirteen at yahoo.com (sevenhundredandthirteen) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:25:09 -0000 Subject: Flaws with the Wizarding World and Muggles (was Dumbledore's serious errors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122929 Lupinlore wrote: I think that it comes from several factors, perhaps most specifically an overwhelming and totally unacknowledged fear. Wizards must be constantly aware of being a tiny minority living in a sea that would rise as a hurricane if their existance were ever publicly revealed. I think they have an enormous psychological pressure to cling to whatever they have that is unique, and to rely on it for everything. If there were ever an open rift could the Wizards really count on 100% loyalty, or would large numbers of Half-Bloods and Muggleborns be willing to lend their services to the other side of their ancestry? Laurasia: Can the Wizarding World ever be healed of this deep flaw without absolving its separation from the Muggle World? So long as there is a separation, some wizards will fear the Muggle World, some wizards will resent the Muggle World, some wizards will think themselves superior. Voldemort is just acting how the Wizarding World is telling him to behave. He's is just taking the Wizard-Muggle opposition to an absolute and utter separation: Death of all Muggles and those who align themselves with them. The only way this 'quest for purification' will disappear from the Wizard psychology is if the Muggle and Wizarding Worlds see each other as equals.. We see a generation of young wizards who are more at home in the Muggle World than their parents. We see a dwindling minority of Pure Bloods. For an equilibrium to develop naturally it will takes many decades before every generation has changed. Alternatively, if Muggles and Wizards have to stand up to a common foe, they would be *forced* to see each other as equals to get the job done. When Voldemort starts an all out war in HBP, the Muggles will *have* to be notified. The Muggles will *have* to do what they can to help, i.e. destroy Voldemort, because they are his real prey. Will the new Minister for Magic call for aid from the Muggles? Will we see Wizards and Muggles fighting side-by-side? Treating each other as equal in the face of imminent death? The Ministry's main aim is to maintain secrecy from Muggles. This endeavour will have to be abandoned in favour of military preparations once open war is upon them. Not only will Voldemort's devastating actions draw attention from the Muggles, but the MoM won't have enough resources to attend to more day-to-day accidents which affect the Muggle World. The Muggles will become aware. And because Voldemort is really after *their* extinction, if we don't see someone in Wizard authority *tell* *the* *Muggles* that they will be hunted and killed, then the Wizards apparently *don't* want to help wipe out this flaw in their society which goes back over a thousand years. This would prove that they still want separation which only breeds prejudice and misunderstanding. Separation only highlights the differences between the two parties, instead of admitting that they are all humans. At the end of GoF Dumbledore instructs that aid should be drawn from the Giants and Dementors... What of the Muggles? ~<(Laurasia)>~ From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 00:36:46 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:36:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore vs Harry(was:Imperius Resistance and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122930 >>Eggplant: >Dumbledore is not dealing with a toddler, or some silly little twerp of a kid who just fell off a turnip truck; he may still be a boy but nobody on the planet has more experience in these matters than Harry has, and that includes Dumbledore. Betsy: I know you like to pick and choose canon Eggplant, but now you're being silly. Dumbledore defeated Grindelward in 1945, has stood toe to toe with Voldemort when every other wizard has failed, (How many times has the books said that Dumbledore is the *only* wizard Voldemort fears?) has been soley responsible for keeping Harry alive from the time he was one. Harry barely got away from Voldemort in GoF, and that only because his wand was brother to Voldemort, which I count as more luck than skill. Every other time he's come close to facing Voldemort full on, Dumbledore has been there to pull his fat from the fire. Harry is good. Damn good. But he *is* still just a boy, and there is magic he knows nothing of. If he were to kick Dumbledore to the curb now, Voldemort would have his hide by the end of the first chapter of the next book. Betsy From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 00:38:22 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 00:38:22 -0000 Subject: That Time Turner... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122931 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sandra87b" wrote: > > > Valky: > > But you see JKR never let Harry get hit by the bus the first time round. Time forwardly and backwardly created ONE scenario only, no alternative. *One reality* created by time approached from two directions. > > Is that starting to become clearer? > > Sandra: > Thank you for taking so much effort, Valky. You've tipped me over the edge and I now think I'm a duck called Shirley. But apart from that, your answer was really interesting and I appreciate your thoughts! Thanks. > > I see your point about time forwardly and backwardly creating one > situation only, but time had to move forward before it could move backward - rather like the first chicken had to have laid its own egg before it could ever exist, hence both chicken and egg appeared at the same time. Valky: Funny you should say that Sandra because that is exactly the point. It all exists in one blinding flash of an instant. Forwards backwards and inside out. The chicken AND the egg. I did say that the answer is probably that noone can explain it. ;D Sandra: > Of course, there is another issue here - the 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. Valky: This is why I am sure the TT is not a simple plot device for the purpose of Book three's climax. I see JKR eventually connecting the whole thing to a Wizard Lore that you will find if you read up about Merlin. Basically, Merlin says all time and times are like a light. Once you flick the switch it fills the room, and is everywhere at once. BTW Merlin was reputed to have known about electricity because he lived backwards in time. What is, just is. I guess in Harrys world it is understood that changing what is to come *is* the natural course of things. If you go back and try to change something you'll find that you were always there, and you find yourself a part of the the conclusion that always was. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 00:56:38 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:56:38 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore vs Harry(was:Imperius Resistance and Occlumency) References: Message-ID: <028601c50278$ba471980$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 122932 > >>>Eggplant: >>Dumbledore is not dealing with a toddler, or some silly little twerp > of a kid who just fell off a turnip truck; he may still be a boy but > nobody on the planet has more experience in these matters than Harry > has, and that includes Dumbledore. > > Betsy: > Harry is good. Damn good. But he *is* still just a boy, and there > is magic he knows nothing of. If he were to kick Dumbledore to the > curb now, Voldemort would have his hide by the end of the first > chapter of the next book. > Charme: And there's canon to support Harry himself knows he's not as strong or adept magically as DD, at least not yet: GoF: "At that moment, Harry fully understood for the first time why people said Dumbledore was the only wizard Voldemort had ever feared. The look upon Dumbledore's face as he stared down at the unconscious form of Mad-Eye Moody was more terrible than Harry could have ever imagined. There was no benign smile upon Dumbledore's face, no twinkle in the eyes behind the spectacles. There was cold fury in every line of the ancient face; a sense of power radiated from Dumbledore as though he were giving off burning heat." OoP: "Harry turned to look where Neville was staring. Directly above them, framed in the doorway from the Brain Room, stood Albus Dumbledore, his wand aloft, his face white and furious. Harry felt a kind of electric charge surge through every particle of his body - they were saved." In that same scene in the DoM, there's "Dumbledore's spell pulled him back as easily and effortlessly as though he had hooked him with an invisible line" and "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." One would think by watching DD, Harry's observations are detailed enough that while he's being "saved", he's also learning what a powerful wizard DD really is. Charme From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 01:11:19 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:11:19 -0000 Subject: That Time Turner...3x1=3 and 3x1=3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122933 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sandra87b" wrote: > > Hello everyone, this is my first ever post - and I'm almost finding > my way around this site... > > Anyway, I'm writing in because I just don't get the time line of > Harry in the Prisoner Of Azkaban. Maybe someone can put me > straight on it? It didn't occur to me until I watched the dvd, and > now it spoils it all. > > My headache is tricky to explain but I'll have a go. > > ...edited.... > > Ohh my head. Feel free to ignore this if you like, but if you do get > it thn please put me on track. Thank you! > > Sandra. bboyminn: Oooooowww.... nothing like a good Time Turner discusision to tax the old brain. First headache occurs when you think that time happened twice; it didn't. It wasn't time that happened twice, it was Harry that happened twice. The Two Timeline idea is always spawned by looking at when Harry left the timeline and went back in time, but that's not where the answer lies. It lies in when Harry entered the timeline. First we establish the frame of reference of the Universal Timeline. That's the timeline that Fred, George, Seamus, Ginny, and everyone else in the universe experience. It's late afternoon, Harry/Ron/Hermione come into the Entrance Hall and hide in a closet. A minute or so later, at 6:00pm, Time Traveling Harry and Hermione enter the Hall and hide in another closet. That instance of 6pm only occurs ones in the Universal All-People Timeline. Four hours later, the second Harry saves the first. One timeline; two Harry's. Two hours after that, at midnight (roughly), Normal Harry goes back in time to 6pm, and Time Traveling Harry takes his place. But that 6pm is history, when it occurred, the second Harry was already there. Why? Because the second Harry entered the timeline at 6pm. It's true, Harry and Hermione experience that time twice, but the rest of the world does not. To Fred, George, Ginny, etc... time never made a U-Turn, only Harry and Hermione made a U-Turn in time. They did experienced time twice. But they experienced it twice because there were two of them there to experience each single hour. Example: Hermione goes to three classes at once, and that is indeed what happens, time experiences one hour, but three Hermiones are there to experience that same one hour Schedule: (illustration) 1pm to 2pm - Arithmacy (Normal Time Hermione =NT!Hermione) 1pm to 2pm - DADA (First Time-Traveling Hermione =T1!Hermione) 1pm to 2pm - Charms (Second Time-Traveling Hermione = T2!Hemione) In Universal time, to everyone except Hermione, that is one hour with three Hermione's. To Hermione, because she is the /active/ meddler in time, she sees three consecutive hours. That makes Hermione two hours older than everyone else around here. In one hour, the world and all her friends move forward in time and aged one hour. Hermione, on the other hand, moves forward in time and ages three hours in one hour. It's matter of perspective, from Hermione's perspective, she lives three consecutive hours, and you wondered why she was so tired. From the Univeral perspective, three Hermione's all lived during the same one hour. Despite, this still being a confusing unresolvable paradox, it is, none the less, mathematically resolved. Universal Time: 3 x 1 = 3 Three Hermiones x 1 hour = 3 separate hours = 3 separate classes Hermione's Time Meddler's Time: 3 x 1 = 3 3 consecutive hours x 1 Hermione = 3 seperate hours = 3 separte classes So, back to Harry saving himself. Harry wasn't able to do it because time happened twice, he was able to do it because Harry happened twice. Harry physically happend twice but only once in time. Focus on Harry entering the timeline at 6pm, not on Harry leaving the timeline at midnight. Don't ya' just love it? Steve/bboyminn From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 01:24:28 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:24:28 -0000 Subject: Zen and the Art of Vanquishing Voldemort (was: Why should Harry be expected. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122934 Neri: > > Trying desperately to yank this sub-thread back on topic, did you ever consider looking at DD as a Zen master? It might be the key to the mystery of his character. True, he doesn't use a stick (pretty redundant when he has Snape in his toolbox) but he seems to share the extremely annoying philosophy that Zen (erm... I mean vanquishing Voldy) cannot be taught. Harry must make the voyage himself. > > Valky: As a matter of fact, just diving right in to this thread, I do agree with you Neri. Before all the debate of spiritual, moral, phisophical and what have you allegory in the books, I had already come to a fair conclusion that DD's way was modelled on some Zen existentialist, "to learn to fight one must first learn *not* to fight grasshopper-DanielSon-Young Skywalker".... Holy man. I have always liked these characters, and I equally like Dumbledore. > Lupinlore: > Hmmm. This is interesting, but it slides to close to all the > "alchemical" posts for me. And I freely admit we are dealing with > matters of taste here. My gut instinct, however, is that whereas JKR does have pretty strong moral, philosophical, and even theological ideas, she is not setting about to write an allegory or to specifically exemplify a set of theories or approach to the world. > Valky: I agree with you too Lupinlore. I think JKR chooses these characters not with an especially deliberate allegorical purpose, but because they are fantastical characters, in the realm of our imagination and fantasies. Characters like Dumbledore, always manage to speak to us on some deeper level anyway. That's part of the enjoyment of the story. Lupinlore: > On somewhat firmer ground, I think this way of seeing Dumbledore is > slightly undercut by DD's admissions at the end of OOTP. There he > doesn't talk about letting Harry develop for himself (although he has almost certainly been doing some of that), but rather that he just couldn't give Harry needed information because he couldn't bring > himself to hurt Harry in that way (and I personally suspect that > finding Harry with the Mirror of Erised way back in '91 was a key > turning point in the way DD reacts emotionally to Harry). At this > point DD doesn't appear so much a Zen Master as a deeply conflicted > man who just honestly doesn't know what to do. > Valky: You are right about that, too. And it's a great twist on the ZenMaster character which goes to prove JKR's originality. I don't think it completely undermines DD's wisdom though. It reveals his humanity, and his willingness to face it, but I think we just might discover that Dumbledore's admission of failing more a right than a wrong. I guess what I am trying to say is that I think even Dumbledore will be surprised to find in the end that all was right with his plan. From kb1195 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 24 22:46:56 2005 From: kb1195 at hotmail.com (katevldz) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:46:56 -0000 Subject: OotP Chapter Discussion: 36, Only One He Ever Feared In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_rude_mechanical" wrote: > > > Bellatrix demands the prophecy of Harry, who tells her that the > sphere has been destroyed. Immediately his scar begins to burn and > he feels LV's anger; Harry taunts Bellatrix with it. She begins to > apologize to LV, who suddenly appears in the hall. > > LV prepares to kill Harry, ignoring Bellatrix's warnings that "He is > here." > > ---By "he" we are left to assume DD, I suppose? > > Kate responds: The first time I read this I thought Bella was referring to Sirius. Am I the only one? Let me try to explain why. Here's the canon: Harry has just told Bella that the prophecy was smashed and proceeds to mock that she failed her boss Ch. 36, The Only One He Ever Feared, OoP "Nothing there!" he shouted. "Nothing to summon! It smashed and nobody heard what it said, tell your boss that " "No!" she screamed. "It isn't true, you're lying ? MASTER, I TRIED, I TRIED ? DO NOT PUNISH ME" (emphasis JKR) "Don't waste your breath!" yelled Harry, his eyes screwed up against the pain in his scar, now more terrible than ever. "He can't hear you from here!" "Can't I, Potter?" said a high, cold voice. Harry opened his eyes. Tall, thin, and black-hooded his terrible snakelike face white and gaunt, his scarlet, slit- pupiled eyes staring Lord Voldemort had appeared in the middle of the hall, his wand pointing at Harry who stood frozen, unable to move. "So you smashed my prophecy?" said Voldemort softly, staring at Harry with those pitiless red eyes. "No, Bella, he is not lying I see the truth looking at me from within his worthless mind Months of preparation, months of effort and my Death Eaters have let Harry Potter thwart me again " "Master, I am sorry, I knew not, I was fighting the Animagus Black!" sobbed Bellatrix, flinging herself down at Voldemort's feet as he paced slowly nearer. "Master you should know " "Be quiet, Bella," said Voldemort dangerously. "I shall deal with you in a moment. Do you think that I have entered the Ministry of Magic to hear your sniveling apologies?" "But Master ? he is here ? he is below " Voldemort paid no attention. "I have nothing more to say to you, Potter," he said quietly. "You have irked me too often, for too long. AVADA KEDAVRA!" Enter DD and on it goes. I read this as LV appears and Bella starts cowering and making excuses about why she didn't get the prophecy, namely she was fighting the Animagus Black. She says "Master, you should know" , LV tells her to be quiet and she says "But Master, he is here he is below," continuing in her attempts to make sure that LV understands why she didn't get the prophecy. It's like she is making her excuse, then LV interrupts her and tells her to be quiet, but she just keeps going on because she's terrified that LV is going to punish her. I read it as her saying to LV, Master, you should know (because you are a Legilimens) that I am telling the truth Black is the reason I didn't get the prophecy and he's here. I'm not lying! I didn't read it as some big warning that DD was there, mostly because she is talking about Sirius one minute and then she supposedly stops talking about him (and why even mention him specifically, why not just saying she was fighting?) and starts referring to DD. Even though she doesn't say DD's name, we are to infer that she has switched gears from Sirius and is now talking about DD. I have since talked to people on both sides of the debate. Those who believe she (Bella) was referring to DD - I can see that, but I have to say I didn't get that the first time around. It seems to me to be kind of an ambiguous passage of text (perhaps on purpose?). Just curious what everyone here thought if this has been previously discussed, kindly point me towards the threads. Thanks. And if I have totally confused you, please let me know and I'll try to be a bit more clear. Kate, who, in case you couldn't tell, REALLY hopes that Sirius' story will continue and is probably reading way too much into this From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 01:45:10 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:45:10 -0000 Subject: Petunia, Dudley, magical ability? (was Re: Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122936 Chancie wrote: And why since Uncle Vernon hates Hedwig to begin with, would he attach a present for Harry whom he also hates? Something just doesn't add up to me. Perhaps there is more to thing than meets the eye. JKR said we would be learning more about Petunia. Perhaps she doesn't dislike Harry as much as we think and it's more of a show for Vernon? Who knows? Thoughts anyone? vmonte responds: This has been discussed here before and someone came up with a really good answer. Hedwig knows when it's Harry's birthday, when it's Christmas, and other holidays, etc. He flies to Harry's friends in the summer to get birthday presents for Harry, and he goes to the Dursley's house at Christmas to pick up presents for Harry. (I cannot remember which HP book it was, but one year Hedwig followed Hermione to where she was vacationing and waited until she sent him back with a present for Harry.) Hedwig probably also bothers the Dursley's until they finally give in and hand him whatever will make him go away. Hence the crapy presents that Harry gets from them. Vivian From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 01:53:59 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:53:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122937 >>Betsy: >Has Dumbledore been wrong time and again? He *was* fooled by Crouch! Moody, and the big reveal in OotP is that puppetmaster!Dumbledore is a myth (thank God!) but Harry is still alive, still learning, and Voldemort has paid dearly for every step forward he's made, because of Dumbledore's actions.< >>Finwitch: >Or despite of them. Dumbledore *has* erred several times... >PS: Dumbledore erred to follow a fake letter, supposedly from the Ministry. As result, Harry feels compelled to go down there and attempt to rescue the stone. Harry nearly dies, and was barely saved by his Mother's love-you-enough-to-die-for-you-mark on his skin. Of course, Dumbledore came back just early enough to help Harry into the hospital wing.< Betsy: Was the letter fake? Harry guesses it is, but no one confirms this. Why write a fake letter when it's well known that Dumbledore is always being called on by the Minister for assistance? Plus, if the letter was a fake the timeline gets a little fishy. Or Dumbledore took his sweet time getting back to the school. And Harry was *not* saved by his skin. His skin hurt Quirrell, but Quirrell was still alive when Harry was passing out. If Dumbledore hadn't arrived when he did, it's very possible that Harry would've died that night. At the very least, Voldemort would have the stone. >>Finwitch: >CoS: Well, there was the whole Flying-car fiasco, and Dumbledore's error in assuming that he'd have no choice but to expel the two if they ever did something against the rules... well, I don't know if sending Hedwig had worked - who says Dobby couldn't have intercepted it? He DID take all letters Ron&Hermione had sent to Harry, after all.< Betsy: Dumbledore is not omniscient. He does not know what's going on in every part of the WW at every point in time. And are you seriously suggesting that the headmaster of a school *not* encourage his students to follow school rules? >>Finwitch: >The more dangerous error, however, was hiring Lockhart - this fraud WAS causing danger-- he nearly turned Ron&Harry into not much more than someone KISSED BY DEMENTOR would be near the end, before he removed Harry's bones, set pixies loose etc. Betsy: I'll let Hagrid answer this one: "[Lockhart] was the *on'y* man for the job," said Hagrid [...] "An' I mean the *on'y* one. Gettin' very difficult ter find anyone fer the Dark Arts job. People aren't too keen ter take it on, see. They'er startin' to think it's jinxed." (CoS p. 115 Scholastic paperback) The emphisis is Hagrid's and he makes it clear that Dumbledore had no choice. Also he had only 2 months (I think?) to fill the position, so he didn't have tons of time to search. Lockhart is an incompetent but pixies and broken or even removed bones are more a nuisance in the WW than an actual danger. It was Harry and Ron who chose to force Lockhart into the bowels of Hogwarts with them. Hopefully they learned how dangerous a man can become when his back is pushed against a wall. >>Finwitch: >PoA: This one reveals several errors shared by Dumbledore & every single teacher/adult except for Sirius & the pet-shop worker so far as we can tell: believing Sirius betrayed James, despite of knowing how close they were. Not noticing anything odd about Ron's rat - living so long, lacking a finger... but most importantly, that of not giving Sirius a chance to defend himself (which becomes clearer in the GoF, but is presented here). Snape in particular is guilty of not listening to the truth of Peter Pettigrew. What happens: Harry almost gets Kissed by a Dementor, if not for Hermione's TimeTurner, and the Patronus Harry could now produce, thinking that he'd go live with Sirius... Oh well, at least Dumbledore gives Sirius a chance NOW - the chance he should have given him 12 years ago. No wonder Harry doesn't trust Snape. Not after the Events in the Shrieking Shack.< Betsy: I'll ignore the stuff about Snape (I've said it all before I think! ) to concontrate on Dumbledore here. First, again you seem to think Dumbledore should be an omniscient god. You honestly take him to task for not checking every single pet that crosses Hogwarts' doors? And as pointed out in other posts, the Sirius affair was Crouch's baby, not Dumbledore's. Plus, Dumbledore was the one who suggested Hermione use her time- turner, told her how far back in time to go, and gave the hint that she and Harry could save two lives that night. Sirius owes his life to Dumbledore. If he hadn't thought so quickly, Sirius would have been a zombie for the rest of the series. (If he lived that long.) >>Finwitch: >GoF: Dumbledore failed to recognise fake!Moody (and only got it after Harry got himself out of danger once into danger again). Result: BC Jr. turns the goblet into a portkey, leading directly to the death of Cedric Diggory, and Harry's battle against Voldemort.< Betsy: Again, Dumbledore is not a god. However, you have to give him credit for realizing so quickly who the Voldemort insider was and getting to Harry before Crouch!Moody could kill him. Dumbledore also denied Voldemort a very loyal, powerful, and clever servant. >>Finwitch: >OOP: All that 'don't tell Harry anything'- crap, along with keeping Harry at distance. Also, having Harry stay at the Dursleys (with watchers) all Summer was an error that may have caused the loss of Harry (AND Dudley) to Dementors sent by Dolores Umbridge. Plus it lessened available resources. Wouldn't it have been more beneficial and effective to have Harry stay at the 12 Grimmauld Place earlier?< Betsy: This is the one time when Dumbledore willfully makes a bad call. He knows Harry. He should have realized how much Harry would resist being kept out of the loop. But Dumbledore wanted to keep Harry safe and off the battle field. He was wrong, but I understand why he made the mistake he made. But as to the Dursleys, if Dumbledore had not sent Harry back to them, it would have nullified the protection their home offers. There are few places where Harry is completely safe from Voldemort. The Dursley home may be the only one. Dumbledore would have been foolish to give up that protection (that Lily paid so dearly for) so easily. Betsy, who wrote an answer to this earlier that was stunning in its brilliance, but you'll have to take her word for it because Yahoo ate it. =( From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 02:18:22 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:18:22 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122940 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "xcpublishing" wrote: While reading CoS the other day, I was struck by Harry > mentioning his "worst birthday ever" and that the Dursleys rarely > even acknowledged his birthday. (How would Harry even know when his birthday was? I find it hard to believe the Dursleys would EVER have brought it up, or even bothered to remember in the first place... but I digress.) Tonks now: Harry knows his birthday because the Dursley's are not monsters. They are human beings that don't give Harry the same treatment as their own son, but they don't beat him, starve him, etc. He feels like they do. And we feel like they do because we are seeing the world through his eyes. He gets some acknowledgement of his birthday. A hanger. A sock or something. I am not saying that the Dursley's are wonderful people. I am saying that they are not as terrible as everyone thinks that they are. Harry hasn't had much in the way of material things and material things do not mean anything to him as a result. That is not a bad thing; in fact in some circles it is a very good thing. Harry is alive and well, so he was not starved. Harry is not a fat, little indulged pig like Dudley, and that is a very good thing. Nicky Joe said: My issue with DD is this: He takes a baby, drops it on the doorstep of the "worst sort of Muggles imaginable" and never bothers to check on the child again, except to have Arabella Figg (who is FAR from the kindly grandmother sort, as Harry hated every minute he spent at her house, also) keep an eye on him from afar. Why in the heck didn't DD have someone drop in once in awhile and keep the Dursleys in line? Or at least keep them from starving him. They wouldn't have to reveal that they were wizards, a simple, "I used to be a friend of your parents and like to drop by now and again to BUY YOU A DECENT SET OF CLOTHES" would suffice. Tonks now: This is a lot like what a lot of people say about God. Why does he lets thing happen like this, why doesn't he step in and stop it...etc. etc. DD probably has the same reasons God does. As to someone saying to Petunia "I am an old friend of James and Lily"... that would tell right there that the person was a wizard. James and Lily, to our knowledge, did not have any Muggle friends. And I think that there was a deal with the Dursley's that Harry would live in the Muggle world as a Muggle and that DD and his kind would stay away at least until the appointed hour. Nicky Joe said: I just find it revolting to think that good and kindly Dumbledore allowed Harry to be raised in an environment that was not > only devoid of the magic he had inherited, but also devoid of > kindness, compassion, and love. Tonks now: Again this is the anger that some people feel toward God at times. And DD had to put Harry with Patunia to protect Harry, it was the only way. Nicky Joe said: Sending Harry back to the Dursleys instead of letting him stay at Grimmauld Place with Sirius was the icing on that little cake. And people wonder why Harry had a bit of anger going in OoP. > Tonks_op Harry stays at the Dursley's because that is his home and must continue to be his home for his own protection. As to Harry's anger in the beginning of OoP, that is his post tramatic stress reaction to the experience in the graveyard and the death of Cedric. Tonks-op From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 02:21:32 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:21:32 -0000 Subject: I found an old but interesting post... Neville's Fruedian toad... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122941 vmonte: I just found a very old but interesting post discussing among others things Neville's toad as a fruedian metaphor for male masculinity, and Snape's attack of Trevor as a form of castration. I've quoted some of it below. You need to really read the whole post though. "In such a cultural context, power is not merely power. It is power as expressed through pride and ambition, power as expressed through competition, conflict, certamen. It is power as expressed through struggle. It is power as expressed through striving and through strife. That is what I believe that Neville fears, and that is what I think that he sees personified in Snape. It is a very masculine type of power, and viewed in this context, Snape's targetting of the toad Trevor takes on some unavoidably Freudian overtones. In spite of having proposed in my last message that Trevor might serve as a textual symbol of Neville's magical potency itself, I'd been hoping to avoid getting *too* Freudian with this analysis, but...oh, well, it's just so hard to avoid with Neville, isn't it? The poor boy really does seem to be quite the mass of Freudian conflict. And besides, it's fun, so let's go for it. After all, as Pippin and Tabouli have had a blast discussing, frogs and toads have a long history of standing in as representations of masculine sexuality, and the concept of wizards' animal companions as repositories or symbols of their potency has some very deep roots as well. So when Snape threatens Trevor in Potions class, or forces Neville to disembowel toads as his detention, I'm afraid that I *do* tend to read that as a castration threat. In essence, I think that the message that Neville himself must be taking away from it is: "Use it or lose it, boy!" Small wonder that Snape scares him so. And while we're grovelling around down here in the dirt with the psychoanalytic theory, how *about* those cauldrons, eh? Gulplum wrote: > The main way in which Neville's problems with Snape show up is his > knack of destroying cauldrons. We're reminded of this several > times. What's so important about that element, or am I just reading > too much into it? Mmmmmmm. Well. We could go off on quite the riff here, I suppose, about what it might mean for Dreaded Dark Animus Snape to encourage the fire of Neville's suppressed masculinity to erupt forth, melting right through the protective womb-like enclosure of the cauldron, couldn't we? If you favor both "Gran gave Neville a Memory Charm" and "Snape is trying to crack Neville's Memory Charm," then such an interpretation would certainly give you plenty of room to maneuver. Or, if you prefer, we could contemplate instead the symbolic connection between a cauldron with a melted bottom and the flawed receptive vessel of a mind that cannot retain memory. Here we touch on Jung: memory is the repository of culture, the cauldron is the receptacle of the collective unconscious, and the effect of Neville's poorly-controlled magic is to render his own internalized cauldron inoperative, thus cutting him off from both the benefits and the dangers of his own cultural legacy. Is "a mind like a bottomless cauldron" the wizarding equivalent of "a mind like a leaky sieve," perhaps? Or, for that matter, a mind like a leaky PENsieve? Perhaps. So if what Snape represents to Neville is power, then how does that relate to the ongoing motif of memory? Porphyria wrote: > I think his cultivated ineptness is related to the memory charm, > but perhaps only thematically. Perhaps his susceptibility to > forgetting parallels his refusal to acknowledge his power." Vivian http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38398 From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 02:22:53 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:22:53 -0000 Subject: Zen and the Art of Vanquishing Voldemort (was: Why should Harry be expected...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122942 > > And another thought: isn't Harry's situation when hearing the > prophecy similar to the situation of a kid who hears that he has a > potentially terminal illness? And isn't DD's dilemma whether to tell him about it similar to the doctor's dilemma if to tell the truth to this kid? And is it a coincidence that Harry hears the truth at the same age that JKR heard about her mother's diagnosis? > > > Neri, out on a metaphysical limb. Valky: Wow, really interesting thought, Neri. Yes I think you are right, Jo says first and foremost that she writes Harry for herself, I think that little pieces of herself are through the book like that. I don't want to over-analyse the factors that contribute to JKR's personal journey appearing in the books, for two reasons. One because that just wouldn't be fair discussion, as personal as the books might be I just don't believe that deconstructing Jo is in any way the right of any of us. And Two because I think you've struck the nail on the head anyway Neri... Love being the opposite of fear. The books are about Love and about Death and about Harry's inevitable paralyzing struggle, things we are afraid to reveal about ourselves. Like you have said, when people are faced with this truth of a paralysing struggle they oftentimes seek the guidance of the masters, that guidance leads them to a place where they replace Fear with Love. The fact that Jo is not afraid to open her heart into her books is like those teachings of Love as the conquerer of fear. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 02:30:48 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:30:48 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122943 Tonks now: I am not saying that the Dursley's are wonderful people. I am saying that they are not as terrible as everyone thinks that they are. Harry hasn't had much in the way of material things and material things do not mean anything to him as a result. That is not a bad thing; in fact in some circles it is a very good thing. Harry is alive and well, so he was not starved. Harry is not a fat, little indulged pig like Dudley, and that is a very good thing. Alla: Yes, he was starved , A LOT, in fact. I quoted canon on it many times, so if you would like me to cite it again, tell me. And besides not having much of material things, Harry was deprived of spiritual things - namely love and that is NOT a good thing in my book at all. Tonks now: Again this is the anger that some people feel toward God at times. And DD had to put Harry with Patunia to protect Harry, it was the only way. Alla: NO, sorry, to me it is the kind of anger at the character , who decided to play G-d. Nicky Joe said: Sending Harry back to the Dursleys instead of letting him stay at Grimmauld Place with Sirius was the icing on that little cake. And people wonder why Harry had a bit of anger going in OoP. Alla: I don't wonder about it at all. I would wonder if he would not have been angry in OOP. Tonks_op Harry stays at the Dursley's because that is his home and must continue to be his home for his own protection. As to Harry's anger in the beginning of OoP, that is his post tramatic stress reaction to the experience in the graveyard and the death of Cedric. Alla: It is most certainly PTSD to graveyard events, IMO, but I also consider it to be reaction to Dursleys' abuse. Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 02:37:23 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:37:23 -0000 Subject: Petunia, Dudley, magical ability? (was Re: Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122944 Vmonte responds: This has been discussed here before and someone came up with a really good answer. Hedwig knows when it's Harry's birthday, when it's Christmas, and other holidays, etc. He flies to Harry's friends in the summer to get birthday presents for Harry, and he goes to the Dursley's house at Christmas to pick up presents for Harry. (I cannot remember which HP book it was, but one year Hedwig followed Hermione to where she was vacationing and waited until she sent him back with a present for Harry.) Hedwig probably also bothers the Dursley's until they finally give in and hand him whatever will make him go away. Hence the crapy presents that Harry gets from them. Alla: I love that idea, Vmonte (sorry, I didn't read the previous thread you mention). Don't you love the irony - Harry's owl loves him more than Dursleys do? By the way, how do you know that Hedwig is a He? I always thought of her as a female. :o) Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 03:01:31 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:01:31 -0000 Subject: Dursley's and Harry (was: Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122946 >> Tonks: >I am not saying that the Dursley's are wonderful people. I am saying that they are not as terrible as everyone thinks that they are. Harry hasn't had much in the way of material things and material things do not mean anything to him as a result. That is not a bad thing; in fact in some circles it is a very good thing. Harry is alive and well, so he was not starved. Harry is not a fat, little indulged pig like Dudley, and that is a very good thing.< >>Alla: >Yes, he was starved , A LOT, in fact. I quoted canon on it many times, so if you would like me to cite it again, tell me. And besides not having much of material things, Harry was deprived of spiritual things - namely love and that is NOT a good thing in my book at all.< Betsy: I have problems with the word "starved" too. Harry was not overfed, that is true. And I think he wasn't allowed seconds, because they were given to Dudley (though I don't think that was any kind of favor to Dudley in the end). But I don't recall him actually being faint from hunger, and his growth rate hasn't been stunted. I'm not trying to say the Dursley's were perfectly wonderful, but I think they trod a very fine line without tipping into actual, actionable (and I mean legally) abuse. After all, what would the neighbors think? As to love, I think Harry had one thing going for him here - he knew the Dursley's weren't his parents. I think it's a huge thing to recognize that the people mistreating you are "Other" and that there is a real possibility that you had parents who loved you. I think that's why Harry has always been so protective of his parents memory. For many years, it was all he had. It's also interesting to me that Vernon Dursley put so much effort into keeping Harry from the Wizarding World. Remember, he and Petunia think of the WW as evil. (It did kill her sister after all.) If they cared nothing about Harry, why not just let him go? Sort of so long, not my problem anymore, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Why take your entire family on a mad run around the country to keep your nephew from the WW? (And Harry got equal share of their meager supplies on the island, interestingly enough.) Had Vernon and Petunia tried, in their strange muggle way, to keep Harry out of the WW altogether? Or in other words, keep him safe? >>Tonks_op >As to Harry's anger in the beginning of OoP, that is his post tramatic stress reaction to the experience in the graveyard and the death of Cedric.< >>Alla: >It is most certainly PTSD to graveyard events, IMO, but I also consider it to be reaction to Dursleys' abuse.< Betsy: Again, I think the word "abuse" is too stong. Harry certainly wasn't legally abused. He was never beaten and he wasn't neglected. He was not treated well, of course. And he was often ignored (which I think Harry prefered actually). But especially after PoA, the Dursley's seem more frightened of Harry than anything, and for the most part leave him alone. I think Harry was angry because he was left out of the loop. He *knew* things were going on, he knew his friends were involved, and he was stuck out in the fringes. Even if the Dursley's had been a loving family, Harry would have been furious. (On top of the PTSD.) Betsy From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 03:03:21 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:03:21 -0000 Subject: Petunia, Dudley, magical ability? (was Re: Question: Do/can squibs use owl post? Floo powder?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122947 No: HPFGUIDX 122948 I realize in all that this is just a story but...I always wondered why social services of some type didn't step in. I realize that there were no outer signs of abuse such as bruises or broken bones but -- teachers must have questioned the fact that one child in the family has everything and the other doesn't even have clothing that fits and broken glasses. JMM [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 03:19:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:19:57 -0000 Subject: Dursley's and Harry (was: Innocent Alby?) (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122949 Alla: Yes, he was starved , A LOT, in fact. I quoted canon on it many times, so if you would like me to cite it again, tell me. And besides not having much of material things, Harry was deprived of spiritual things - namely love and that is NOT a good thing in my book at all. Betsy: I have problems with the word "starved" too. Harry was not overfed, that is true. And I think he wasn't allowed seconds, because they were given to Dudley (though I don't think that was any kind of favor to Dudley in the end). But I don't recall him actually being faint from hunger, and his growth rate hasn't been stunted. I'm not trying to say the Dursley's were perfectly wonderful, but I think they trod a very fine line without tipping into actual, actionable (and I mean legally) abuse. After all, what would the neighbors think? Alla: I think Dursleys are way past that line. Since it was discussed many times and I wrote on this subject many times, I will just repost my post 117446: Your Honor. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. It is the prosecution position that Petunia and Vernon Dursleys should be found guilty of abuse and /or neglect of their nephew Harry Potter. According to testimony of Mr. Potter's Dursleys made him live in the cupboard, dressed him in the old clothes, starved him continuously and even attempted to hit him. Dursleys' favourite punishment was locking Mr. Potter in the cupboard with little or no food at all to go on with. According to Mr. Potter Dursleys also failed to protect him from school bullies. Moreover, their son actively participated in such activities. Let me read to you a few excerpts from Mr. Potter's testimony. "Dudley had laughed himself silly at Harry, who spent a sleepless night imagining school the next day, where he was already laughed at for his baggy clothes and taped glasses. Next morning, however, he had gotten up to find his hair exactly as it had been before Aunt Petunia had sheared it off. He had been given a week in his cupboard for this, even though he had tried to explain that he couldn't explain how it had grown back so quickly." - PS/SS, p.24, paperback. "Harry lay in his dark cupboard much later wishing he had a watch. He didn't know what time it was and he couldn't be sure the Dursleys were asleep yet. Until they were, he couldn't risk sneaking to the kitchen for some food" - PS/SS, p.29, paperback. "Harry was glad school was over, but there was no escaping Dudley's gang, who visited the house every single day. Piers , Dennis, Malcolm, and Gordon were all big and stupid, but as Dudley was the biggest and stupidest of the lot, he was the leader. The rest of them were all quite happy to join in Dudley's favorite sport: Harry Hunting" - PS/SS , p.31, paperback. "Harry paid dearly for his moment of fun. As neither Dudley nor the hedge was in any way hurt, Aunt Petunia knew he hadn't really done magic, but he still had to duck as she aimed a heavy blow at his head with the soapy frying pan. Then she gave him work to do, with the promise he wouldn't eat again until he'd finished. While Dudley lolled around watching and eating ice cream, Harry cleaned the windows, washed the car, mowed the lawn, trimmed the flowerbeds, pruned and watered the roses, and repainted the garden bench. The sun blazed overhead, burning the back of his neck." - CoS, paperback, p.10. "And laughing like a maniac, he dragged Harry back upstairs. Uncle Vernon was as bad as his word. The following morning, he paid a man to fit bars on Harry's window. He himself fitted a cat-flap in the bedroom door, so small amounts of food could be pushed inside three times a day. They let Harry out to use the bathroom morning and evening. Otherwise, he was locked in his room around the clock. ......... The cat-flap rattled and Aunt petunia's hand appeared, pushing a bowl of canned soup into the room. Harry, whose insides were aching with hunger, jumped off his bed and seized it. The soup was stone- cold, but he drank half of it in one gulp. Then he crossed the room of Hedwig's cage and tipped the soggy vegetables att he bottom of the bowl into her empty food tray. She ruffled her feathers and gave him a look of deep disgust. "It's no good turning your beak up at it - that's all we've got." said Harry grimly. He put the empty bowl back on the floor next to the cat-flap and lay back down on the bed, somehow even hungrier than he had been before the soup." - CoS, p.22, paperback. "He was working flat-out just to get through all their homework, though he made a point of sending regular food packages up to the cave in the mountain for Sirius; after last summer , Harry had not forgotten what it felt like to be continually hungry." - GoF , paperback, p.548. Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you also heard testimony of several friends and acquaintances of Mr. Potter, who were clearly aware of the fact that his aunt and uncle were mistreating him and attempted to interfere on his behalf. "We thought we'd just have a few words with you about Harry" said Mr. Weasley, still smiling. "Yeah," growled Moody, "About how he's treated when he is at your place" - OOP, paperback, p.869. You also heard the testimony of Albus Dumbledore, who perhaps should be charged as accomplice in those crimes, but for now prosecution is investigating whether his claim that Harry could only survive with Dursleys is in any way correct "You had suffered. I knew you would when I left you on your aunt and uncle's doorstep. I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years. " - OOP, paperback, p.835. Ladies and Gentlemen, we ask you to find that Dursleys are guilty of the above mentioned crimes. P.S. Strangely enough, I tried to think about any possible defense of Dursleys and ... well, I failed. It is very easy for me to imagine the defense of Snape ( no matter how strongly I disagree with it). For Dursleys, well, I see none. One can say that Dursleys did not ask for Harry to be brought to live with them. True, they did not. But to me, the sister does have some kind of obligation to take care of her orphan nephew if necessary, so this defense does not sit well with me, either. I do suspect that JKR may redeem Petunia, but for now I really, really dislike all Dursleys. :o) Betsy: Had Vernon and Petunia tried, in their strange muggle way, to keep Harry out of the WW altogether? Or in other words, keep him safe? Alla: Not sure about that. Again, I think it is a possibility that Petunia may be redeemed. I don't think vernon will be though. Betsy: Again, I think the word "abuse" is too stong. Harry certainly wasn't legally abused. He was never beaten and he wasn't neglected. He was not treated well, of course. And he was often ignored (which I think Harry prefered actually). But especially after PoA, the Dursley's seem more frightened of Harry than anything, and for the most part leave him alone. Alla: I don't think that the word abuse is too strong, far from it, but I do agree that with each book Harry seems less affected by their abuse. It does not matter to me though in evaluating Dursleys' actions. Unless I learn that Petunia tried to protect Harry somehow, they will continue to be amont my less favourite characters of "potterverse" Just my opinion, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 03:23:41 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:23:41 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122950 >>Amanda: >Okay, this is very long. It's a summary of canon points dealing with Occlumency and Harry's resistance to it, with some interpretation interleaved and following. Betsy: First off, *loved* this post!! Will have ten million of your babies if you so desire. ;) I think you demonstrate beautifully that Snape *was* trying to teach Harry. Harry, possibly influenced by Voldemort, refused to learn. >>Amanda: >No, this was a reasonable expectation on Snape's part, and it was a failing of Harry's that he betrayed both Snape's and Dumbledore's trust by invading Snape's memories. The same curiosity that Voldemort is using to keep Harry on the hook in his dreams, makes Harry stick his face into Snape's memories. >Ah, creepy thought--I hope Voldemort wasn't behind *that* curiosity as well, or Snape surely is toast.< Betsy: *shivers* I hope you're wrong about that. Because if Voldemort did figure out that Snape is a spy because of Harry refusing to work on his Occlumency... yuck. Actually, that gives me hope, because I think the death of Sirius is supposed to be Harry's wake-up call that he needs to work with others. (I think it also pushed Dumbledore to realize that he cannot hold Harry back any longer.) To have Snape die for the same mistake seems a little redundant. Also, Harry has demonstrated his curiosity before. This isn't the first time he's peeked into someone's memories. I think Harry's innate curiosity made Voldemort's job fairly easy, and was the reason Voldemort used the dream the way he did. I wonder if Voldemort didn't draw it out a bit himself. Just to make sure the fish was well and truly hooked. And I like that JKR showed Voldemort being subtle. Makes for a better villian. :) Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 03:24:00 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:24:00 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122951 JMM wrote: I realize in all that this is just a story but...I always wondered why social services of some type didn't step in. I realize that there were no outer signs of abuse such as bruises or broken bones but -- teachers must have questioned the fact that one child in the family has everything and the other doesn't even have clothing that fits and broken glasses. Alla: I know, me too. :o) I mean, I did not have that question till we were given "fairy-tale" story. After all, fairy-tale heroes are supposed to overcome evil step parents or something like that, but with each book and especially after OOP and Harry's "she never loved me", I did wonder. Unfortunately, no equivalent of social services seems to exist in WW, just as it seems that psychiatric help doesn't. Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 03:36:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:36:30 -0000 Subject: Zen and the Art of Vanquishing Voldemort (was: Why should Harry be expected. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122952 Valky: You are right about that, too. And it's a great twist on the ZenMaster character which goes to prove JKR's originality. I don't think it completely undermines DD's wisdom though. It reveals his humanity, and his willingness to face it, but I think we just might discover that Dumbledore's admission of failing more a right than a wrong. I guess what I am trying to say is that I think even Dumbledore will be surprised to find in the end that all was right with his plan. Alla: Oooo, Valky. I definitely agree with you on this one. No matter how angry I can be at Dumbledore from time to time, I started to love him as a character MUCH more than I did prior to OOP. He evolved, he showed his flaws, he became MORE human. Another character which underwent tranformation for me was James. I don't like Saint characters. I am much more attached to James now than I used to be before OOP, because he WAS a saint. Could you ellaborate a little on your last sentence though? I used to believe for quiite some time now that Dumbledore will discover that he was somehow wrong in interpreting the Prophecy ( don't ask me how), but you probably meant that Dumbledore's admission to Harry that he loved him will somehow play important part in the ending, right? Could you tell me more, please? Alla From juli17 at aol.com Tue Jan 25 03:40:31 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:40:31 EST Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? Message-ID: <42.6163427c.2f2719af@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122953 > Tonks writes: > > >I totally disagree. A teacher or anyone in a position to be one's > >superior is to be treated with the respect afforded their office. Nicky Joe writes: > I can't agree with that one. I once had a Supervisor that was as > useless as she was good at sucking up to those above her. I was once > called into the Manager's office and told that I had to respect my > Supervisor simply because she was my Supervisor. I told him that if > that Supervisor managed to slither her way up to being the President > and CEO of the company that I would STILL not have one iota of > respect for her because she was not worthy, regardless of title. I > believe Harry has reached this point with Snape. He gave Snape > cursory respect when he was young because Snape was a Professor. Now > Harry is growing up and has realized that a title means nothing, and > he no longer has any respect for the person beneath Snape's title. > > Nicky Joe > Julie replies: I think there is a difference between having or feeling respect for someone and *treating* someone with respect. Harry doesn't have to feel respect for Snape to treat him with the respect due his station. Just as you could still have treated your supervisor with the respect due her position while not feeling any respect for her ability as a supervisor (I speak in a general sense as I don't know the details of your situation). To do otherwise, in both school and workplace, just exacerbates an already unpleasant situation. So, yes, Harry should treat Snape with respect, whether he feels that respect and whether or not Snape *deserves* that respect. In doing so, Harry's not doing it for Snape but for himself. If you stoop to someone else's level, what are you proving, after all, except that you have the capacity to be an equally disrespectful person? (IMO, of course) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 03:44:45 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:44:45 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122954 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, happydogue at a... wrote: > I realize in all that this is just a story but...I always wondered why social services of some type didn't step in. I realize that there were no outer signs of abuse such as bruises or broken bones but -- teachers must have questioned the fact that one child in the family has everything and the other doesn't even have clothing that fits and broken glasses. Tonks here: Good heavens! Harry is not an abused child. He is clean, has a place to sleep, has food, isn't beaten, even gets some toys and clothing. Nothing fancy grant you, hand-me downs. But since when is hand-me downs abuse?? He lives like a normal kid did during the depression. I have seen abused children. I have worked with PS. Even when a child lives in the most abusive homes that you can think of PS rarely takes the kid out of the home, they send the parents to therapy. We see Harry homelife through the eyes of a child. He is not treated like a king, but the Dursley's are not the most terriable people in the world. Please understand that I am not condoning them. I am surprised at the number of people that seem to equate the Dursley's with the lowest form of humanity. Even the Dursley's don't deserve that. Haven't we all when growning up thought that our parents were unfair in some way? It is very normal for kids to wish for the *good* parents to come along and take them away. But when they grow up and hear what type of home other kids lived in they realize how good they really had it. I think that something like that might happen to Harry when he discovered just what a terrible homelife Snape might have had. There are no perfect parents, some are just a whole lot worse than others. Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 03:48:01 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:48:01 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <42.6163427c.2f2719af@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122955 Juli: So, yes, Harry should treat Snape with respect, whether he feels that respect and whether or not Snape *deserves* that respect. In doing so, Harry's not doing it for Snape but for himself. If you stoop to someone else's level, what are you proving, after all, except that you have the capacity to be an equally disrespectful person? (IMO, of course) Alla: You are letting that person know that his/her bad treatment will not be tolerated by you. It is most certainly NOT appropriate in all situations, but I think that VERY appropriate in Harry/Snape. Sure, Harry could not fight back while he was eleven year old boy, but he is coming of age in the last book and it looks like he will be more powerful wizard than dear Severus. Please, JKR, please, before you will do "all is forgiven" staff, please let Snape feel some of Harry's annoyance with him, which surely bottled up for five years. :o) I would love to see Harry and Snape dueling for example and Snape being on the floor. :o) Just my opinion, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 25 03:57:26 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 03:57:26 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122956 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, happydogue at a... wrote: > I realize in all that this is just a story but...I always wondered why social services of some type didn't step in. I realize that there were no outer signs of abuse such as bruises or broken bones but -- teachers must have questioned the fact that one child in the family has everything and the other doesn't even have clothing that fits and broken glasses. > Pippin: Harry, in the words of the social service worker who denied child care benefits to JKR, is coping too well. Or to put it more kindly, I'm sure that even in prosperous Little Whinging there were many children suffering more than Harry was, and social services had their hands full with them. But Petunia could never make Harry look too ridiculous, because the magic interfered. And Harry was not routinely beaten or starved. Though he was sometimes made to go without food as a punishment, he never had to do so long enough to hurt him. And Petunia doesn't seem to have objected to him sneaking food from the fridge (or maybe she thought it was Dudley.) If Harry ever complained about being confined to the cupboard, he probably couldn't get the school authorities to believe him. How can a kid who says the wind must have blown him up to the top of the chimney or that he has no idea how he turned his teacher's wig blue have any credibility? The teachers probably felt sorry for Petunia having to cope with this kid who was an incorrigible liar. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 04:07:20 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:07:20 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and wargames wasOccImperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's ang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122957 >>Betsy: >Sorry, but you *have* hinted that Voldemort is not *Harry's* enemy. When you say that Harry was perfectly correct to sabotage his Occlumency lessons in order to put one over on his teacher, you are saying that Voldemort is not an actual threat.< >>Eggplant: >Two points: >1) I said Snape was (probably) sabotaging his Occlumency lessons, not Harry.< Betsy: I was referring to your gleeful approval of Harry sticking his nose in Snape's pensieve and thereby sabotaging the lessons. >>Eggplant: >2) If Snape is a enemy it in no way implies that Voldemort is not.< Betsy: But you *are* implying that Voldemort is so unimportant an enemy it is better for Harry to pull one over on Snape than for Harry to learn Occlumency from him. >>Betsy: >What Harry did would be the equivalent of a boxing student hiding behind a door and knocking his coach out with a shovel when the coach came back in the room.< >>Eggplant: >And if this were a war game rather than a very civilized boxing match then knocking his coach out with a shovel would be entirely appropriate.< Betsy: And if it was a war game rather than an Occlumency lesson, then betraying Snape's trust would have been appropriate. And if Harry was a ballerina, Snape would need a pink tutu. It's not a war game, it's not dance lessons, and it's not spy games. It's an Occlumency lesson, and so what Harry did was wrong. And stupid. And it guaranteed Voldemort's success. Well done Harry. So sorry Sirius. >>Eggplant: >Occlumency lessons are war games and you can bet the next time Harry fights Voldemort there will be no rules.< Betsy: No, Occlumency lessons are Occlumency lessons. That's why they were always referred to as Occlumency lessons. And in Occlumency lessons there *are* rules. And if Harry fights Voldemort the next time as well as he faught him this time, the WW should practice their genuflecting. 'Cause Harry was Voldemort's little puppet in OotP. >>Betsy: >Dumbledore doesn't ignore Harry when he accuses Snape of opening his (Harry's) mind to Voldemort. He answers simply, "I trust Severus Snape."< >>Eggplant: >No, he only said Snape's goading was not the reason Sirius left the house, he did not excuse Snape's crummy Occlumency lessons.< Betsy: Okay, you cut out the page number that sources my quote in the above snip. It's (OotP p. 833 Scholastic) and I'll quote the entire passage. "Snape made it worse, my scar always hurt worse after lessons with him --" Harry remembered Ron's thoughts on the subject and plunged on. "How do you know he wasn't trying to soften me up for Voldemort, make it easier for him to get inside my --" "I trust Severus Snape," said Dumbledore said simply." Betsy From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 25 04:14:18 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:14:18 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122958 > Juli: > > So, yes, Harry should treat Snape with respect, whether he > feels that respect and whether or not Snape *deserves* that > respect. In doing so, Harry's not doing it for Snape but for > himself. If you stoop to someone else's level, what are you > proving, after all, except that you have the capacity to be > an equally disrespectful person? (IMO, of course) > > > > Alla: > > You are letting that person know that his/her bad treatment will not be tolerated by you. Pippin: Harry's already put up with it for five years. Besting Snape won't change anything. Anyway, Harry is not a prisoner at Hogwarts and nobody forced him to attend potions classes or even occlumency. The respect is due to the position, not the individual. If Harry believes that Snape is not qualified to teach, then he should resign from the class. But Harry is not the Headmaster or the Hogwarts Board of Governors, and he has no right to usurp their authority by making it impossible for Snape to do his job. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 04:23:51 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:23:51 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122959 Pippin: > The respect is due to the position, not the individual. If Harry > believes that Snape is not qualified to teach, then he should > resign from the class. Alla: Do we know another Potion!master in Hogwarts? I am pretty sure that given the chance Harry will be quite happy not to attend Snape classes. Pippin: But Harry is not the Headmaster or the Hogwarts Board of Governors, and he has no right to usurp their authority by making it impossible for Snape to do his job. Alla: Not making it impossible for Snape to do his job, just let Snape know that he had enough. Just my opinion, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 04:39:05 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:39:05 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Juli: > > > > So, yes, Harry should treat Snape with respect, whether he > > feels that respect and whether or not Snape *deserves* that > > respect. In doing so, Harry's not doing it for Snape but for > > himself. If you stoop to someone else's level, what are you > > proving, after all, except that you have the capacity to be > > an equally disrespectful person? > > > > > > Alla: > > > > You are letting that person know that his/her bad treatment will > not be tolerated by you. > > Pippin: > Snip > The respect is due to the position, not the individual. If Harry > believes that Snape is not qualified to teach, then he should > resign from the class. But Harry is not the Headmaster or the > Hogwarts Board of Governors, and he has no right to usurp their > authority by making it impossible for Snape to do his job. Tonks now: I agree with both Juli and Pippin. And I hope that Harry will not sink to a position equal with Snape. I think that Harry does a good job of not allowing Snape's behavior to effect Harry's self esteme. Again as I have said we live in a civil society. I expect that our hero, Harry, will rise above the poor example of others and be the better man. Tonks_op From kempermentor at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 05:41:26 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:41:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122961 > Pippin wrote: > As for veritaserum, we don't know what the side effects are. > Crouch Jr doesn't seem to be doing well during his interrogation; > his insane smile becomes wider and wider and then he drops > into a stupor. Who knows if these effects can be permanent? > Dumbledore doesn't ask that veritaserum be used on Hagrid, > even though it might establish his innocence. Kemper now: I don't think it's side effects that people don't choose to use veritaserum. ...I think it's implied that Sirius didn't come to his own defense, of plead anything when it came to his trial. I say implied due to his reaction after the duel... laughing hysterically and such when the Aurors, or whoever, caught him. I think Sirius doesn't opt to use Veritaserum nor does DD suggest for Hagrid because of the Order. Sirius under the Veritaserum may have offered up secrets of the Order that now, at the end of the fifth book, are still secret. Same with Hagrid. I think those in the Order, and maybe even the DEs, would rather take their time in Azkaban then give up their secrets. Three drops is all you need to reveal your innermost secrets, supposedly. One might ask about the day after that fateful Halloween and how there was parties celebrating the apparent destruction of LV, why not use veritaserum? I would say that there were those who thought he was not truly dead: the Lestranges, Crouch Jr. and Neville's Gram to name a few. There are things worth dieing for, and there are things worth spending time in jail. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 06:17:19 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:17:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore vs Harry(was:Imperius Resistance and Occlumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122962 Me: >> nobody on the planet has more experience >> in these matters than Harry has, and that >> includes Dumbledore. "horridporrid03" wrote: > now you're being silly. Dumbledore defeated > Grindelward in 1945, We know little about Grindelward except he must have been on the Dark Wizard's second team because it is Voldemort not Grindelward who was the most powerful Dark Wizard in a thousand years. > has stood toe to toe with Voldemort when > every other wizard has failed That's not true, every other wizard didn't fail against Voldemort, Harry didn't fail. Harry totally destroyed Voldemort's plans and caused him severe setbacks at least 3 times, something Dumbledore has never done. I'm not saying Dumbledore isn't powerful and I'm not saying Voldemort isn't afraid of him, but when it comes to practical down and dirty street level fighting against Voldemort Harry has more experience and has been much more effective than Dumbledore. So when people try to explain Dumbledore's treatment of Harry by talking about how they treat their own little toddlers to keep them from getting into trouble, well ., I just think it's crazy. Harry has more right to patronize Dumbledore than Dumbledore has to treat Harry like an infant. > Harry barely got away from Voldemort in GoF, > and that only because his wand was brother to Voldemort The fact that the wands were brothers gave Harry no advantage over Voldemort. How did Harry force Voldemort's wand to regurgitate old spells, why didn't Voldemort force Harry's wand to do so instead? Because Harry won that little game of magical arm wrestling and forced the beads of light to move toward the Dark Lord despite Voldemort pushing in the opposite direction as hard as he could. At least on that day Harry was stronger than Voldemort, it's surprising yes but I see how else you can interpret that scene. > Every other time he's come close to facing > Voldemort full on, Dumbledore has been there > to pull his fat from the fire. Not in their very first encounter, and not in the one in book 2. > If he were to kick Dumbledore to the curb now, > Voldemort would have his hide by the end of the > first chapter of the next book. Perhaps a few years ago that was true but I don't think so today. In fact I have a very strong hunch Dumbledore will get killed in the next book and Harry will be on his own. We'll know for sure in 6 months. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 06:36:07 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:36:07 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and wargames wasOccImperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122963 "horridporrid03" wrote: > in Occlumency lessons there *are* rules. That's not what your buddy Snape told Harry, he said: "You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me or defend yourself in any other way that you can think of" Well Harry did think of another way. After looking it up I do concede one point, Dumbledore did seem to endorse the Occlumency lessons when he said "I trust Severus Snape," not that I'm terribly impressed with Dumbledore's opinion anymore. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 06:50:32 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:50:32 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122964 "Tonks" wrote: > Good heavens! Harry is not an abused child. The one time I thought Dursley's crossed the line into actual abuse was in the second book where Harry is locked in his room 24 hours a day and given nothing to eat but a can of cold soup that he shares with his owl. That's pretty bad. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 07:16:43 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:16:43 -0000 Subject: HBP to come in at 672 pages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122965 "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > Now, which edition are we talking about? Amazon was referring to scholastic edition OOTP = 870 pages GoF = 734 pages HBP = 672 pages POA = 435 pages Eggplant From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 07:23:23 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:23:23 -0000 Subject: Zen and the Art of Vanquishing Voldemort (was: Why should Harry be expected. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122966 > Valky: > I guess what I am trying to say is that I think even Dumbledore will be surprised to find in the end that all was right with his plan. > > > Alla: > I used to believe for quiite some time now that Dumbledore will discover that he was somehow wrong in interpreting the Prophecy ( don't ask me how), but you probably meant that Dumbledore's admission to Harry that he loved him will somehow play important part in the ending, right? > > Could you tell me more, please? > Hi again Alla! There is heaps to explain about what I have said in that sentence. To start with I should probably refer you back to a message thread that came up shortly after OOtP was released. If you start here.... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/66983 at Talismans post on the death of Sirius and Dumbledores sorrow and then you can have a look at my post here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/67288 in fact look all around at this thread because Carolyn's (Talisman) post was quite groundbreaking at the time and you'll find a lot of really interesting points of view on DD's OOtP speech there. Over time my hypothesis has evolved but the basic formula of it is the same. As Dumbledore takes great pains to fulfill his duty to the WW and the greater good a fine line runs between triumph and tragedy. In OOtP he stumbles over the line to the tragedy side, emotionally, although in many ways Harry, DD and Sirius have achieved their greatest triumph to date. Later in the thread note that Carolyn writes... "I think that Sirius's death has permenantly empowered Harry against Voldemort; and somewhere, from the other side of the Veil, Sirius is glad to have been sacrificed to achieve this end." Now after reading that I am sure your burning up to know if I think DD killed Sirius too. The answer to that is, I think that anyone who knows what is about to happen would send Sirius through the veil. Even Harry. Time-turning anyone? Valky From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 25 07:55:36 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:55:36 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: <001101c50265$0f515cb0$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122967 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > > Geoff: > > I think the whole point of "Cause and Effect" wasn't several > > timelines, but umpteen thousand parallel universes which I don't > > think are quite the same thing. > > TrekkieGrrrl responds: > > Argh.. I'm mixing things up sorry. Cause and Effect was the one where > Enterprise is blown up. The one where they're caught in a time loop. The > episode with Worf and the parallel universes is of course the one called > Parallels. Heh the writers of Trek sure loved to mess with the concept of > time. > > So cause and effect doesn't work here. Parallels does in a way, if you > believe that by creating a new timeline, you create an alternate universe. > > > > In the past, I have quoted Miles O'Brien in the episode where he > > meets his future self from five hours ahead (I can't locate the title > > at the moment) and they sit side by side and comment "I hate temporal > > mechanics!" > > TrekkieGrrrl responds: > That episode is Time Sqared and that's actually a better example than both > Parallels and Cause and Effect because here we have two versions of the same > characters. At the same place. But still one of them are disconnected from > the "real" now, because you can't exist twice at the same time without > something going awry. Geoff: Star Trek is a good example where different TT techniques have been used. Actually, we're still getting our knickers in a twist because I had accepted your "Cause and Effect" as the title involving Worf without checking. The O'Brien episode isn't "Time Squared" - it's a DS9 episode and I still haven't tracked the title! We get a little nearer our HP problem perhaps with "Time Squared" which had Picard meeting his future self after another Enterprise disaster. There is also "Yesterday's Enterprise" and in both those cases (as in Cause and Effect) the timeline is changed. But in the DS9 episode and "Time Squared", the timeline accommodates two versions of a character at the same time but these folk are able to influence the timelien and change it whereas, in POA, the time- turners are strictly enjoined not to be seen etc. Geoff Enjoy a virtual visit to Exmoor National Park and the preserved West Somerset Railway. Visit http://www.aspectsofexmoor.com From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 08:28:11 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:28:11 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <42.6163427c.2f2719af@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122968 > > Tonks writes: > > > > >I totally disagree. A teacher or anyone in a position to be one's superior is to be treated with the respect afforded their office. > > Julie replies: > > I think there is a difference between having or feeling respect for someone and *treating* someone with respect. Harry doesn't have > to feel respect for Snape to treat him with the respect due his station. Valky: You know, IMHO this thread is just too hard on Harry. Frankly, Harry respects Severus a great deal more than Draco ever will. And I agree with Nicky Joe, Lupinlore, SSSusan and Alla and others who point out that he has much less reason to. Student/Teacher relationship or not, Sevvie gets more respect than he deserves from Harry. And BTW I like Alla would like to see them come to blows in a feisty melee, I don't think that will be stooping on Harry's behalf, it will be an experience for them both. From RedHeadedVeela at aol.com Tue Jan 25 06:56:19 2005 From: RedHeadedVeela at aol.com (RedHeadedVeela at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:56:19 EST Subject: L.O.O.N.s, was Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen... Message-ID: <157.48da7c8f.2f274793@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122969 Good Morning all, First posting here, and long time lurker. Chancie: > And sorry, but Umbridge did try to kill him, > unless of course having dementors sent to your > town to hunt you down and kiss you is your idea > of a hot date. =) Amanda: > But the statement was that Harry's *teachers* > tried to kill him, and at the point Umbridge > sent the dementors, she was not yet his teacher. I hate to nitpick myself, but if you want to get technical, Umbridge didn't try to KILL Harry at the time of the Dementor attack. Just suck out his soul. He'd still, somewhat, be alive. Sarah, who will probably quietly resume her lurking status. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 02:34:55 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:34:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050125023455.17243.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122970 Finwitch wrote: > OOP: All that 'don't tell Harry anything'- crap, > along with keeping > Harry at distance. Also, having Harry stay at the > Dursleys (with > watchers) all Summer was an error that may have > caused the loss of > Harry (AND Dudley) to Dementors sent by Dolores > Umbridge. Plus it > lessened available resources. Wouldn't it have been > more beneficial > and effective to have Harry stay at the 12 Grimmauld > Place earlier? > Juli now: first the lack of messages with any informtion that they couldn't send Harry to Privet drive, this has perfect reason: Owls can be captured and the message would end up in the wrong hands. Sure it would have been much better for HArry to go to 12GP all summer, but we now Know a bit more about the pretection that Harry was in Privet Drive, so no, he has to stay there, at least a few weeks. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 02:50:33 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:50:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Incomprehensible comparison of Sirius and Aragorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050125025034.78591.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122971 > Alshain: > JKR draws up her characters to be unique, to be > what the story demands of them, uses bold strokes > and vivid colours, making all of them stand out > even if in a somewhat exaggerated way. (I was > going to write, "drawn a bit larger than life", > but some are actually drawn smaller. "Cartoonish" > might be a better description, but even so, they > all seem realistic.) Most of them are three- > dimensional, they have their own voices and flaws. Juli: I completely agree with you on this, they are unique and that's what makes them interesting. You never read a book about a regular guy, with nothing exciting in his life, no because it ain't unique. But people having flaws, making mistakes is interesting, it's what finally will make them more human. Juli From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 09:00:23 2005 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:00:23 -0000 Subject: Congratulations to JK on the new baby Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122972 Just read on the news that JK has given birth to a babygirl. Congratulations. Could timing be any more perfect? Inge From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Jan 25 10:29:47 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:29:47 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122973 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Tonks wrote: > Again this is the anger that some people feel toward God at times. > And DD had to put Harry with Patunia to protect Harry, it was the > only way. > > Alla replied: > > NO, sorry, to me it is the kind of anger at the character , who > decided to play G-d. > Renee, now: May I add: and anger at the character that was made to play God by his creatrix, but without being given the proper qualifications? It's one thing to say that God moves in mysterious ways, but to suggest such a thing of a fallible human being is something entirely different. JKR has said DD is the epitome of goodness, but that still doesn't make him God - unless she's trying to suggest DD is God's second incarnation on Earth after Jesus Christ, but somehow I don't think her own beliefs would allow her to do this. And if he's not God, criticism of his actions, whether on a textual level (seeing them as based on DD's own choices) or on a meta-textual level (seeing them as based on the author's choices) can't be countered with a reference to the way God works. In other words, to me the rift between stated authorial intentions and the text as we have it creates a problem here. This can be partially solved by seeing the series as a development from pure fairytale to a more "realistic" form of fantasy-cum-mystery, but as the Dursleys continue to play an unpleasant role in Harry's life, this doesn't entirely work. It works best if I can see the whole series as symbolical and largely non-realistic. Still, DD is one of the few characters that never entirely worked for me. I can't throw JKR's qualification of DD overboard without simultaneously doubting her characterisation, and if I retain it, I find myself doubting her assessments that some things (such as the suddennes of Sirius's death) are only realistic. From time to time, this kind of thing tends to give me an "anything goes" feeling that undermines my admiration of JKR as a writer and makes me think this is really no more than a piece of very clever entertainment with a dash of hazy personal philosophy added to the mix. Renee From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Tue Jan 25 10:39:28 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:39:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why I like Ginny! Quotes and more...(long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501250539239.SM01312@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 122974 > Phoenixgod2000: > > I do definitely think Ginny has a role in the future of the > series. I just think it could be handled better (and I pray > her role isn't HP's LI). There has to be a consequence to Tom > Riddle pouring his soul into her. Sometimes I wonder if that > was the reason for the jump started character in OOTP. Maybe > V is doing something with her. > Maybe she has her own connection with the dark lord. > > I think the most interesting thing that JK could do with > Ginny would be to make her into a traitor. Someone corrupted > by the dark lord. > Their own version of Peter. > > I had forgotten that Ginny was supposedly stealing their > brooms since she was six. For some reason I thought she was > older than that when she started. Honestly that makes it > even more unbelievable to me. > Kids can be precocious but for her to do that and never get caught? > It's stupidity of the highest order. > > Phoenixgod2000 Vivamus: I think you are right, Phoenixgod2000, that there must be consequences to TR's pouring of his soul into Ginny. I look for her to be revealed as a Parselmouth or something similar at some point in the future. I think you are revealing a personal bias, though, when you say that you "pray her role isn't HP's LI". JKR can do whatever she wants, but Ginny has certainly been set up from book 1 as a potential love interest for Harry. It might be yet another red herring on JKR's part, but it would be a *lot* more subtle than her others, and it doesn't seem likely at all to me. As to the sneaking out the brooms and flying them, I grew up in a large family, and I can tell you from personal experience, that kids get away with far more things like that in big families than in small ones, and the farther down the chain of siblings a child is, the better s/he is likely to be at avoiding being caught. If Ginny were watching Fred and George maneuver their way around their parents, Percy, and Ron, she would be quite accomplished at both manipulating her older brothers and avoiding them completely well before the age of six. I found the comment a bit surprising, but only because she never displayed her flying talent until now -- not at all because Ginny was clever enough to do that without being caught. Ginny, a traitor? Yuck! Vivamus, who shudders to remember some of the things he did before the age of six (and didn't get caught) From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 25 10:10:36 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:10:36 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122975 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "xcpublishing" wrote: > I digress.) My issue with DD is this: He takes a baby, drops it on > the doorstep of the "worst sort of Muggles imaginable" and never > bothers to check on the child again, except to have Arabella Figg > (who is FAR from the kindly grandmother sort, as Harry hated every > minute he spent at her house, also) keep an eye on him from afar. > Why in the heck didn't DD have someone drop in once in awhile and > keep the Dursleys in line? Or at least keep them from starving him. > They wouldn't have to reveal that they were wizards, a simple, "I > used to be a friend of your parents and like to drop by now and again > to BUY YOU A DECENT SET OF CLOTHES" would suffice. I'm sorry but I totally disagree. There is one, and only one place in the world where Harry is safe from LV. Where he cannot be killed even as a small child no matter if LV comes back or not. That one place happens to be the place where they swore when they took him 'to stamp out that dangerous nonsense' (PS p. 31 paperback edition). Do you really think DD and his parents friends should have endagered his LIFE for a bit of comfort? I think they made exactly the right decision to wait until he was old enough to become part of the WW, and be able to attend Hogwarts. Even if the Dursleys decided to rather kick him out than let him go to that school, Hogwarts would have offered some protection. Not as good as the Dursley' but the next best thing. Only available after he turned eleven. Picture this: I'm was a friend of your dad. You knew my dad? What was he like, what was his job, what school did he get to? From where did you know each other? How did he meet my mum? (fill in all other questions a child want to know about his parents). Does anyone really expect that the Dursley's would have let that happen? Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 25 10:13:17 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:13:17 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122976 Gerry: > > for me as a reader it is easy to assume Hermione > > read up on Occlumency, and found this out." > eggplant9998 wrote: > Quoting Hermione: > > "I suppose it'll help in the long run, won't it?" > > Hermione starts her remarks with "I suppose" and ends them with "won't > it?" It sound to me like she is just making conversation and trying to > make Harry feel better. I'm sorry but you are quoting Ron here. And I really don't expect Ron to know all that much about Occlumency. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 25 10:45:27 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:45:27 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122977 --- > Lupinlore said: > Who has earned Harry's trust (in terms of staff)? Certainly not > McGonagall, who shows herself time and again to be incompetent at > securing fair treatment for him (Snip) And yes, it IS McGonagall's > job to secure justice for Harry in these situations. This is > especially the case in that Harry has no parents to intercede for > him independently. (SNIP) And she did a very good one. Lets review the situation. On the one hand we have the school, and on the other hand we have te MoM which is building an absolute powerbase in this school. We have DU who is sent to this school with only one purpose: to discredit and neutralize Harry and DD. During the summer Fudge has shown how far he is willing to go for that. And ofcourse there is the dementor attack itself, which might easily have been issued by the Ministry itself. At the beginning of the school year it is already clear that any authority DU wishes to make sure she fulfills her job she will get. Justice? What's that in such an environment? It does not exist. The school cannot even get justice for the whole of its fifth year, who probably will all fail their DADA OWLS because they are not allowed to practice. And under these McGonnagal should have been able to secure justice for Harry against the MoM itself that is out to get him? No, if anybody failed Harry against DU it was Harry himself. Again, he had all the necessary information. He knew about the rigged trial. He knew about the attempt to make him miss it and so be unable to speak out in his own defense. He knew Fudge did everything he could to get him expelled and how the only reason he did not succeed was because there was a witness. How Fudge did his utmost to discredit that witness. He knew about how te Daily Prophet blackened him because of the MoM's wishes. He knew, because Hermione had it spelled out to him, that the MoM was interfering at Hogwarts. And what does he do? He challenges DU, who he remembers from his trial as a Fudge toady. As McGonnagal said to him 'Where's your common sense?'. I think his detention was actually a good thing. He learned the hard way how far people are willing to go, and with what they can get away if they have the authority. So for his next actions, he knew the risk. Too bad he did not manage to control his temper. Yes, I know he is fifteen years old. But getting all adolescent is a really stupid thing to do if somebody has it in for you. Especially if that somebody makes the rules. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 25 11:07:00 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:07:00 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and wargames wasOccImperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122978 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > "You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me or defend yourself in > any other way that you can think of" > > Well Harry did think of another way. OK, I'm probably really, really stupid but I don't get it. I presume you mean Harry looking into the pensieve here. How is that connected with defeating Snape? At that time Snape was not even in the room, he was definitely not attacking Harry. So where is the defeat? Unless you mean Snape refusing to give him Occlumency lessons is some kind of victory for Harry. Well, Snape will certainly not invade his mind again on Monday evenings. Ofcourse if he wanted to at any other time, he knows how easy it is. And how little Harry can do against it. Especially if there is no pensieve to peep in available. Gerry From vmonte at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 11:53:16 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:53:16 -0000 Subject: Dursley's and Harry (The Dursley's are awful!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122979 Alla wrote: "And laughing like a maniac, he dragged Harry back upstairs. Uncle Vernon was as bad as his word. The following morning, he paid a man to fit bars on Harry's window. He himself fitted a cat-flap in the bedroom door, so small amounts of food could be pushed inside three times a day. They let Harry out to use the bathroom morning and evening. Otherwise, he was locked in his room around the clock. ......... The cat-flap rattled and Aunt petunia's hand appeared, pushing a bowl of canned soup into the room. Harry, whose insides were aching with hunger, jumped off his bed and seized it. The soup was stone- cold, but he drank half of it in one gulp. Then he crossed the room of Hedwig's cage and tipped the soggy vegetables att he bottom of the bowl into her empty food tray. She ruffled her feathers and gave him a look of deep disgust. "It's no good turning your beak up at it - that's all we've got." said Harry grimly. He put the empty bowl back on the floor next to the cat-flap and lay back down on the bed, somehow even hungrier than he had been before the soup." - CoS, p.22, paperback. vmonte responds: I agree with you Alla. The Dursley's are cruel and abusive. JKR's description of Harry in SS/PS is that he is a small skinny child. Even Dumbledore makes a comment in one of ther later books about Harry's condition when he entered Hogwarts. IMO Harry was often starved in that house, and was smaller than other children his age because of it. That is abuse. I don't know any social worker who would condone the guardians of a child who lock him/her in a room, placing bars on the windows, and creating a cat flap so that cold bowls of soup can be pushed through the door. (People in prison get better treatment.) And how thoughtful it was of them to allow Harry to go to the bathroom once in the morning and once at night. They are sick! Vivian From trekkie at stofanet.dk Tue Jan 25 12:50:15 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (trekkie) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:50:15 +0100 Subject: SV: [HPforGrownups] Re: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122980 -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Til: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Emne: [HPforGrownups] Re: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) Dato: 25-01-2005 01:18:59 > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" > wrote: > > Trekkiegrrl: > > > Now, I haven't been am member of this group for long, but it > > amazes me that noone has mentioned more about Snape's childhood. > > > > Valky: > > ROFL! That because you haven't been a member long! > > > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > > OK so some things have been answered before. Sorry. Also sorry > that I find Yahoo groups a pest to search in. I wasn't aware that it > was a laughing matter to ask for something just because it has been > discussed before. > > Trekkie: OK sorry for being prickly. That's the problems with written communications: They're sometimes misinterpretated :o) > > > Valky: > There's no need to be sorry, it's not called Yahoomort for > nothing. ;D > My laughter wasn't meant to come across as rude, really. I was just > trying to let you know that you are in good company here, there are > many Snape admirers at HPFGU, and each plenty as passionate as the > next one. I guess my message didn't come across well. Good. I did get you wrong. Glad we got it figured out :o) > > > Valky then: > > And he does have a sadistic streak, actually IMHO that is the very > > thing that is the problem here. In the shrieking shack for example, > > the temptation is too strong for him, he could take the whole party > > up to the castle and have the whole ting promptly sorted, the > > children safe, justice served... but he craves his bitter revenge > on Sirius and it comes first. > > > > Just put Dumbledore in Snape's place in that Chapter and you will > > see how someone *without* a sadistic streak would handle the > > situation. See how Snape pales in the light of logical Dumbledore > > steps...? > > > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > > I do not agree fully that Snape has the power to change. I agree - > of course - that he has a right to be loved and respected, but I > don't think he's AWARE of why people doesn't like him. > > > > And sorry but I just don't LIKE Dumbledore all that much. I'm not > sure he hasn't got a sadistic streak too, depending of course of how > you define that. > > > > Valky again: > Just a question for question's sake. If Snape is such a hopeless > case in your opinion, then what exactly *is* good about him. I mean > if you don't see him as intelligent and independently cognisant.... > how can you see him as intelligent and independently cognisant? Trekkie: Oh Snape is not a hopeless case as such. He does a good job IMO AS Snape. just don't expect him to turn into a cuddly fuzzball *L* Snape is "good" because he's on the right side against Lord Voldie. And yes I believe is truly IS. No ese!Snape here. > > > > > > Trekkiegrrl: > > > Abused children show many "abnormal" patterns in their behaviour. > > and though some may grow up and act as "normal" responsible adults > > later on, some just can't. They do not have the basis for that. And > > Snape was one of the latter. > > > > > > > Valky: > > That, I am afraid, is just your basic narrow minded cop out. > Nothing personal Trekkiegrrl. > > > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > > Personal or not I find that a strange accusation. I DO know about > abused children FYI. > > > > Valky: > It would be a strange accusation, if it was an accusation. > I was directing the point at the point. > Again, if Snape is not able to think for himself, then how does he > think for himself? > I know about abused children too, believe it or not. There are boys > who, as you say "can't" act as normal responsible adults, but normal > is a farce anyway, if they choose to accept love and respect when it > is given to them they *do* become better for it, better than normal. Trekkie: Again, I got your intentions wrong I gues. Sorry for snapping. And "damaged" children can be able to "think for themselves" in some occasions yet be totally unable to do it in others. Again, given the circumstances - and MY view of Snape and his assumed background, I think he's doing a good job. > > > > Trekkiegrrl: > > > I doubt Snape had many friends in Slytherin too. Noone > > > seems to have in any way come to his defenses when the Marauders > > were picking on him at the "upside-down" episode. > > > > > > > Valky: > > I think its safe to assume that at least some of these children > were afraid of Snape and James. Snape because he was a "scary > dangerous weird boy" and James because he was dangerous to the > dangerous. You must remember when reading the scene that Lily Evans > was an exceptionally brave girl and bravery is not a key Slytherin > trait while self-preservation IS. > > > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > > I'm sure there were many who were afraid of Child!Snape - and many > of Child!James. But likely not the same children. > > > > Valky: > My point was in answer to your question why the Slytherins didn't > come to his rescue. yes Kids were afraid of Snape and James, they > were both fearfully powerful for a couple of 15 year olds. Lily came > to Snapes defense because she was a brave girl. And among the > Slytherins that weren't afraid quite probably was a bunch of self > interested kids who weren't going to put themselves in harms way for > anyone. Trekkie: You're right that the slytherins wouldn't help Snape. Not as much out of fear for HIM as out of "that's none of my business" thinking. I believe he was generally considered a "nerd" both among Slytherins and the rest. But not necessarily feared. > > Trekkigrrl also said: > >And int IS canon that it wasn't the first time they'd chosen Snape > as their favourite victim. Some kids are natural victims, often kids > from abusive households. I guess wizards can be alcoholics too, or > be addicted to illegal potions and whatnot. And Snape's home might > very well have been like that. it DOES fit his behavioral pattern > as the "victim" > > Valky: > I just wanted to isolate this for a moment and comment. I agree that > Snape does fit the victim pattern of a child from a household with > someone akin to a drug abuser. But his reaction to Lily suggests > that young Snape was also in a pattern of refuting the worth of > genuine kindness towards him, he takes this attitude with Dumbledore > too. Later in your post you say we can't really blame Snape for > jumping at the opportunity being a DE gave him to have power. Which > is true, especially since Snape as an adult is able to see it in > hindsight as some kind of a mistake. > The only thing is none of that negates Sevvies preoccupation with > weilding power and having a sense of supremacy and personal glory, > he conciously chooses those things and always has. The difference > between him and James/Dumbledore/Lupin as adults is that they > embraced humility, conciously. Even Sirius had a go at it. Snape is > afraid of humility. > (Just as an aside: That is why I think Oscar!Winner Snape is just a > bad joke. I know you haven't cited OW!Snape here trekkiegrrl so its > just an offhanded comment in general.) Trekkie: I think his rejection of Lily's help was the general defense pattern popping up. The "don't let anyone get close enough - emotionally - to hurt you later. And given his upbringing, he DID have (and possibly has still) prejudices agaist mudbloods. And it's not like perfectly nice and ordinary people here aren't racists too. Lots of people knows wen to BEHAVE Politically Correct, but it is often only skin deep. I don't think Snape is afraid of humility. I am not sure he understands that concept. He knows humiliation and may confuse those two terms. And he DOES See a chance to get even. Yes he behaves "childish" in his wish for revenge over Sirius, I have never claimed him to be perfect :o) But he DID come to realize that his DE choice was wrong - perhaps making that realization was his first truly FREE choice. > > > > Trekkiegrrl: > > > And then comes this "F?hrer" in the shape of Voldemort and all of > > a sudden the underdog gets a chance to get POWER! > > > > > > WHO can't REALLY blame Snape for grasping that? > > > > > > > Valky: > > I agree, but Snapes past does not colour my veiw of his present. > All in all he *is* still what he is now, and for as much as any > reason it is by choice. > > > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > > And this is where we differ. I don't think he HAS this choice. He > has never HAD much of a choice as I see it. > > > > Valky: > Yes that is definitely where we differ. Just again, if Snape *never > had* choice then what was he exercising when he defected from the > DE's? Or do you believe he is an ESE DE and always will be? Trekkie: ?No, I believe that may be his first sign of "free will" when he defected. nAnd that may be whay Dumbledore trusts him: When he finally HAD a choice, he made the RIGHT one. > > > > Trekkiegrrl: > > > No, he's not an ideal teacher after our standards. But again, > > remember how old fashoined the Wizarding World is. Go back 75 years > > and he would have been a MILD teacher. > > > > Valky: > > A fair enough statement, and I am not so passionate, really, about > > it all. I prefer Harry to Snape and thats that. > > > > TrekkieGrrrl again: > > Oh I like Harry too, though I think he did an unforgivable thing > by putting his nose into Snape's Pensieve. It is Harry's everpresent > curiosity that makes him disregard the necessety of the Occlumency > lessons and it's the same curiosity that makes him peep in the > Pensieve. It just doesn't make it right. > > > > I won't say I prefer Snape to Harry. I like both of them for very > different reasons. But if I have to choose, I would save Snape ;o) > > > > Valky: > I don't think *anything* is entirely unforgivable. And I am sure > that sometime in a future book Lily will make this point for us. Trekkie: OK, so "unforgivable" was a wrong choice of wording :o) I do sincerely think that Harry did a seriously wrong violation of Snape. And as it has been pointed out in other threads, he could have endangered the whole Order by doing it. ~TrekkieGrrrl From editor at texas.net Tue Jan 25 13:54:27 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:54:27 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and wargames wasOccImperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122981 Eggplant said: > That's not what your buddy Snape told Harry, he said: > > "You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me or defend yourself in > any other way that you can think of" > > Well Harry did think of another way. I think this is a completely invalid interpretation of the incident. Harry's purposes encompassed nothing more than overweening curiosity. He excused it to himself with the weak qualification that it may have had something to do with the Order. Harry--according to you, the absolute best authority on Harry--provides us nothing in canon that he violated Snape's privacy and trust as any kind of "defense" or "disarming." He did it because he was curious, and only because of that. On a more general note, I understand you have formed strong opinions, but I wish your posts would more clearly state that they are opinions rather than The Correct Interpretation. I also wish you would provide more clear canon references if you're trying to illustrate or bring out a point, rather than providing a restatement of opinion. It would make interactions with you seem more on the level of discussions and less argumentative. Thanks, ~Amanda From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 25 14:01:31 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:01:31 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122982 Renee: > JKR has said DD is the epitome of goodness, but that still doesn't > make him God - unless she's trying to suggest DD is God's second > incarnation on Earth after Jesus Christ, but somehow I don't think > her own beliefs would allow her to do this. And if he's not God, > criticism of his actions, whether on a textual level (seeing them > as based on DD's own choices) or on a meta-textual level (seeing > them as based on the author's choices) can't be countered with a > reference to the way God works. > > In other words, to me the rift between stated authorial intentions > and the text as we have it creates a problem here. This can be > partially solved by seeing the series as a development from pure > fairytale to a more "realistic" form of fantasy-cum-mystery, but as > the Dursleys continue to play an unpleasant role in Harry's life, > this doesn't entirely work. It works best if I can see the whole > series as symbolical and largely non-realistic. > > Still, DD is one of the few characters that never entirely worked > for me. I can't throw JKR's qualification of DD overboard without > simultaneously doubting her characterisation, and if I retain it, I > find myself doubting her assessments that some things (such as the > suddennes of Sirius's death) are only realistic. From time to time, > this kind of thing tends to give me an "anything goes" feeling that > undermines my admiration of JKR as a writer and makes me think this > is really no more than a piece of very clever entertainment with a > dash of hazy personal philosophy added to the mix. SSSusan: A thought-provoking post, Renee. I believe you have put your finger on something many do struggle with in the series. HAVE we moved away from a fairytale and into the realm of more "realistic fiction" [yikes, is that an oxymoron? sorry, lit majors]? It would seem so with the ways the Dursleys appear to have moved from caricature to true nasties, with Harry's raging in OotP, with the death of Sirius. But, you're right, Renee. If we've made that shift, what do we do with characters who still seem to be sort of caricatures or symbolic, rather than real? I'd never thought of DD in this way, but I think you're right. We saw his "breakdown" moment at the end of OotP, when we confessed to old man failings. And, since JKR called him the epitome of goodness, we assume we're supposed to feel bad for him, forgive him, and move on, still trusting & believing in him. Clearly, not all readers are interested in doing that and prefer to analyze him a bit more harshly in the light of the RW. And your bringing up Sirius' death is a good one, too. I'm one of the ones who's argued that JKR should *not* bring Sirius back b/c I believe it would undermine the message that she seems to be trying to make -- that death is painful, final, and sometimes very, very senseless. That's Real Life. But is THIS? If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that sometimes you feel like she wants to have it both ways. Allow the fairytale, symbolic, don't-try-to- analyze-this-as-real-life view of things, but then also have us see it all as realistic. Have we shifted to "realistic" or is it a mishmash of realistic and fairytale? I don't know. I've not had my coffee yet. Perhaps I'm babbling, but I did want to thank you for raising the issue. Siriusly Snapey Susan From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 14:15:46 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:15:46 -0000 Subject: SV: [HPforGrownups] Re: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122983 > Trekkie: > I think his rejection of Lily's help was the general defense pattern popping up. The "don't let anyone get close enough - emotionally - to hurt you later. And given his upbringing, he DID have (and possibly has still) prejudices agaist mudbloods. > And it's not like perfectly nice and ordinary people here aren't racists too. Lots of people know when to BEHAVE Politically Correct, but it is often only skin deep. > > I don't think Snape is afraid of humility. I am not sure he understands that concept. He knows humiliation and may confuse those two terms. And he DOES See a chance to get even. Yes he behaves "childish" in his wish for revenge over Sirius, I have never claimed him to be perfect :o) But he DID come to realize that his DE choice was wrong - perhaps making that realization was his first truly FREE choice. > Valky: You know, after all, in a way we are kind of in agreement on this. I am pretty sure that Snape confuses humility with the things he is afraid of, going deeper into the repercussions of that explains a lot of his behaviour. Though it can't excuse it, for my mind, and in the end it's only to his own detriment. Its true that good behaviour does not the saint make, but Snape finds himself also unable to place value on Dumdbledore's kindness now, not just Lily's then. And in contrast he seems to have a sincere sentiment for Lucius Malfoy and Argus Filch, two of the unkindest and more sadistic people in the wizard world. Yes, Snape has high regard for Dumbledores respect and superiority, but he reserves a limited contempt for his soft-heartedness. Snape is definitely, to me anyway, still in a pattern of rejecting kindness rather than keeping distance. Why does he have hearty fellowship with these *superficially well behaved* people who he knows would as soon stab you from behind as look at you, if he's afraid of being hurt? What *does* he believe in, and is he as confused as he looks, or is he as superficial as we don't want him to be? From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Jan 25 14:17:49 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:17:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002d01c502e8$a6f59df0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 122984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, happydogue at a... wrote: > I realize in all that this is just a story but...I always wondered why social services of some type didn't step in. I realize that there were no outer signs of abuse such as bruises or broken bones but -- teachers must have questioned the fact that one child in the family has everything and the other doesn't even have clothing that fits and broken glasses. Tonks here: Good heavens! Harry is not an abused child. He is clean, has a place to sleep, has food, isn't beaten, even gets some toys and clothing. Nothing fancy grant you, hand-me downs. But since when is hand-me downs abuse?? He lives like a normal kid did during the depression. I have seen abused children. I have worked with PS. Even when a child lives in the most abusive homes that you can think of PS rarely takes the kid out of the home, they send the parents to therapy. We see Harry homelife through the eyes of a child. He is not treated like a king, but the Dursley's are not the most terriable people in the world. Please understand that I am not condoning them. I am surprised at the number of people that seem to equate the Dursley's with the lowest form of humanity. Even the Dursley's don't deserve that. Haven't we all when growning up thought that our parents were unfair in some way? It is very normal for kids to wish for the *good* parents to come along and take them away. But when they grow up and hear what type of home other kids lived in they realize how good they really had it. I think that something like that might happen to Harry when he discovered just what a terrible homelife Snape might have had. There are no perfect parents, some are just a whole lot worse than others. Tonks_op Sherry now: I usually try to stay out of good/bad Dursley discussions, because neither side will convince the other. But I have to strongly disagree with you, Tonks. And I usually do agree with your posts. If I knew of a child who was being locked in a airless, windowless closet, who had to sleep there and was repeatedly locked in there, I would certainly consider it abuse and report the family to child protection services. And somewhere in the beginning of SS/PS, there is a statement that Harry was small for his age, probably from being locked in his cupboard. perhaps, in the WW as it's presented in the books, nobody really considers this abuse, but in the RW, it is most certainly abuse. I won't even go down the road of how disgraceful it is that CPS doesn't take abused children out of the home in such situations. Also, in COS, when Harry is locked in his room with the windows barred, and fed cold soup through a flap, it would be considered abuse. He is starved. He has classic symptoms of hunger, feeling weak and dizzy and headaches. And what if the house had caught on fire? Do you think any Dursley would seriously have thought of making sure Harry escaped? no, my family wasn't perfect either, but I never considered the occasional spanking or other punishment to be abuse. I didn't have to be locked up with no way to escape in an emergency. I always had plenty of food, and my siblings were not treated any better than I was. and I was raised by my dad and stepmother, not both biological parents. my stepmother loved me as much as she loved her own children, and I knew it beyond a show of a doubt. I can find excuses for Snape, though I dislike him in many ways, but I hope the Dursley clan gets what they so richly deserve for the horrible home they gave a helpless child, that they chose to take in. Sherry G From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 25 14:26:57 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:26:57 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122985 Gerry: > Lets review the situation. On the one hand we have the school, and > on the other hand we have te MoM which is building an absolute > powerbase in this school. We have DU who is sent to this school > with only one purpose: to discredit and neutralize Harry and DD. > > During the summer Fudge has shown how far he is willing to go for > that. And of course there is the dementor attack itself, which might > easily have been issued by the Ministry itself. > > At the beginning of the school year it is already clear that any > authority DU wishes to make sure she fulfills her job she will get. > Justice? What's that in such an environment? It does not exist. The > school cannot even get justice for the whole of its fifth year, who > probably will all fail their DADA OWLS because they are not allowed > to practice. And under these McGonnagal should have been able to > secure justice for Harry against the MoM itself that is out to get > him? SSSusan: I'm totally with you so far, Gerry. But one quibble here -- Gerry: > No, if anybody failed Harry against DU it was Harry himself. Again, > he had all the necessary information. He knew about the rigged > trial. He knew about the attempt to make him miss it and so be > unable to speak out in his own defense. He knew Fudge did > everything he could to get him expelled and how the only reason he > did not succeed was because there was a witness. How Fudge did his > utmost to discredit that witness. He knew about how te Daily > Prophet blackened him because of the MoM's wishes. SSSusan: You're correct that he "knows" these things. OTOH, what he doesn't know is the "why" behind all of them. WHY were the Dementors sent? WHY was his trial rigged? WHY does Fudge seem to dislike him so much? WHY won't they believe him? It's obvious to us readers, but I don't think it's obvious to Harry. Gerry: > He knew, because Hermione had it spelled out to him, that the MoM > was interfering at Hogwarts. And what does he do? He > challenges DU, who he remembers from his trial as a Fudge toady. As > McGonnagal said to him 'Where's your common sense?'. > > I think his detention was actually a good thing. He learned the hard > way how far people are willing to go, and with what they can get > away if they have the authority. So for his next actions, he knew > the risk. Too bad he did not manage to control his temper. > Yes, I know he is fifteen years old. But getting all adolescent is a > really stupid thing to do if somebody has it in for you. Especially > if that somebody makes the rules. SSSusan: I agree that McGonagall handled this basically alright. Again, she could've perhaps been slightly less cryptic when speaking with Harry, but she at least explained that the stakes were high. Here is the exchange: 'Potter, you need to be careful.' Harry swallowed his mouthful of Ginger Newt and stared at her. Her tone of voice was not at all what he was used to; it was not brisk, crisp and stern; it was low and anxious and somehow much more human than usual. 'Misbehaviour in Dolores Umbridge's class could cost you much more than house points and a detention.' 'What do you -?' 'Potter, use your common sense', snapped Professor McGonagall, with an abrupt return to her usual manner. 'You know where she comes from, you must know to whom she is reporting.' 'It says here she's given you detention every evening this week, starting tomorrow', Professor McGonagall said, looking down at Umbridge's note again. 'Every evening this week!' Harry repeated, horrified. 'But, Professor, couldn't you -?' 'No, I couldn't', said Professor McGonagall flatly. 'But-' 'She is your teacher and has every right to give you detention. You will go to her room at five o'clock tomorrow for the first one. Just remember: tread carefully around Dolores Umbridge.' 'But I was telling the truth!' said Harry, outraged. 'Voldemort is back, you know he is; Professor Dumbledore knows he is-' 'For heaven's sake, Potter!' said Professor McGonagall, straightening her glasses angrily (she had winced horribly when he had used Voldemort's name). 'Do you really think this is about truth or lies? It's about keeping your head down and your temper under control!' While I *wish* Harry could have controlled himself better, and while I find his behavior somewhat *understandable* given his age, the pressure on him, and the fact that he's kept too much in the dark, I actually think MM went farther than anyone except Sirius to try to help Harry to understand. At least Harry should have understood how very serious MM was, and how very serious it was for him to have bit his tongue when DJU said things which provoked him. So in one way I agree with you that Harry is to blame, but not fully. His being kept in the dark contributed to his inability/unwillingness to follow directives. But MM certainly did better than DD in at least trying to help Harry understand. *And* she offered him biscuits. :-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 25 14:29:03 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:29:03 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122986 > Pippin: > > > The respect is due to the position, not the individual. If Harry > > believes that Snape is not qualified to teach, then he should > > resign from the class. > > Alla: > > Do we know another Potion!master in Hogwarts? I am pretty sure that given the chance Harry will be quite happy not to attend Snape classes. Pippin: Harry's never tried to find out, has he? Ron says they're not allowed to drop potions. But school policies get bent for Harry all the time. I can imagine a scene where Dumbledore says, with his customary twinkle, that if Harry can tell him why it's important for Harry to study with Snape, he will excuse Harry from potions forever. But the shoe is going to be on the other foot in HBP, isn't it? Harry needs to be in potions because he wants to be an Auror, and unless he got an O, Snape's not going to want him. Should be interesting. > > Pippin: > But Harry is not the Headmaster or the Hogwarts Board of Governors, and he has no right to usurp their authority by making it impossible for Snape to do his job. > > > Alla: > > Not making it impossible for Snape to do his job, just let Snape know that he had enough. < Pippin: As Harry found, it would have been impossible to teach the DA if Zacharias had continued to challenge him. Fortunately, the twins took care of the discipline issue for him. Snape cannot teach if students are allowed to challenge his authority, disregard his instructions or otherwise distract the class. I will grant that Harry is not a sadistic teacher, so it never occurred to him that he could get back at Zacharias, who isn't much of a performer, by pointing out every mistake he made to the entire class. OTOH, if Harry had done this, would Zacharias have indulged in passive-aggressive behavior like not doing his homework or making fun of Harry behind his back, or would he have let Harry know he'd had enough by not coming to the meetings anymore? Every moment Harry and Snape spend on their stupid, childish power struggle is stolen from the other students in class and from the war against Voldemort. That Snape is stealing from his students is not an excuse for Harry to do so as well. You want to see Harry win the struggle, or so I take it. I don't think there can be a winner when the battle itself is a mistake. Pippin From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 14:31:11 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:31:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Innocent Alby? (was Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050125143111.81394.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122987 > But, to take your objection and run with it, I see no reason why > Albus > has to do anything for only one reason. Why in the world can't he > want to do something about the lack of emotional support in Harry's > life while at the same time thinking that it's best for Remus to be > at > Hogwarts away from Sirius? For goodness sake, no one ever does > anything out of only one motivation, even in the most formal and > rule > constrained of environments, much less in anything meant to > represent "life!" > > Lupinlore Very true. But I didn't see Lupin giving Harry very much "emotional support", similar to that which he extended to, say, Neville. His position as a teacher was a limitation as was his own more retiring personality. So I'm inclined to think that the emotional support argument was not one of Dumbledore's reasons. Having a DADA teacher who was homicidal only once a month as opposed to year round, on the other hand, might have been a factor. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 25 14:48:22 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:48:22 -0000 Subject: Will these two stop it?? (was: Why should Harry be expected to listen...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122988 Pippin: > Every moment Harry and Snape spend on their stupid, childish > power struggle is stolen from the other students in class and > from the war against Voldemort. That Snape is stealing from his > students is not an excuse for Harry to do so as well. SSSusan: Damn. I'm not supposed to send just a "YES!!" post to the list, so I've got to find something to add to this. You've isolated THE point (yet again), Pippin. All this blame game stuff we always return to, and yet what we're left with is TWO people who're acting childishly, with neither being able to fully accomplish his goals because of it. 'Course, I still blame Snape more than you do but in large part that's because I'm focusing on the "time is being stolen from the war against Voldemort" part. Yet, even in that, if Harry could've stopped those passive- aggressive behaviors you point to or just learned to shut up around Snape, things would likely have gone better. So I wonder, now, how many of us have real hope [as in, believe it likely] that these too will reduce or end their stupid, childish power struggle? I'll go first. I *do* believe there will be a truce of sorts, though I think there may be a Big Ugly Blow-up first. And I suspect that it'll be Harry making the first move -- not likely an actual apology but just a decision to do whatever he has to do to make things work towards defeating Voldy. If that means there are times he can stand up to Snape and argue with him, I'd like to see him do that, but I'm hoping he'll do some maturing such that he'll be able to control his temper in situations where that's required for safety, security or learning. [As, for instance, he *couldn't* do in OotP when DJU got under his skin.] Siriusly Snapey Susan From quigonginger at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 14:47:09 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:47:09 -0000 Subject: FILK: Dunderheads! Dunderheads! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122989 Dunderheads! Dunderheads! to the tune of Matchmaker! from Fiddler on the Roof. To SSSusan Snape, alone in his classroom, contemplates his students and teaching methods. He sings: Dunderheads! Dunderheads! Look at this batch! Brains full of rocks, Heads full of thatch. Dunderheads, dunderheads, Can't read a book Or think of a thought to hatch. Dunderheads! Dunderheads! Destined to fail. Info I hurl, Try to impale Just one small thing In the void that I see In eyes staring back at me. Dear Albus, send me a scholar. Minerva, make your quill do its thing. And me, well, I'm not a brawler, But for one good mind, I'd do anything! Dunderheads, Dunderheads, Look at this batch! Brains full of rocks, Minds full of thatch. Day after day, words of wealth I intone So they will be wise when they're grown. (Snape runs to the chairs, as though envisioning the students who usually sit there) Neville, oh, Neville, 'twas an honest lad's mistake. It's turquoise, not red. Ok, so Dean's a snake. But it's allright, lad, it happens. True? True. I'll try "Mammal returnus", but even if it fails, You've got your self-esteem, and all else pales. Harry! Keep talking, I'll take it all in stride. Ron's buddy, his mate. Your chatter I'll abide. But you don't need my directions. Right? Right. And so you miss ingred'nts, and stir more than is due, You'll be the one to test it- Look what you grew! Did you think 'twould be OK To just throw things in a pan? Without practice, or patience, or reading instrucutions? Be glad that Seamus ran! (Snape sighs, and returns to his chair) Dunderheads, dunderheads, Time after time. I'm feeling old, Whilst in my prime. Each year of firsties, Has misunderstood That this was all for their good. Hermione, 'side from the dental, Encumbered and infringed on my pride. And Flint, well, he was just mental. And Justin was petrified. Dunderheads, Dunderheads. Please no more Crabbes, No more Cho Changs, My stomach's churned. Playing with potions a Goyle can get burned. So no Katie Bell, no Susan Bones, Not one more George. Please no more Freds! They all are such dunderheads! Ginger, who syphathises with Snape. Teaching is a thankless job. I'm glad I don't do it. And kudos to all of you who do. From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 14:58:32 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:58:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050125145832.8556.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122990 > Siriusly Snapey Susan, willing to blame DD for some things but not > quite so much as this. Quite possibly the biggest mistake that DUmbledore made was not talking to Harry about the occasions when his scar hurt and finding out what exactly the pain entailed. It's clear that Dumbledore didn't take into account the fact that Harry was not only channelling Voldemort's thoughts and receiving his mental images but was also experiencing his emotions as well. Had Dumbledore been aware of the emotional component, he would have realized that Harry would have been confused about where his own emotions ended and where Voldemort's began, and therefore explanations would have had to be more explicit to have had results. Certainly Harry didn't seem to be aware that he was receiving more than just mental images from Voldemort. One missed opportunity was at Christmas time when Harry told Sirius he thought he was going mad, and Sirius tried to dismiss it so as not to worry Harry and obey Dumbledore's strictures about not talking to Harry about the subject. By the end of the book, before they go to the MoM, it's hard to know which emotions were Harry's and which were Voldemort's. On the other hand, will we see in Book 7 an attempt by Harry to reverse the process and take control of VOldemort's mind? Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Tue Jan 25 15:00:41 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:00:41 -0000 Subject: SV: [HPforGrownups] Re: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122991 > > Valky: > Its true that good behaviour does not the saint make, but Snape > finds himself also unable to place value on Dumdbledore's kindness > now, not just Lily's then. And in contrast he seems to have a > sincere sentiment for Lucius Malfoy and Argus Filch, two of the > unkindest and more sadistic people in the wizard world. > Yes, Snape has high regard for Dumbledores respect and superiority, > but he reserves a limited contempt for his soft-heartedness. > Snape is definitely, to me anyway, still in a pattern of rejecting > kindness rather than keeping distance. > Why does he have hearty fellowship with these *superficially well > behaved* people who he knows would as soon stab you from behind as > look at you, if he's afraid of being hurt? What *does* he believe > in, and is he as confused as he looks, or is he as superficial as we > don't want him to be? I don't think Snape has a sentiment for Lucius Malfoy. We know that Malfoy speaks highly of Snape but I can't remember Snape ever defending or "speaking up" Malfoy. I also think that accepting Filch is easier. He knows what to expect, the man would most likely stab you in the back to protect himself. That kind of thinking Snape is familiar with. People like Dumbledore, or Lilly, are foreign creatures to him. Kindness? Trust? Snape went from a, most likely, abusive home to a school where the abuse continued. When he was almost murdered, not only did Dumbledore not expel the perpetrators, he didn't allow Snape to speak about what happened. That kindness Dumbledore showed only went so far, up to the point of getting a couple of Gryffindor bully's expelled. Casey From trekkie at stofanet.dk Tue Jan 25 15:02:55 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:02:55 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) References: Message-ID: <000901c502ee$f3419280$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 122992 > >> Trekkie: >> I think his rejection of Lily's help was the general defense > pattern popping up. The "don't let anyone get close enough - > emotionally - to hurt you later. And given his upbringing, he DID > have (and possibly has still) prejudices agaist mudbloods. >> And it's not like perfectly nice and ordinary people here aren't > racists too. Lots of people know when to BEHAVE Politically Correct, > but it is often only skin deep. >> >> I don't think Snape is afraid of humility. I am not sure he > understands that concept. He knows humiliation and may confuse those > two terms. And he DOES See a chance to get even. Yes he > behaves "childish" in his wish for revenge over Sirius, I have never > claimed him to be perfect :o) But he DID come to realize that his DE > choice was wrong - perhaps making that realization was his first > truly FREE choice. >> > > > Valky: > You know, after all, in a way we are kind of in agreement on this. > I am pretty sure that Snape confuses humility with the things he is > afraid of, going deeper into the repercussions of that explains a > lot of his behaviour. Though it can't excuse it, for my mind, and in > the end it's only to his own detriment. > > Its true that good behaviour does not the saint make, but Snape > finds himself also unable to place value on Dumdbledore's kindness > now, not just Lily's then. And in contrast he seems to have a > sincere sentiment for Lucius Malfoy and Argus Filch, two of the > unkindest and more sadistic people in the wizard world. > Yes, Snape has high regard for Dumbledores respect and superiority, > but he reserves a limited contempt for his soft-heartedness. > Snape is definitely, to me anyway, still in a pattern of rejecting > kindness rather than keeping distance. > Why does he have hearty fellowship with these *superficially well > behaved* people who he knows would as soon stab you from behind as > look at you, if he's afraid of being hurt? What *does* he believe > in, and is he as confused as he looks, or is he as superficial as we > don't want him to be? Trekkie again: Hmm... Every answer raises more questions here *G* I think you could say that his rejection of kindness IS his way of keeping distance. That doesn't answer why he looks up o Lucius though, byut I think there's another thing in play here. Snape has always been looking up to Malfoy, since his school days (can't remember if it's backed up in canon other than from the way he treats Draco - that's the backdraw of reading too much fanfiction) And I think he still is. In many ways, Lucius is everything Snape wants to be (at least IMO) - despite his DE career. Argus Filch is more tricky. I want to think that Snape only uses filch as a sort of boogeyman, but again, Snape DOES have a sadistic streak to him, so maybe it's just that he's found a kindred spirit. After all, Filch is also a sort of pariah, being a squib in a wizard school. In any case there has to be more to Filch than what meets the eye. Why would ANYONE want a mean sadistic squib around otherwise? ~Trekkie BTW Trekkie and TrekkieGrrrl is one and the same, my webmail calls me Trekkie, my Outlook TrekkieGrrrl :o) - just to avoid any confusion. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 25 15:36:27 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:36:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust. In-Reply-To: <20050125145832.8556.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122993 > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, willing to blame DD for some things but > > not quite so much as this. Magda: > Quite possibly the biggest mistake that DUmbledore made was not > talking to Harry about the occasions when his scar hurt and finding > out what exactly the pain entailed. It's clear that Dumbledore > didn't take into account the fact that Harry was not only > channelling Voldemort's thoughts and receiving his mental images > but was also experiencing his emotions as well. > Certainly Harry didn't seem to be aware that he was receiving more > than just mental images from Voldemort. > By the end of the book, before they go to the MoM, it's hard to know > which emotions were Harry's and which were Voldemort's. SSSusan: All very true. We know that DD feared that if he looked into Harry's eyes Voldy might "see" too much... or that if Voldy "rose up" in Harry and caused him to attack DD, this might force DD to harm Harry while defending himself. [I think I've stated that accurately?] But would these beliefs of DD's have precluded his finding out about what you ask, Magda? Is there a truly plausible reason why DD didn't get at this himself or have someone else -- MM, perhaps? -- do so? Or would some argue that this was likely part of what Snape was attempting to ascertain during Occlumency lessons? To which I would respond, it still didn't do anything for helping *Harry* recognize what was happening to him. Magda: > One missed opportunity was at Christmas time when Harry told Sirius > he thought he was going mad, and Sirius tried to dismiss it so as > not to worry Harry and obey Dumbledore's strictures about not > talking to Harry about the subject. SSSusan: I'm often a Sirius defender, but this was one of those moments where his behavior perplexed me. Here's the scene: 'Sirius', Harry muttered, unable to stand it a moment longer. 'Can I have a quick word? Er - now?' He walked into the dark pantry and Sirius followed. Without preamble, Harry told his godfather every detail of the vision he had had, including the fact that he himself had been the snake who had attacked Mr Weasley. When he paused for breath, Sirius said, 'Did you tell Dumbledore this?' 'Yes', said Harry impatiently, 'but he didn't tell me what it meant. Well, he doesn't tell me anything any more.' 'I'm sure he would have told you if it was anything to worry about', said Sirius steadily. 'But that's not all', said Harry, in a voice only a little above a whisper. 'Sirius, I... I think I'm going mad. Back in Dumbledore's office, just before we took the Portkey... for a couple of seconds there I thought I was a snake, I felt like one - my scar really hurt when I was looking at Dumbledore - Sirius, I wanted to attack him!' He could only see a sliver of Sirius's face; the rest was in darkness. 'It must have been the aftermath of the vision, that's all', said Sirius. 'You were still thinking of the dream or whatever it was and-' 'It wasn't that', said Harry, shaking his head, 'it was like something rose up inside me, like there's a snake inside me.' 'You need to sleep', said Sirius firmly. 'You're going to have breakfast, then go upstairs to bed, and after lunch you can go and see Arthur with the others. You're in shock, Harry; you're blaming yourself for something you only witnessed, and it's lucky you did witness it or Arthur might have died. Just stop worrying.' He clapped Harry on the shoulder and left the pantry, leaving Harry standing alone in the dark. Wow. How disappointing. I mean, Harry TOLD Sirius that DD wasn't talking to him; he, unlike his more typical way, persisted with Sirius, insisting that it was more than just the aftermath of the vision. And yet Sirius just said Harry needed sleep & food & should stop worrying. And then walked away! *Is* this his following DD's instructions not to say too much? Or is this Sirius seriously failing in his "parental" role? Magda: > On the other hand, will we see in Book 7 an attempt by Harry to > reverse the process and take control of VOldemort's mind? SSSusan: A possibility especially interesting to me because ::rubs hands gleefully:: I suspect it would require Snape's assistance to train Harry how to do this. Siriusly Snapey Susan From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 15:57:36 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:57:36 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and wargames wasOccImperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122994 "festuco" wrote: > I presume you mean Harry looking into the > pensieve here. How is that connected with > defeating Snape? I've explained that time after time, rather than challenging my answer people just keep asking the exact same question. Granted it's easier that way but not as much fun. Eggplant From editor at texas.net Tue Jan 25 16:02:13 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:02:13 -0000 Subject: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: <000901c502ee$f3419280$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122995 TrekkieGrrrl, speaking of Snape: > That doesn't answer why he looks up o Lucius though, byut I think there's > another thing in play here. Snape has always been looking up to Malfoy, > since his school days (can't remember if it's backed up in canon other than > from the way he treats Draco - that's the backdraw of reading too much > fanfiction) And I think he still is. In many ways, Lucius is everything > Snape wants to be (at least IMO) - despite his DE career. This is almost entirely fanfic-based, in my opinion. All we have in canon for Snape's relationship with Lucius is the quick motion at the mention of his name [GoF], an implication that Lucius told Snape he saw Sirius on the train platform (from the way Snape mentions it) [OoP], Sirius' taunt to Snape that he is Lucius' "lapdog," [OoP], Umbridge's statement that Lucius spoke highly of Snape [OoP], and Snape's preferential treatment of Draco [all], including that he calls Draco by his first name [OoP]. That's not a lot to draw from, to get to some of your conclusions. ~Amanda From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Tue Jan 25 16:08:29 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:08:29 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and wargames wasOccImperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122996 > I've explained that time after time, rather than challenging my answer > people just keep asking the exact same question. Granted it's easier > that way but not as much fun. > > Eggplant I think the problem is that (most) people don't look at it as Harry defeating Snape, but instead failing to learn the very thing he needed to, occlumency. Thus he only succeded in losing the chance to gain a valuable weapon. Casey From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Jan 25 16:22:27 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:22:27 -0000 Subject: Flaws with the Wizarding World and Muggles (was Dumbledore's serious errors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122997 > At the end of GoF Dumbledore instructs that aid should be drawn from > the Giants and Dementors... What of the Muggles? > > ~<(Laurasia)>~ Excellent points, from a purely logical point of view. I don't think we will see anything of this nature in the series, because JKR has already said that the split between the two worlds was permanent and that we won't see the two of them come together. >From a point of view of purely practical writing issues, I have to say I see readily where she is coming from. JKR has enough on her hands just dealing with the wizarding world and the Voldy crisis. Trying to address the intricacies of Muggle/Wizard interaction would just be too much, and would jerk the series down a very different path than the one she has so far emphasized. Any kind of Muggle/Wizard developing dynamic would likely require seven more books, and probably should be set within a fresh context (i.e. after Voldy War II) in order to avoid elephant disease of the plot. Lupinlore From ellydan at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 16:44:02 2005 From: ellydan at yahoo.com (Melete) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:44:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why I like Ginny! Quotes and more...(long) In-Reply-To: <200501250539239.SM01312@devbox> Message-ID: <20050125164402.78348.qmail@web54604.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 122998 > Vivamus: > > I think you are right, Phoenixgod2000, that there > must be consequences to > TR's pouring of his soul into Ginny. I look for her > to be revealed as a > Parselmouth or something similar at some point in > the future. Here I have to disagree, I'm actually a bit disgruntled about the sudden reappearance of Ginny Weasley in Book Five. She doesn't appear of any interest besides a few asides in POA and GOF and suddenly she's almost a super-Ginny in OOTP. She can fly, she can cast excellent hexes at naughty Malfoys and has finally become a bit more of a firecracker. Not that I wouldn't expect a Weasley sister to have all these traits but to just suddenly develop them. I find it all too convenient. I think if Ginny was a parselmouth we would have had some sort of indication before (or perhaps I just demand it myself.) I think you > are revealing a personal bias, though, when you say > that you "pray her role > isn't HP's LI". > > JKR can do whatever she wants, but Ginny has > certainly been set up from book > 1 as a potential love interest for Harry. It might > be yet another red > herring on JKR's part, but it would be a *lot* more > subtle than her others, > and it doesn't seem likely at all to me. I do have a personal bias about Harry's LI but again I find the reemergence of Ginny a bit too convenient. I do find the OBHWF idea just a bit too tidy (again purely my opinion on this matter...and a matter of lengthy discussion between my husband and myself.) I do however think that JK has created a very unique system of support friends for Harry with the inclusion of Ginny. You have of course Ron who keeps Harry grounded into being a young man having fun and just enjoying what he can of life. (of course Ron is more than that as Harry's best friend but I see this as one of his greatest assets.) Hermione provides intellectual support to Harry (and a bit of emotional too.) Her greatest assets to him though remain her cleverness, her research capabilities and a willingness to believe Harry. We have Neville who has also suffered the great loss of his parents in a way quite similar to Harry's (an attack of evil wizards and DE's). We have Luna another person who has had some measure of personal tragedy and a great deal of consideration and emotional support for others (in her own strange way she is very compassionate.) I suppose I see her compassion as her general acceptance of what other's find unbelievable and strange (including Harry, Ron etc). Finally we come to Ginny who can relate to Harry on the level of possession and of course any close contact with Dark Magic. I think this is a great setup for book six. It allows that Harry will have the support system among friends at least to help him balance out. He is so erratic in OOTP that he will need all of his friends to help him level out. > > -- not at all because Ginny was clever enough to do > that without being > caught. I have to agree its not surprising to think of a Weasley being clever enough to do any of these things. We've certainly watched her older brothers display such talents. My only qualm is that the hints of her following in their footsteps before this book are few and far between. Its just too convenient for my taste. > Ginny, a traitor? Yuck! Yes I doubt this will happen. She has been duped before I doubt you can pull the wool over her eyes a second time now. Again her past experience makes her a powerful ally to Harry now. I think Ginny will be a traitor only in darkfic fandom. Now Percy on the other hand... Cheers! Ellyddan --who realizes she hardly ever posts and then rambles when she does. I hope this made sense in some whit. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 16:51:35 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:51:35 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and wargames wasOccImperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 122999 "Amanda Geist" wrote: > I think this is a completely invalid > interpretation of the incident. > Harry's purposes encompassed nothing > more than overweening curiosity. Perhaps the mighty Potions Master should have amended his instructions to Harry somewhat and said this about the Occlumency lessons: "You may use your wand to attempt to disarm me or defend yourself in any other way that you can think of provided you're not really really mean and make me cry or anything, because I have a very sensitive nature." > Harry--provides us nothing in canon that he > violated Snape's privacy and trust as any > kind of "defense" To me it seems so obvious Harry doesn't need to spell it out. If your opponent has taken pains to keep you from knowing something it seems likely that information may prove useful to you. And you're right, Harry was also curious to know what the man who had been tormenting him for five years was hiding from him. I have no doubt Snape was curious what memories Harry was hiding from him too, they both found out. And I don't understand this "Snape's trust" business, as if Harry is required to be considerate toward Snape when he has received no consideration in return. > I wish your posts would more clearly state > that they are opinions rather than The > Correct Interpretation. In the very post I am responding to you didn't qualify every sentence with "in my opinion" and I'm glad you didn't, such redundancy would get real old real fast. For the record let me say once and for all that unless I am quoting from the books every word I say in this or any other post is my opinion and I could be wrong. Yes I know it's hard to believe but I have been wrong before, however I don't see the point of repeating the obvious endlessly. > It would make interactions with you seem > more on the level of discussions and > less argumentative. I think argument (but not fighting!) is the highest form of discourse. If someone gives me a good argument, as several have, I think more of them not less. Eggplant From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Jan 25 16:54:01 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:54:01 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123000 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > > > I think his detention was actually a good thing. He learned the hard > way how far people are willing to go, and with what they can get away > if they have the authority. So for his next actions, he knew the risk. > Too bad he did not manage to control his temper. > > Yes, I know he is fifteen years old. But getting all adolescent is a > really stupid thing to do if somebody has it in for you. Especially if > that somebody makes the rules. > > Gerry This comment is so flabbergastingly out of line and downright immoral that I choose to believe you did not intend to make it. Kindly review what you have said and be more careful. Lupinlore From yutu75es at yahoo.es Tue Jan 25 16:56:52 2005 From: yutu75es at yahoo.es (fridwulfa) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:56:52 +0100 Subject: JK updates news and promises more soon Message-ID: <00ed01c502fe$e03dea70$8000a8c0@casa> No: HPFGUIDX 123001 JK has updated her site with the news of her daughter's birth, her name is Mackenzie Murray. She promises more updates soon. Cheers Fridwulfa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 17:18:21 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:18:21 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and wargames wasOccImperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123002 "Casey" Wrote: > (most) people don't look at it as Harry \ > defeating Snape, but instead failing to > learn the very thing he needed to, occlumency. I think in the entire sorry Occlumency affair Harry only learned 2 things: 1) The stuff from Snape's Pensive. 2) That Snape did not know how or just would not teach Occlumency properly. Eggplant From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 17:25:20 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:25:20 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123003 Gerry wrote: > > I think his detention was actually a good thing. He learned the hard way how far people are willing to go, and with what they can get away if they have the authority. So for his next actions, he knew the risk. Too bad he did not manage to control his temper. > > Yes, I know he is fifteen years old. But getting all adolescent is a really stupid thing to do if somebody has it in for you. Especially if that somebody makes the rules. Lupinlore replied: > This comment is so flabbergastingly out of line and downright immoral that I choose to believe you did not intend to make it. Kindly review what you have said and be more careful. Dungrollin interjects: Stick to your guns, Gerry! I am of exactly the same opinion - and I agree with McGonagall, too. If someone is in a position of power and authority and is bent on making your life hell, giving them extra incentive to do it is foolhardy. Nobody is defending Umbridge's actions in those detentions, nor anywhere else. But Harry clearly wasn't listening to McGonagall because he went and did the same thing again almost immediately afterwards. Using his brain, listening to Hermione and McGonagall, and resisting Umbridge's reign *in secret* was the sensible thing to do, and was what he ended up doing anyway. But it appears that he wouldn't consider that anybody else has a better understanding of the situation than he, and has to go through the whole horrible week's- worth of detentions again, before finally he learns to keep his head down. Evidently he needed two weeks of hellish detentions to make him take Umbridge seriously, because explaining it to him didn't work. What's immoral about that? And, out of interest, if Gerry's suggestion that a fictional detention may have been a good thing is immoral, is JKR not more immoral for having written that fictional detention in the first place? From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Jan 25 17:26:40 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:26:40 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123004 > SSSusan: > A thought-provoking post, Renee. I believe you have put your finger > on something many do struggle with in the series. HAVE we moved away > from a fairytale and into the realm of more "realistic fiction" > [yikes, is that an oxymoron? sorry, lit majors]? It would seem so > with the ways the Dursleys appear to have moved from caricature to > true nasties, with Harry's raging in OotP, with the death of Sirius. > But, you're right, Renee. If we've made that shift, what do we do > with characters who still seem to be sort of caricatures or symbolic, > rather than real? > > I'd never thought of DD in this way, but I think you're right. We > saw his "breakdown" moment at the end of OotP, when we confessed to > old man failings. And, since JKR called him the epitome of goodness, > we assume we're supposed to feel bad for him, forgive him, and move > on, still trusting & believing in him. Clearly, not all readers are > interested in doing that and prefer to analyze him a bit more harshly > in the light of the RW. > > And your bringing up Sirius' death is a good one, too. I'm one of > the ones who's argued that JKR should *not* bring Sirius back b/c I > believe it would undermine the message that she seems to be trying to > make -- that death is painful, final, and sometimes very, very > senseless. That's Real Life. But is THIS? If I'm understanding you > correctly, you're saying that sometimes you feel like she wants to > have it both ways. Allow the fairytale, symbolic, don't-try-to- > analyze-this-as-real-life view of things, but then also have us see > it all as realistic. Have we shifted to "realistic" or is it a > mishmash of realistic and fairytale? > > I don't know. I've not had my coffee yet. Perhaps I'm babbling, but > I did want to thank you for raising the issue. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan I think you have put the issue rather well, Susan. JKR very often DOES seem to want it both ways. On some issues, such as the death of Sirius, the attitudes of the Wizarding World toward Harry's story, etc., she seems to want to wave the banner of "realism." On others, the Dursleys, DD, Snape, etc., we are supposed, it seems, to say "Well, it's a fantasy story and therefore by definition these characters/situations/reactions are very far from realism." The problem that I and I think a lot of others have is that you just CAN'T have it both ways. If Sirius' death is meant to be realistic and we are invited to use "realistic" approaches to it, then why should we spare Dumbledore's actions the same scrutiny? If Dolores Umbridge is supposed to represent a "real" child abuser, as I sense she is, then why are the Dursleys not to be examined in this light? I think the answer, unfortunately, seems to be "because it would make JKR uncomfortable if we did that." She seems to have constructed her narrative in such a way that for it to work you have to accept some elements as realistic while allowing her to "fence-off" certain other, often somewhat similar elements, as "just fantasy not to be taken as real." Let me use an example that doesn't get used very often: the polices of Fudge and DD toward Harry. We are obviously meant to see them very differently. JKR manipulates their appearance and manner in such a way as to engender automatic like and trust for DD and the opposite for Fudge. Yet, what do they do? They fear that Harry will prove to be the destruction of the wizarding world (for very different reasons and in very different ways, granted), and subject him to abuse to prevent that. Now, I grant you that in no way are the two sets of decisions completely equivalent. DD is trying to prevent Harry's death by leaving him at Privet Drive, whereas Fudge is just trying to shut the boy up by dispatching Umbridge. And yet. It seems clear that we are to view Fudge as a "realistic" government official blinded by petty interests and the confusion of his own well-being with the public good. "Realism" is invited enthusiastically, and his decisions are supposed to be seen as part of Harry entering the "real world." DD, however, we are invited to see in almost purely symbolic terms. We are mostly (with some notable exceptions, I admit) NOT invited to see Harry's life at Privet Drive in "realistic" terms nor are we to "realistically" examine what DDs motivations for his policies toward the Dursleys have been. Once again, I do not say the actions of Fudge and Albus are equivalent even on the face of it. I do say, however, that JKR is clearly more comfortable presenting Fudge as a relatively realistic character - a politician blinded by greed and fear, and also with some good common-sense objections on his side as his speech to the Wizengamot makes clear. On the other hand, she is(generally) NOT comfortable providing a similar "realistic" view of Dumbledore, of how much of his '81 decisions were motivated by fear and cold calculation versus his concern for Harry, or what the implications of the Dursleys' actions and DD's failure to intervene really are, and of how that raises some very valid questions as to whether DD has gone too far in using methods and cold calculation similar to that employed by his enemy. She seems to prefer the "epitome of goodness" explanation, which basically means "Albus is the good guy and as for all the rest of this stuff, this is a fantasy and not to be taken realistically." A lot of us find this amounts to authorial defensiveness and attempted slight-of-hand. As Renee said, it seems to be: I, the author, can do whatever I want and I want to be seen as portraying certain things realistically. However, if realistic questions make me uncomfortable or undermine the way I want certain characters/decisions/events to be seen, then I reserve the right to hop over the fence and say, "It's only fantasy!." Now, the above paragraph isn't fair to JKR, she is a lot more talented and generally a much better writer than that. But there are times in the narrative when she definitely seems to slouch in that direction. Lupinlore From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Tue Jan 25 17:32:48 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:32:48 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and wargames wasOccImperius Resistance and Occlumency was Harry's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123005 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > "Casey" Wrote: > > > (most) people don't look at it as Harry \ > > defeating Snape, but instead failing to > > learn the very thing he needed to, occlumency. > > I think in the entire sorry Occlumency affair Harry only learned 2 things: > > 1) The stuff from Snape's Pensive. > 2) That Snape did not know how or just would not teach Occlumency > properly. > > Eggplant Well, I'm hoping over the summer break that he learned that by not taking the lessons seriously, practicing like he should have, he allowed Voldemort to manipulate him, resulting in Sirius' death. That if he had practiced and not fought the lessons at every turn, he may have been able to block those visions. Casey From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Jan 25 17:33:11 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:33:11 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123006 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > > Lupinlore replied: > > This comment is so flabbergastingly out of line and downright > immoral that I choose to believe you did not intend to make it. > Kindly review what you have said and be more careful. > > > Dungrollin interjects: > > Stick to your guns, Gerry! > I am of exactly the same opinion - and I agree with McGonagall, too. > If someone is in a position of power and authority and is bent on > making your life hell, giving them extra incentive to do it is > foolhardy. Nobody is defending Umbridge's actions in those > detentions, nor anywhere else. But Harry clearly wasn't listening to > McGonagall because he went and did the same thing again almost > immediately afterwards. > > Using his brain, listening to Hermione and McGonagall, and resisting > Umbridge's reign *in secret* was the sensible thing to do, and was > what he ended up doing anyway. But it appears that he wouldn't > consider that anybody else has a better understanding of the > situation than he, and has to go through the whole horrible week's- > worth of detentions again, before finally he learns to keep his head > down. Evidently he needed two weeks of hellish detentions to make > him take Umbridge seriously, because explaining it to him didn't > work. What's immoral about that? > > And, out of interest, if Gerry's suggestion that a fictional > detention may have been a good thing is immoral, is JKR not more > immoral for having written that fictional detention in the first > place? But actually, the way Gerry spoke *does* defend Umbridge and her detentions, e.g. the detentions were a "good thing." It makes no sense to say something is a "good thing" and then turn around and say, "but of course it is horrible and I condemn it." What DOES make sense is to say, "this is a horrible thing but at least Harry learned something from it, and in that sense some good came out of an evil thing." Fine. I have absolutely no objection to that and agree with it wholeheartedly. But that is far from making the astounding statement that the detentions "were a good thing." It is my hope that Gerry actually meant to say something closer to the second meaning and not the first. Thus, as I said, I choose to believe that he did not mean what he actually said, and request that he be much more careful in the future. Lupinlore From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 17:37:07 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:37:07 -0000 Subject: Petunia, Dudley, magical ability? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123007 Vivian writes: >Hedwig probably also bothers the Dursley's until they finally give >in and hand him whatever will make him go away. Hence the crapy >presents that Harry gets from them. what a fabulous explanation! I love it! It would also explain why Harry gets such lovely presents as a single tissue. Petunia had it in her hand at the time. And Hedwig wouldn't know tissue from gift wrap. I was definitely wondering HOW Harry got presents from the Dursleys because they would never willingly use something as obviously WW-ish as owl post. Unless, as you suggest, it was to get rid of said owl. Nicky Joe From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 18:14:17 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:14:17 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123008 Dungrollin: And, out of interest, if Gerry's suggestion that a fictional detention may have been a good thing is immoral, is JKR not more immoral for having written that fictional detention in the first place? Alla: Nowhere in the text and if you can please point me to the opposite, could I find that JKR actually approves of Umbridge's actions - namely torturing one of her students. Lupinlore: But actually, the way Gerry spoke *does* defend Umbridge and her detentions, e.g. the detentions were a "good thing." It makes no sense to say something is a "good thing" and then turn around and say, "but of course it is horrible and I condemn it." What DOES make sense is to say, "this is a horrible thing but at least Harry learned something from it, and in that sense some good came out of an evil thing." Fine. I have absolutely no objection to that and agree with it wholeheartedly. But that is far from making the astounding statement that the detentions "were a good thing." Alla: That is exactly how I understood the previous statement that detentions within itself were a good thing. I was VERY puzzled by it. JMO, Alla From editor at texas.net Tue Jan 25 18:16:03 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:16:03 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123009 Lupinlore said: > But actually, the way Gerry spoke *does* defend Umbridge and her > detentions, e.g. the detentions were a "good thing." It makes no > sense to say something is a "good thing" and then turn around and > say, "but of course it is horrible and I condemn it." > > What DOES make sense is to say, "this is a horrible thing but at > least Harry learned something from it, and in that sense some good > came out of an evil thing." Fine. I have absolutely no objection to > that and agree with it wholeheartedly. But that is far from making > the astounding statement that the detentions "were a good thing." > > It is my hope that Gerry actually meant to say something closer to > the second meaning and not the first. Thus, as I said, I choose to > believe that he did not mean what he actually said, and request that > he be much more careful in the future. I read Gerry's response quite carefully and could not make myself get the interpretation you did. I believe his "good thing" comment was in the nature of "in the long term" or "in the broad view," and I also agree with his analysis. Let me also suggest that your reaction, request for clarification, warning, whatever, belongs offlist; it doesn't directly contribute to the discussion as far as I can see, other than to communicate your shock. ~Amandageist From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 18:22:54 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:22:54 -0000 Subject: Will these two stop it?? (was: Why should Harry be expected to listen...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123010 SSSusan: So I wonder, now, how many of us have real hope [as in, believe it likely] that these too will reduce or end their stupid, childish power struggle? I'll go first. I *do* believe there will be a truce of sorts, though I think there may be a Big Ugly Blow-up first. And I suspect that it'll be Harry making the first move -- not likely an actual apology but just a decision to do whatever he has to do to make things work towards defeating Voldy. If that means there are times he can stand up to Snape and argue with him, I'd like to see him do that, but I'm hoping he'll do some maturing such that he'll be able to control his temper in situations where that's required for safety, security or learning. [As, for instance, he *couldn't* do in OotP when DJU got under his skin.] Alla: You know my position, I think. I want the truce to happen, but by no means I want Harry to be the only one taking efforts to make such truce, even though I suspect that this is exactly what is going to happen. But before the truce I REALLY want to see the big blow out. REALLY. :) JMO, Alla From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 18:24:54 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:24:54 -0000 Subject: Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123011 Tonks writes: >I am not saying that the Dursley's are wonderful people. I am >saying that they are not as terrible as everyone thinks that they >are. Harry hasn't had much in the way of material things and >material things do not mean anything to him as a result. That is not >a bad thing; in fact in some circles it is a very good thing. Harry >is alive and well, so he was not starved. Harry is not a fat, little >indulged pig like Dudley, and that is a very good thing. So as long as Harry is still breathing and has no bruises or broken bones, he isn't being abused. That's precisely the attitude of many CPS administrations in this country, which is why so many kids are left in deplorable conditions. Granted, there are only enough resources to help the most serious cases and that is how it is justified. In my opinion, abuse is abuse, regardless of degree of severity. Tonks again: >Again this is the anger that some people feel toward God at times. >And DD had to put Harry with Patunia to protect Harry, it was the >only way. I have extreme doubts about it being "the only way". I think it was the easiest way and DD is as guilty as the rest of us for choosing it when anything else would have been difficult. (And because JKR made him do it because it was better for the story.) Tonks again: >Harry stays at the Dursley's because that is his home and must >continue to be his home for his own protection. As to Harry's anger >in the beginning of OoP, that is his post tramatic stress reaction >to the experience in the graveyard and the death of Cedric. I'm sure that's part of it, but a large part of it can be traced back to the Dursleys. Why is it that Harry's single happiest moment was the thought of being able to live with Sirius? Was it because Sirius was so fabulous? I think it more likely that it was because the Dursley's were so horrid. I believe if Harry had been stuck with the Dursley's too much longer, he would have found life on the streets to be preferable and ended up another teenage runaway. JMM writes: >I realize in all that this is just a story but...I always wondered why >social services of some type didn't step in. I realize that there were no >outer signs of abuse such as bruises or broken bones but -- teachers must >have questioned the fact that one child in the family has everything and the >other doesn't even have clothing that fits and broken glasses. I think this is one of those "he's breathing and has no bruises" situations. Although I'll bet Harry had plenty of bruises from Dudley pounding on him. However, I imagine the Dursleys were pretty good at making up excuses for any administrative personnel that might question them: "He's incorrigible, we buy him clothes and he shreds them, says he doesn't want anything from us, he'll barely eat..." Petunia bursts into tears, Harry glares at them but knows if he opens his mouth he won't eat for a week... Nicky Joe From trekkie at stofanet.dk Tue Jan 25 18:25:01 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:25:01 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Innocent Alby? References: Message-ID: <005301c5030b$2f211cf0$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 123012 > > Tonks now: > Harry knows his birthday because the Dursley's are not monsters. > They are human beings that don't give Harry the same treatment as > their own son, but they don't beat him, starve him, etc. He feels > like they do. And we feel like they do because we are seeing the > world through his eyes. He gets some acknowledgement of his > birthday. A hanger. A sock or something. I am not saying that the > Dursley's are wonderful people. I am saying that they are not as > terrible as everyone thinks that they are. Harry hasn't had much in > the way of material things and material things do not mean anything > to him as a result. That is not a bad thing; in fact in some circles > it is a very good thing. Harry is alive and well, so he was not > starved. Harry is not a fat, little indulged pig like Dudley, and > that is a very good thing. > > Tonks-op said: >And I > think that there was a deal with the Dursley's that Harry would live > in the Muggle world as a Muggle and that DD and his kind would stay > away at least until the appointed hour. Trekkiegrrrl: But if there had been a deal, why was Hagrid then so surprised that noone had told Harry about his parents? I don't think Dumbledore or anyone else could really imagine HOW Muggle those Muggles were. And how much they hated the WW. If they had known, they wouldn't have sent zillions of owls before sending Hagrid. ~Trekkie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 18:32:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:32:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's serious errors & what did he do to make up for it/Harry's trust. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123013 Magda: On the other hand, will we see in Book 7 an attempt by Harry to reverse the process and take control of VOldemort's mind? SSSusan: A possibility especially interesting to me because ::rubs hands gleefully:: I suspect it would require Snape's assistance to train Harry how to do this. Alla: Interesting . Are you thinking about Neri's theory that Snape still has mind-link with Voldie or are you thinking about something else? If you are thinking about another Occlumency attempt, I personally doubt it. I think if Snape will be teaching Harry ANYTHING, it will occur because of extraordinary circumstances, not just regular reasons. But I am just speculating, of course. Alla From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 18:40:42 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:40:42 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at Hogwarts? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123014 Julie replies: >I think there is a difference between having or feeling respect for >someone and *treating* someone with respect. Harry doesn't have >to feel respect for Snape to treat him with the respect due his >station. I disagree. I'm sure this has a lot to do with cultural differences as well as how you were raised, but titles mean nothing to me at all. Teacher, supervisor, senator, president, king. How can give respect to a title? You can bestow a title on anyone or anything. Tomorrow I shall go out and call my car an Empress. I shall bow down to it and bestow gifts upon it. Does that mean my car is worthy of respect? Of course not. Just because a person is given (or is born into) a title does not in any way give that person more entitlement to respect than any schmo begging on a street corner. If the titled person looks at me like a Malfoy and the schmo waves and bids me a good day, I'm going to have much more respect for the schmo because when all the happy titles are stripped away, we're all just humans and it is how we treat each other that should designate how much respect we're worthy of. And the only "station" I have respect for is a gas station, because otherwise my royal car would not run. Must keep Her Majesty happy. >If you stoop to someone else's level, what are you >proving, after all, except that you have the capacity to be >an equally disrespectful person? (IMO, of course) The golden rule only applies until someone spits on it. Harry treated Snape with plenty of deference and respect in the beginning. Did Snape ever give an ounce of it to Harry? Why continue to beat a dead horse, as they say? Pippin writes: >The respect is due to the position, not the individual. If Harry >believes that Snape is not qualified to teach, then he should >resign from the class. The "position" is held by a person. I think more students fear Snape than respect him, although I think it quite likely they respect his abilities. I would love to see all the Griffindors get up and walk out of Snape's class. Think he'd still be teaching? Nicky Joe, off to purchase gifts of Turtle Wax for Her Majesty From a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 18:42:52 2005 From: a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com (a_b_desert_king) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:42:52 -0000 Subject: Snape as the one who won't return (Was: In Defense of Snape (VERY long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123015 > Tonks said: > > Well now I like this theory. I think it fits. Not sure 100%, but it > is possible. I often thought that of the 3 that were not there, > Snape was not one of the list. I think that there is another one > somewhere (not Barty) that we do not know about. Gosh.. I hope it > isn't Lupin. I am sure it is not. Also Snape is still friends with > Malfoy, would he be if LV knew that he was the one who *left me > forever*. He is not the coward. And how could he spy if LV knew he > was not still one of his DE? > > Tonks_op Hi Tonks, I've held to this theory ever since my first reading of GoF. But I've never believed ESE:Lupin. My guess was that the "one who will be killed" was ........Fudge! I think that was why he was in such denial of Voldemort's return. He felt the mark burn and didn't respond (because it couldn't possibly be - and if it was he was in alot of trouble - for something) and he knows he is facing a horrible death if Voldy did return. That's why he is trying so hard in OotP to discredit DD and Harry - he really doesn't want to believe it's true. Just speculation of course, Heather - who would like to get shoveled out from under all this snow! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 18:55:15 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:55:15 -0000 Subject: Fairy tale v real life Was: Re: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123016 Renee: JKR has said DD is the epitome of goodness, but that still doesn't make him God - unless she's trying to suggest DD is God's second incarnation on Earth after Jesus Christ, but somehow I don't think her own beliefs would allow her to do this. And if he's not God, criticism of his actions, whether on a textual level (seeing them as based on DD's own choices) or on a meta-textual level (seeing them as based on the author's choices) can't be countered with a reference to the way God works. In other words, to me the rift between stated authorial intentions and the text as we have it creates a problem here. This can be partially solved by seeing the series as a development from pure fairytale to a more "realistic" form of fantasy-cum-mystery, but as the Dursleys continue to play an unpleasant role in Harry's life, this doesn't entirely work. It works best if I can see the whole series as symbolical and largely non-realistic. SSSusan: A thought-provoking post, Renee. I believe you have put your finger on something many do struggle with in the series. HAVE we moved away from a fairytale and into the realm of more "realistic fiction" [yikes, is that an oxymoron? sorry, lit majors]? It would seem so with the ways the Dursleys appear to have moved from caricature to true nasties, with Harry's raging in OotP, with the death of Sirius. But, you're right, Renee. If we've made that shift, what do we do with characters who still seem to be sort of caricatures or symbolic, rather than real? I'd never thought of DD in this way, but I think you're right. We saw his "breakdown" moment at the end of OotP, when we confessed to old man failings. And, since JKR called him the epitome of goodness, we assume we're supposed to feel bad for him, forgive him, and move on, still trusting & believing in him. Clearly, not all readers are interested in doing that and prefer to analyze him a bit more harshly in the light of the RW. And your bringing up Sirius' death is a good one, too. I'm one of the ones who's argued that JKR should *not* bring Sirius back b/c I believe it would undermine the message that she seems to be trying to make -- that death is painful, final, and sometimes very, very senseless. That's Real Life. But is THIS? If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that sometimes you feel like she wants to have it both ways. Allow the fairytale, symbolic, don't-try-to- analyze-this-as-real-life view of things, but then also have us see it all as realistic. Have we shifted to "realistic" or is it a mishmash of realistic and fairytale? Alla: I want to thnk both Renee and Susan for their posts and make a confession. I think I am about to make a large shift in my assesment whether JKR succesfully managed to switch us from fairy tale POV to more or less "realistic" point of view. I still think that shift in narration was warranted by Harry's growing up and darkening circumstances around him. I am starting to doubt very seriously whether the switch was succesful ( that is what spending too much time with all of you guys sometimes does to your views - they change :o)). Susan made a wonderful point - in more realistic setting, what exactly we supposed to think about the characters which still look like caricatures? As you stated - some of the readers ( I am of course speaking for myself) don't feel like forgiving BECAUSE JKR thinks of him like " epithome of goodness", because in my mind he did not act like one. Is Dumbledore a "real" character" or just a metaphor for all - knowing mentor of the Myths? Is he both or none? I think my head starts to hurt. Same issue with Dursleys, whom I passionately despise, but I recently reread PS/SS, which I have not done for many months and I absolutely concede - in the first book they did look like a caricature, evil stepparents, whatever. Of course, I believe that some characters moved succesfully to be more "real" and Harry is the obvious one ( not because I like him, although I definitely do, I just think that she did the best job with him), Snape, Sirius definitely became more real, IMO. Just my opinion, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 25 19:07:01 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:07:01 -0000 Subject: Snape & Harry working to control Voldy's mind? (was: DD's serious errors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123017 Magda: >>> On the other hand, will we see in Book 7 an attempt by Harry to reverse the process and take control of VOldemort's mind? <<< SSSusan: >> A possibility especially interesting to me because ::rubs hands gleefully:: I suspect it would require Snape's assistance to train Harry how to do this.<< Alla: > Interesting . Are you thinking about Neri's theory that Snape still > has mind-link with Voldie or are you thinking about something else? > If you are thinking about another Occlumency attempt, I personally > doubt it. I think if Snape will be teaching Harry ANYTHING, it will > occur because of extraordinary circumstances, not just regular > reasons. SSSusan again: Well, actually I was thinking of a point, late in Year 6 or even into Year 7. A point at which Harry & Snape have finally managed that shaky truce and are prepared to at least grudgingly trust that the other *is* working for the same End (even if he is still an impudent, arrogant brat/*professor*prick). Yes, I was thinking along the lines of Occlumency -- or something new, proposed, perhaps a never-before-investigated-last-ditch-effort variation of Occlumency. ReverseOcclumencyViaScarlink or something? I hadn't even thought to ask how this might fit w/ Neri's VASSAL theory [je regret, Neri], but now that you mention it, yes, that could be a part of why SNAPE, rather than DD or someone else. Thoughts, Neri? Siriusly Snapey Susan From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 19:32:09 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:32:09 -0000 Subject: Dursley's and Harry (was: Innocent Alby?) (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123018 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Alla: > Yes, he was starved , A LOT, in fact. I quoted canon on it many > times, so if you would like me to cite it again, tell me. And > besides not having much of material things, Harry was deprived of > spiritual things - namely love and that is NOT a good thing in my > book at all. > Betsy: > I have problems with the word "starved" too. Harry was not overfed, > that is true. ...., and his growth rate hasn't been stunted. I'm > not trying to say the Dursley's were perfectly wonderful, but I > think they trod a very fine line without tipping into actual, > actionable (...legally) abuse. After all, what would the neighbors > think? > >...big edited... > > > Just my opinion, > > Alla bboyminn: Well, it's easy to take exception to the word 'starved' because there is a difference between it's general implications and it's technical implications. Technically, Harry wasn't starved; that is, he didn't suffer from the clinical condition of 'starvation'. But in a more broad and general (non-technical) sense, 'starved' comes pretty close. Betsy makes the statement that Harry was not 'overfed', but that certainly falls short of describing that happened to him. It would probably be more accurate to say the Harry was 'underfed', and one might go so far as to say 'chronically underfed'. However, that circumstance of 'underfed' was not enough to cause a clinical condition; in other words, not enough to make him sick. However, the books make several references to Harry being skinny and small for his age. So, I don't think it's quite fair to say 'his growth rate hasn't been stunted'. I think there is evidence that his growth rate HAS been stunted, but not stunted to the point of being a medical problem. Regarding physical abuse, I think there are amble implications in the books that Harry suffered from various and frequent physical punishments, by Dudley-most certainly, and by Vernon and even Petunia. The problem is, what constitutes abuse is subjective, and is subject to general social attitudes of the moment. Today, if you lose your temper and scream at one of your unruly kids in the grocery store, you are liable to have social services, child protection services, and perhaps, even the police kicking down your door. But, it wasn't that long ago, as has been discussed here before, that corporal punishment was common in British schools. Actually, beyond common, it was actually legendary; at the heart of every British schoolboy's experience. In addition, as every Catholic schoolboy will attest, physical punishment has always been very common in private Catholic schools. Those nuns can be brutal. Note: public and private schools in this case refers to who pays (USA style) Public - governemnt pays, paid with public funds. Private - parents pay, fees paid by private parties. All that said, I think there are sufficient hints in the books, that Harry suffered direct physical/corporal punishments that, by the standards in the USA today, would have likely landed the Dursleys in court and Harry in foster care. But by other social standards, may have simply been considerd 'discipline' and the perogative of the parent or guardian. Regardless of whether Harry's treatment fell into the LEGAL realm of abuse at that point in history, it clear that the Dursleys, by a broad and general definition, were abusive and neglectful of Harry. We could, I guess, just drop the 'abuse' reference, and say that they were mean and nasty to Harry. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboymonn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 19:32:11 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:32:11 -0000 Subject: Snape & Harry working to control Voldy's mind? (was: DD's serious errors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123019 Alla: Interesting . Are you thinking about Neri's theory that Snape still has mind-link with Voldie or are you thinking about something else? If you are thinking about another Occlumency attempt, I personally doubt it. I think if Snape will be teaching Harry ANYTHING, it will occur because of extraordinary circumstances, not just regular reasons. SSSusan again: Well, actually I was thinking of a point, late in Year 6 or even into Year 7. A point at which Harry & Snape have finally managed that shaky truce and are prepared to at least grudgingly trust that the other *is* working for the same End (even if he is still an impudent, arrogant brat/*professor*prick). Yes, I was thinking along the lines of Occlumency -- or something new, proposed, perhaps a never-before-investigated-last-ditch-effort variation of Occlumency. ReverseOcclumencyViaScarlink or something? I hadn't even thought to ask how this might fit w/ Neri's VASSAL theory [je regret, Neri], but now that you mention it, yes, that could be a part of why SNAPE, rather than DD or someone else. Thoughts, Neri? Alla: Before we hear from Neri, couple more thoughts from me. :o) Yes, I absolutely agree that middle of year 7, NOT year 6 is more realistic point of having those interactions, if ever. I also think that before that someone will take the issue of Harry's training more seriously and will give him Occlumency lessons or whatever else he needs. Hopefully, it will be Dumbledore. I think that something draumatic will preceed interactions with Snape, something Bangy! if you will, I just don't see them gradually overcoming the hostilities. JMO, Alla From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 19:32:56 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:32:56 -0000 Subject: Will these two stop it?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123020 Siriusly Snapey Susan writes: >All this blame game stuff we always return to, and yet what we're >left with is TWO people who're acting childishly, with neither being >able to fully accomplish his goals because of it. 'Course, I still >blame Snape more than you do but in large part that's because I'm >focusing on the "time is being stolen from the war against Voldemort" >part. This is exactly the thing that irritated me about OoP. At the end of GoF, Dumbledore is gearing up for war, Fudge has jammed his head firmly into the sand, and sides are beginning to be taken. Then Harry gets shuffled off to another crappy summer at the Dursleys, school starts, and DD tries to get everyone to pretend that it's simply school as usual. The entire time they are dealing with Umbridge and everyone is tiptoeing around, I was shaking my book and screaming, "HELLO??? Anyone remember Voldemort? That guy that's out there? Most likely plotting something horrible? Remember him? Why are we worried about OWLS and detention?" I was heartily let down to find that LV was after something as trite as a prophecy. I expected him to be out there creating monsters to fight for him. Or Polyjuicing all of the DEs. Or creating some scheme to mow down Hogwarts and crush Potter once and for all. But no, LV is looking for some prophecy and Harry is studying potions and arguing with Snape. Quite a letdown after GoF. I hope she ramps it up a bit for HBP. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 20:20:01 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:20:01 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123021 Gerry wrote: >Yes, I know he is fifteen years old. But getting all adolescent >is a really stupid thing to do if somebody has it in for you. >Especially if that somebody makes the rules. How dare a fifteen year old act like an adolescent simply because he might be punished for it! It's far better to hang your head and take your punishment rather than stand up for yourself and stand up to injustice. You'll be better off. Oh, and if Voldemort shows up, you would be wise to go and hide somewhere, because otherwise you'll be getting what's coming to you. That sum it up? Dungrollin interjects: >Evidently he needed two weeks of hellish detentions to make >him take Umbridge seriously, because explaining it to him didn't >work. What's immoral about that? And just how many times does Voldemort have to try and kill him before he picks up the clue phone and runs off to hide? I can't believe anyone would think it a bad idea that he stand up to Umbridge. Yeah, maybe it was stupid, but at least he made the attempt! At least he tried to get through to that little evil peabrain of hers. He's fought Voldemort, for crying out loud! why should he be afraid to stand up to a teacher? Especially when she's dead wrong? Oh wait, is this another one of those "repect for authority" things? I have issues there... Nicky Joe From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jan 25 20:23:44 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:23:44 -0000 Subject: Fairy tale v real life Was: Re: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123022 SSSusan > But, you're right, Renee. If we've made that shift, what do we do > with characters who still seem to be sort of caricatures or symbolic, rather than real? > > I'd never thought of DD in this way, but I think you're right. We > saw his "breakdown" moment at the end of OotP, when we confessed to old man failings. And, since JKR called him the epitome of goodness, we assume we're supposed to feel bad for him, forgive him, and move on, still trusting & believing in him. Clearly, not all readers are interested in doing that and prefer to analyze him a bit more harshly in the light of the RW. > > Alla: > Susan made a wonderful point - in more realistic setting, what exactly we supposed to think about the characters which still look like caricatures? As you stated - some of the readers ( I am of course speaking for myself) don't feel like forgiving BECAUSE JKR thinks of him like " epithome of goodness", because in my mind he did not act like one. Pippin: I think the goodness remark is being taken out of context. Summarizing, JKR was asked whether the good characters were boring. She replied that she didn't think Dumbledore was boring and he was the epitome of goodness. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/0700-hottype-solo mon.htm I don't think she was claiming that he was the best example of goodness for all time, but simply the best example in the books of a good person, one who consciously tries to do the right thing and succeeds most of the time. Then there is the additional problem that what JKR regards as the right thing may not be the same as what some readers think is good. JKR and Dumbledore, for instance, seem to hold that a certain amount of pain and distress is good for people, in the sense that they will not develop normally without it, and the lack of it may do as much harm as too much. I love the way Harry is making the transition from magical, fairytale thinking to a more realistic view of the world. I think it's very realistic that he has not made that transition completely. Some of the people he knows, he still thinks of in a childish black-and-white way, while he has come to a more grownup view of others. Pippin From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 25 20:35:26 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:35:26 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123023 Nicky Joe: > And just how many times does Voldemort have to try and kill him > before he picks up the clue phone and runs off to hide? I can't > believe anyone would think it a bad idea that he stand up to > Umbridge. Yeah, maybe it was stupid, but at least he made the > attempt! At least he tried to get through to that little evil > peabrain of hers. He's fought Voldemort, for crying out loud! why > should he be afraid to stand up to a teacher? Especially when > she's dead wrong? Oh wait, is this another one of those "repect > for authority" things? I have issues there... SSSusan: No, Nicky Joe, I don't think it's about "respect for the office," nor is it about whether Harry's RIGHT. Of *course* he's right! But there is a bigger issue at hand. Not causing problems with DJU is about safety, about preservation of The Order, about keeping himself from being expelled, about keeping DD from being kicked out of Hogwarts. It's about NOT MAKING WAVES, you know? There are times to make waves. If this were *not* a period of war, and Voldy were nowhere in the picture, I'd be cheering Harry on for standing up to that wench. But this *is* a period of war, Voldy *is* on the rise, and what matters most just now isn't whether Harry is right or wrong but what will happen if he keeps opening his trap and yelling at a high-ranking Ministry official who has the back of an anti-Harry/DD Minister of Magic. Siriusly Snapey Susan From alex51324 at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 20:37:32 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex boyd) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:37:32 +0000 Subject: The Prophecy In-Reply-To: <1106652805.21888.2731.m21@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123024 Hi-- I don't know if this has been discussed recently, because I've only been reading sporadically for the last few months. But someone mentioned in a recent post that we might be about to find out that Dumbledore (and the rest of the Order) have the prophecy all wrong. I, too, think that the Prophecy is going to turn out to have some meaning other than what everyone in the books seems to assume it means (i.e., that Harry must kill Voldemort, or vice versa). It goes "Neither can live while the other survives," right? What I wonder is if the crux of the Prophecy rests somewhere on a difference between "living" and "surviving." Has anybody else thought about it this way? And if so, what did oyu come up with? Alex From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 20:45:01 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:45:01 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123025 SSSusan: No, Nicky Joe, I don't think it's about "respect for the office," nor is it about whether Harry's RIGHT. Of *course* he's right! But there is a bigger issue at hand. Not causing problems with DJU is about safety, about preservation of The Order, about keeping himself from being expelled, about keeping DD from being kicked out of Hogwarts. It's about NOT MAKING WAVES, you know? There are times to make waves. If this were *not* a period of war, and Voldy were nowhere in the picture, I'd be cheering Harry on for standing up to that wench. But this *is* a period of war, Voldy *is* on the rise, and what matters most just now isn't whether Harry is right or wrong but what will happen if he keeps opening his trap and yelling at a high-ranking Ministry official who has the back of an anti-Harry/DD Minister of Magic. Alla: I am always very hesitant to disagree with you, but I partially do. First of all, the issue of "respect of authority" was raised ( not by you, but it was raised), therefore I think Nicky Joe concerns are valid. I may have agree with you that for the sake of Voldie resistance, Snape and Harry may have to forgo their fights, but Umbridge IS evil, to me frankly no less than Voldie, albeit she is smaller. I don't believe that in order to fight one evil, you have to submit to another. I think that text does not encourage "submission" to Umbridge either. We clearly see at the end that Fred and George resistance is approved by all teachers and they are greeted as heroes. I admire that Harry stood up to Umbridge. He did what good person is supposed to do when faced with evil, IMO. Sorry, Susan. :) That is of course just my opinion only. Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 25 21:05:02 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:05:02 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123026 SSSusan: > No, Nicky Joe, I don't think it's about "respect for the office," > nor is it about whether Harry's RIGHT. Of *course* he's right! > But there is a bigger issue at hand. Not causing problems with DJU > is about safety, about preservation of The Order, about keeping > himself from being expelled, about keeping DD from being kicked out > of Hogwarts. It's about NOT MAKING WAVES, you know? > > There are times to make waves. If this were *not* a period of war, > and Voldy were nowhere in the picture, I'd be cheering Harry on for > standing up to that wench. But this *is* a period of war, Voldy > *is* on the rise, and what matters most just now isn't whether > Harry is right or wrong but what will happen if he keeps opening > his trap and yelling at a high-ranking Ministry official who has > the backing of an anti-Harry/DD Minister of Magic. Alla: > I am always very hesitant to disagree with you, but I partially do. > > First of all, the issue of "respect of authority" was raised ( not > by you, but it was raised), therefore I think Nicky Joe concerns > are valid. > > I may have agree with you that for the sake of Voldie resistance, > Snape and Harry may have to forgo their fights, but Umbridge IS > evil, to me frankly no less than Voldie, albeit she is smaller. > > I don't believe that in order to fight one evil, you have to submit > to another. > > I think that text does not encourage "submission" to Umbridge > either. We clearly see at the end that Fred and George resistance > is approved by all teachers and they are greeted as heroes. > > I admire that Harry stood up to Umbridge. He did what good person > is supposed to do when faced with evil, IMO. SSSusan: No need, ever, to apologize for disagreeing with me, Alla. Let's look at where we were in the thread before I snipped Nicky Joe's post. And I'm going to insert MORE of Dung's argument than NJ left in. Dungrollin interjects: >>> I am of exactly the same opinion - and I agree with McGonagall, too. If someone is in a position of power and authority and is bent on making your life hell, giving them extra incentive to do it is foolhardy. Nobody is defending Umbridge's actions in those detentions, nor anywhere else. But Harry clearly wasn't listening to McGonagall because he went and did the same thing again almost immediately afterwards. Evidently he needed two weeks of hellish detentions to make him take Umbridge seriously, because explaining it to him didn't work. What's immoral about that?<<< Then Nicky Joe wrote: >> And just how many times does Voldemort have to try and kill him before he picks up the clue phone and runs off to hide? I can't believe anyone would think it a bad idea that he stand up to Umbridge. Yeah, maybe it was stupid, but at least he made the attempt! At least he tried to get through to that little evil peabrain of hers. He's fought Voldemort, for crying out loud! why should he be afraid to stand up to a teacher? Especially when she's dead wrong? Oh wait, is this another one of those "repect for authority" things? I have issues there...<< SSSusan again: So, you see, what I was objecting to was the comment, "Oh, wait, is this another one of those 'respect for authority' things?" I was attempting to point out that Dung's argument revolved around, not the issue of giving DJU respect simply b/c she's a teacher, but around doing something STUPID, i.e., giving someone in a position of power & authority who already wants to make your life hell *additional* reason to make your life hell! And I am adding the additional point that pissing DJU off during this time in the WW is also not wise. McGonagall tried to warn Harry to cool it [which is where this thread was earlier today], and I agreed that she was right to warn him. "For heaven's sake, Potter! Do you really think this is about truth or lies? It's about keeping your head down and your temper under control!" she said. She would NOT say as a matter of course, imo, regarding every teacher just because of his/her station; rather, she's issuing this warning because of this one teacher in these specific circumstances. NJ's response was, I thought, an attempt to take it back to the issue of respect for authority, when that's not where Dungrollin was coming from, imo. Siriusly Snapey Susan From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 25 11:38:28 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:38:28 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency, was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123027 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > It is incumbent of Dumbledore to explain some things to Harry if he > expects Harry's enthusiastic cooperation, especially when his > instincts are telling him there is something very wrong with those > lessons. Do they? Or is it Harry's dislike of Snape and his unwillingness to have the lessons in the first place that give him an excuse to not take them seriously? >Harry's instincts have saved his life before (grab hold of > Quirrell's face, stab the book with the fang, force the beads of light > away from your wand, etc). Harry will not and should not ignore his > gut feeling just because somebody he is fast loosing respect for says, > do it because I say so. Those same gut feelings that made him rush to the DoM because he believed Sirius was in danger? If there is one thing in this book it is that Harry should learn to distinguish between his gut feelings and his emotions. And stop letting himself ruled by his emotions especially if they are manipulated by puppet-master V. > Dumbledore is not dealing with a toddler, or some silly little twerp > of a kid who just fell off a turnip truck; he may still be a boy but > nobody on the planet has more experience in these matters than Harry > has, and that includes Dumbledore. By my count Harry has saved the > entire Wizarding world at least 3 times, he rescued an innocent man > from execution, he has received all three unforgivable curses and > triumphed over them all and engaged in magical are wrestling with He > Who Must Not Be Named himself, the most powerful Dark wizard in a > thousand years and Harry won. If from time to time some of these > thoughts enter Harry's consciousness it is not arrogance it is just > cold hard reality and explains his fury when he is patted on the head > and told, just do what I say little boy. After all he's done and > suffered for the Wizarding World Harry thinks he deserves some respect > and I think he's right. Well his tantrum at the beginning of OoP to me was very arrogant. He was kept in the dark, true. It was wrong, also true. But not because he was almighty Harry Potter, but because people have a right to know important things concerning themselves. > I don't understand this at all. How could Voldemort not know Snape was > once his spy, how could the entire world not know after Dumbledore > spilled the beans? I agree. I find it hard to believe 200 people will keep their mouths shut. The only reason I can imagine is that he is a double-spy, both sides believing he works for them. Gerry From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Jan 25 21:17:18 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:17:18 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123028 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Renee: >> To me the rift between stated authorial intentions > > and the text as we have it creates a problem. This can be > > partially solved by seeing the series as a development from pure > > fairytale to a more "realistic" form of fantasy-cum-mystery, but as > > the Dursleys continue to play an unpleasant role in Harry's life, > > this doesn't entirely work. It works best if I can see the whole > > series as symbolical and largely non-realistic. > > > From time to time, > > this kind of thing tends to give me an "anything goes" feeling that > > undermines my admiration of JKR as a writer and makes me think this > > is really no more than a piece of very clever entertainment with a > > dash of hazy personal philosophy added to the mix. > > > SSSusan: > A thought-provoking post, Renee. I believe you have put your finger > on something many do struggle with in the series. HAVE we moved away > from a fairytale and into the realm of more "realistic fiction" > [yikes, is that an oxymoron? sorry, lit majors]? It would seem so > with the ways the Dursleys appear to have moved from caricature to > true nasties, with Harry's raging in OotP, with the death of Sirius. > But, you're right, Renee. If we've made that shift, what do we do > with characters who still seem to be sort of caricatures or symbolic, > rather than real? Renee: That's one of my problems. Take Umbridge, for example, one of the most two-dimensional characters in the series, and never rising above the level of a toad. She's seldom discussed other than as a plot device, and people hardly ever wonder what makes her tick. Lockhart is also a caricature, but in COS this wasn't much of a problem (and in OotP he only makes a cameo appearance); he never made me wonder what kind of book I was reading. Umbridge does. So does OotP Draco. If I can analyse the books in symbolical terms, the flatness of some characters doesn't pose a problem. When I'm asked to look at this from a realistic point of view, it does. SSSusan: > I'd never thought of DD in this way, but I think you're right. We > saw his "breakdown" moment at the end of OotP, when we confessed to > old man failings. And, since JKR called him the epitome of goodness, > we assume we're supposed to feel bad for him, forgive him, and move > on, still trusting & believing in him. Clearly, not all readers are > interested in doing that and prefer to analyze him a bit more harshly > in the light of the RW. Renee: To be frank, I'm not very happy with all these analyses according to RW criteria. I'm probably not going to make myself very popular by saying that this way of reading strikes me as improductive. The same arguments and discussions come up with predictable regularity, and this isn't merely due to the fact that new members inevitably tend to raise old issues. Why is it, that analysing and judging the various characters' behaviour according to RW standards as if this is reality instead of fiction (and I'll be the first to plead guilty to this), is so much more popular than trying to determine what it is we're reading, and what statement the author is making? To me, what character X ought to have done instead, why character Y is a lousy or an excellent teacher, and why character Z gets no more than (s)he deserved, is less interesting to discuss than how the various characters' actions and other narrative elements are being combined and woven into a rich fabric of story. In other words, how it all fits together, what pattern we can discern and how all the details contribute to the whole. So Snape was wrong to antagonise Harry in his first Potions lesson and to keep doing so over the years. But what is more interesting: Snapes moral status as a teacher, or the consequences his attitude and his actions have for the development of the story? Are we here to issue judgements, to gain insights into the intricacies of a complex and fascinating tale, to figure out a messsage, or what? I suppose everyone has their own anwer to this, but I know behaviour analysis according to RW standards is not foremost on my list. SSSusan: > And your bringing up Sirius' death is a good one, too. I'm one of > the ones who's argued that JKR should *not* bring Sirius back b/c I > believe it would undermine the message that she seems to be trying to > make -- that death is painful, final, and sometimes very, very > senseless. That's Real Life. But is THIS? If I'm understanding you > correctly, you're saying that sometimes you feel like she wants to > have it both ways. Allow the fairytale, symbolic, don't-try-to- > analyze-this-as-real-life view of things, but then also have us see > it all as realistic. Have we shifted to "realistic" or is it a > mishmash of realistic and fairytale? Renee: OotP looks more realistic, but well... how realistic can it be when it's about magic? When it's about a world of which we don't know all the rules, because new surprises tend to turn up around every bend? Of course there's such a thing as basic recognition, or we wouldn't be able to enjoy the books at all. But it remains difficult to know what is real, to know when RL criteria apply and when they're being discarded or toyed with for the sake of the story, or just for fun - precisely because we're given so very few rules to go by, and so much seems random. Almost as if the author wants to retain a way out of every corner she might inadvertently paint herself into. Maybe that's why so many of the discussions are about human behaviour: that's the area where we feel safest. I really hope I made myself clear. SSSusan: > I did want to thank you for raising the issue. Renee: You're welcome, even though it was just something that came up spontaneously :) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 21:18:55 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:18:55 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123029 >>Renee: >JKR has said DD is the epitome of goodness... >In other words, to me the rift between stated authorial intentions and the text as we have it creates a problem here. This can be partially solved by seeing the series as a development from pure fairytale to a more "realistic" form of fantasy-cum-mystery, but as the Dursleys continue to play an unpleasant role in Harry's life, this doesn't entirely work. It works best if I can see the whole series as symbolical and largely non-realistic. >Still, DD is one of the few characters that never entirely worked for me. I can't throw JKR's qualification of DD overboard without simultaneously doubting her characterisation, and if I retain it, I find myself doubting her assessments that some things (such as the suddennes of Sirius's death) are only realistic. From time to time, this kind of thing tends to give me an "anything goes" feeling that undermines my admiration of JKR as a writer and makes me think this is really no more than a piece of very clever entertainment with a dash of hazy personal philosophy added to the mix.< >>SSSusan: >A thought-provoking post, Renee. I believe you have put your finger on something many do struggle with in the series. HAVE we moved away from a fairytale and into the realm of more "realistic fiction" [yikes, is that an oxymoron? sorry, lit majors]? It would seem so with the ways the Dursleys appear to have moved from caricature to true nasties, with Harry's raging in OotP, with the death of Sirius. But, you're right, Renee. If we've made that shift, what do we do with characters who still seem to be sort of caricatures or symbolic, rather than real?< Betsy: I'm going to completely disagree with both of you here. But I have also come to the conclusion that I've been reading the books differently from you both. I've never thought of these books, from PS/SS on, as "fairytale." Children's literature, yes, but not fairytale at all. Let's tackle the Dursley's first. There are some caricature elements to their behaviors. There's Vernon and his middle-class love affair of everything status quo and aversion to unkept lawns, foreigners, and men with long hair. And then there's Petunia who's obsessed with keeping up with the Jonses and gossip. Dudley is of course, a classic bully. But I was struck with how well Harry, who's supposed to be the abused child in this household, is treated. Anyone who's read "James and the Giant Peach," can tell you that for a children's book hero who's supposed to be under the control of mean, nasty relatives, Harry had it pretty good (hell, Cinderella would be jealous!). That immediately told me that we were not dealing with the usual fairytale world. So when in OotP my view of the Dursley's suddenly changed, I wasn't shocked, or surprised by an abrupt segue into "reality". For me, "reality" was *always* there. It's just, Harry is more aware of the dangers now, and so are we. And I did not see the Dursley's as suddenly more evil or nasty. I was actually struck by a sort of desperate nobility in Vernon's decision to protect his family. Here's this Muggle family being dragged unwillingly into a Wizard war in which they and theirs are completely helpless. If Harry has not been around, Dudley would have died. There was no way for Dudley to protect himself. I could well understand Vernon's desire to kick out the boy who brought this inexplicable danger on his son. Which brings us to Dumbledore. >>SSSusan said: >I'd never thought of DD in this way, but I think you're right. We saw his "breakdown" moment at the end of OotP, when we confessed to old man failings. And, since JKR called him the epitome of goodness, we assume we're supposed to feel bad for him, forgive him, and move on, still trusting & believing in him. Clearly, not all readers are interested in doing that and prefer to analyze him a bit more harshly in the light of the RW.< Betsy: This is a perfect illustration of why I take all interview "canon" with a grain of salt. Was JKR seriously trying to say that Dumbledore is supposed to represent an almost God-like goodness? I doubt it; the books don't bare this out at all. And was this a speaking interview, or did she write this down? Because if she was speaking I think it's unfair and unwise to parse her words too much. Yes, Dumbledore is a white hat. Yes, he's Harry's ultimate mentor in the whole "Hero's Journey" story line breakdown (can't remember the term for this - sorry). But from reading the books, Dumbledore is immediately shown as human and fallible. Our first introduction to him in PS/SS has Dumbledore doing something he is reluctant to do, leave Harry with the Dursleys. (And I might add, we are also informed that two people he cared about had been murdured. So much for omnipotent power.) We, the readers, already know that this isn't a place we'd leave a child, and McGonagall confirms it. But Dumbledore feels he has no choice. And the missing twinkle in his eye when he puts baby Harry on the Dursley's doorstep (SS p.16 Scholastic paperback), gave me the hint anyway, that he wasn't thrilled about what he had to do. Dumbledore was doing the best he could under circumstances he could not control. So I've never bought into the whole, Omniscient!Dumbledore, and I'm confused by people who have. Especially as their anger at his failings turn them into Puppetmaster!Dumbledore advocates and poor Dumbledore suddenly becomes the epitome of the heartless strategist. (I'm new to this list, but I've been lurking around HP blogs for a while now. ) Therefore, I *loved* the insights into Dumbledore's power OotP brought us. Chapter 27, The Centaur and The Sneak, was *thrilling* for me. Here we, the readers, finally get to see Dumbledore reacting to a situation as it unfolded. Fudge and Umbridge spring what they hope to be the perfect trap on him, and we get to see Dumbledore turn everything around on them using nothing but his quick wits and a little wizarding power. PoA shows us a little of this, when Dumbledore lays out the time-turner plan, but it doesn't compare to what we witness in the headmasters office. Now I could see why Dumbledore had McGonagall's and Snape's unquestioning loyalty. And the final battle in the MoM, when Dumbledore took the gloves off... goosebumps. Serious goosebumps. I didn't forgive Dumbledore's mistake because JKR told me I should. I forgave him because I was impressed by his honesty, touched by how he cared for Harry in that final scene in his office, and also completely understood the reason for his mistake. My God, how do you tell a child that he alone will be responsible for ridding the world of its biggest threat? How easy would it be to tell someone as sweet and innocent as Harry that he will have blood on his hands, or he will die? I would put that moment off myself. >>SSSusan: >And your bringing up Sirius' death is a good one, too. I'm one of the ones who's argued that JKR should *not* bring Sirius back b/c I believe it would undermine the message that she seems to be trying to make -- that death is painful, final, and sometimes very, very senseless. That's Real Life. But is THIS? If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that sometimes you feel like she wants to have it both ways. Allow the fairytale, symbolic, don't-try-to- analyze-this-as-real-life view of things, but then also have us see it all as realistic. Have we shifted to "realistic" or is it a mishmash of realistic and fairytale?< Betsy: See, I've never seen the fairytale, symbolic aspect to the stories (aside from the literary critism that can be done to any work of fiction). Sure there are wizards and fairys and dragons and invisiblity cloaks, but what drew me into this world is how mundane and real JKR paints it. From Stan Shunpike's disinterested spiel of public service employees everywhere, to the Weasley's anxious economies to keep their children in school supplies, JKR has introduced us to a world where the magical is everyday, and wizards put their pants on, one leg at a time. So for me, the "realistic" isn't an ugly and sloppy intrusion. It's been there the entire time. Betsy, who wonders if she's the only one whose read the books this way. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 21:20:26 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:20:26 -0000 Subject: Occlumency and wargames In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123030 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > "Casey" Wrote: > > > (most) people don't look at it as Harry \ > > defeating Snape, but instead failing to > > learn the very thing he needed to, occlumency. > Eggplant: > > I think in the entire sorry Occlumency affair Harry only learned 2 things: > > 1) The stuff from Snape's Pensive. > 2) That Snape did not know how or just would not teach Occlumency > properly. > > Eggplant bboyminn: I wouldn't say it was limited to that. Harry did learn, as did we, that he does have the ability of Occlumency. I admit, there were so many distractions, that I don't think that realization has sank into Harry's brain yet, but none the less, he clearly demonstrated the ability to 'cut off' thoughts and memories that he doesn't want others to see. The other night I was thinking about this, and the analogy dawned on me of comparing the Occlumency lessons to being put in a room with a TV that was ON, being told not to look at it, then being left alone with no other distractions. That would be next to impossible for most people. If you are in a room with a TV that is ON, even if the sound is Off, it's difficult to not look. It's even more difficult when someone tells you specifically, directly, and forcefully not to look; it plants a near uncontrollable urge to do just the opposite. How could anyone not be drawn to the curious cascade of memories that came floating by, and as long as those memories are general and unoffensive, they are the equivalent of someone flipping through the channels on a telly. However, it's clear when 'it' flips to the channel containing Harry's personal private intimate memories, he is very quick to hit the 'OFF' button. But again, I think there were so many distraction and tangental experience associate with Occlumency lessons that Harry has never reach the point where he consciously told himself, 'Hey, I can do this' as he clearly can. Also, I think the exchange of memories, the less painful and less personal ones, between Snape and Harry will have a pay off in the future. I think they gained some insight into each other that will soften (however slighlty) their attitudes towards each other. Of course, that won't happen until Snape gets over Harry grossly invading his privacy by looking in the Pensieve, and Harry getting over blaming Snape for Sirius's death. I think Snape will get over it, and I think Harry will realize that blaming Snape was just a grief fuel effort to try and make some sense out of what happened, and keep him from facing his own guilt. So, I see this 'softening' happening about page 400 in the next book, or about page 200 of the book after that. One final note, this reguards the Occlumency requirement to 'clear your mind'. I think that is in the 'Zen' or martial arts sense of the expression. In a sense, it means calm and unclutter your mind, because an aggitated cluttered mind is a weak mind, a distracted mind, and all those things make for a vulnerable person. That true in Zen-life and in martial arts, a cluttered emotional mind makes you weak, slow, and vulnerable. So during the lessons, Harry does need a clarity of focus in order to marshal the will to cut off the thoughts he doesn't want seen. When general thoughts are cascading by, he is distracted. Like I said would would be curious about these flashes of memories, who wouldn't likely stand there and watch them float by. Certainly, none of them are are harmful. They are afterall Harry's own memories and he has access to them all the time, the only difference is that this is a forced recall. So, Harry is mesmerized by these curious visions as we all would be. But when a vision occurs that Harry feels very strongly about, that he feels is very personal and private, his mind snaps out of the mesmerization very quick, he gathers his focus, and cuts off those visions. That snapping out of the mesmerized and gathering focus sounds very close to the way Harry resisted the Imperius Curse. But what Harry needs to do at night before he sleeps, while similar, is different. Here a cluttered and aggitated mind make for fitful and shallow sleep, and that makes him vulnerable to invasion. The shallow and fitful sleep leave him conscious enough to be invaded, but don't leave him conscious enough to resist the invasion. A deep comfortable sleep, on the other hand, would shut his mind down to the point where he couldn't be invaded. This is the one area where I am most critical of everyone supporting Harry's Occlumency efforts. You can all say that Harry didn't clear his mind before bed, but truthfully now, how many of you can do it? To lay down in bed angry, aggitated, worried, and scared, and to simply shut it down is next to impossible. Trying to will a mind not to think and feel is like trying to will the wind not to blow; it just can't be done. Most of us in that same state of mind would toss and turn all night, assuming we could get to sleep at all, and would, with out a doubt, wake completely unrefreshed. But there are common simple techniques that everyone should have known about, that could have been suggested to help Harry here. I've listed them before, and amoung them are, deep breathing excersizes, meditation, creative visualization, or something as simple are reading a light engaging distracting book before bed. Of course, ultimately the authored need it to go all wrong because, she needed specific event to happen. It's simple to justify in the external world. In the internal world, I think a lot of people fell short, not just Harry and Snape. One last thought, without a doubt Snape was caught between a rock and a hard place. Given our assumed roll of Snape as a spy against Voldemort, and our assumed continued contact (direct or indirect) between Snape and Voldemort/Death_Eaters, the absolute last thing he and Harry should have been doing was swapping memories. Seems like it could be extremely dangerous for everyone, if any of those unlikely memories should leak out at some point in the future. It would be clear that both Harry and Snape had knowledge of things they couldn't and shouldn't have knowledge off. I'm confident that that particular story line will appear in the future. While this could all be extremely dangerous for Snape, I think Dumbledore made his best guess decision with the limited information he had available, and decided that, even with the risks, it was best to have Snape do it. Snape is afteral a master at keeping his memories and thoughts hidden. Unfortunately, while Harry does have some Occlumency ability, he is far far from a master at keeping his thoughts hidden. I guess I'm just trying to acknowledge that I can see what an incredibly awkard and dangerous position the Occulmency lesson put Snape in. Just a few random thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 21:24:50 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:24:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050125212450.52036.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123031 >>> Gerry wrote: >>> I think his detention was actually a good thing. He learned the >>> hard way how far people are willing to go, and with what they can >>> get away if they have the authority. So for his next actions, he >>> knew the risk. Too bad he did not manage to control his temper. >>> >>> Yes, I know he is fifteen years old. But getting all adolescent >>> is a really stupid thing to do if somebody has it in for you. >>> Especially if that somebody makes the rules. >> Lupinlore replied: >> This comment is so flabbergastingly out of line and downright >> immoral that I choose to believe you did not intend to make it. >> Kindly review what you have said and be more careful. > Dungrollin interjects: > > Stick to your guns, Gerry! > I am of exactly the same opinion - and I agree with McGonagall, > too. > If someone is in a position of power and authority and is bent on > making your life hell, giving them extra incentive to do it is > foolhardy. Nobody is defending Umbridge's actions in those > detentions, nor anywhere else. But Harry clearly wasn't listening > to > McGonagall because he went and did the same thing again almost > immediately afterwards. You're right, Gerry and Dungrollin too. It's worth remembering that when Umbridge was finally defeated by the staff and students of Hogwarts, it wasn't because they defied her. She knew how to handle defiance and was prepared for it. They successfully opposed her by taking her ridiculous rules to their illogical extreme. The teachers called on her constantly to put down fireworks with the result that she ran around the school all day and was exhausted. The students charmed the Quibbler so that they seemed to obey her rule not to read it and had she tried to enforce the rule she'd have had to check every item they owned to see if it was a charmed tabloid. Defiance did nothing except give Harry more physical pain. Know the enemy - first rule of warfare. Harry took a rather long time to figure that out. Magda __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 21:26:40 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:26:40 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123032 Renee: OotP looks more realistic, but well... how realistic can it be when it's about magic? When it's about a world of which we don't know all the rules, because new surprises tend to turn up around every bend? Of course there's such a thing as basic recognition, or we wouldn't be able to enjoy the books at all. But it remains difficult to know what is real, to know when RL criteria apply and when they're being discarded or toyed with for the sake of the story, or just for fun - precisely because we're given so very few rules to go by, and so much seems random. Almost as if the author wants to retain a way out of every corner she might inadvertently paint herself into. Maybe that's why so many of the discussions are about human behaviour: that's the area where we feel safest. I really hope I made myself clear. > Alla: Well, that point I would like to disagree with you, I suppose. When RW themes are brought up - it does not matter to me that it IS about magic, because then magic becomes to me just a setting, where recognisable RW themes, characters, emotions take place and that is exactly what happens in OOP IMO. Again, I am not sure how well JKR managed the transition, but I don't see mauch of fairytale aspect ona deeper level of OOP. Just my opinion, Alla From gbannister10 at aol.com Tue Jan 25 21:39:20 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:39:20 -0000 Subject: Fairy tale v real life Was: Re: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123033 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: Pippin: > I love the way Harry is making the transition from magical, > fairytale thinking to a more realistic view of the world. I think > it's very realistic that he has not made that transition completely. > Some of the people he knows, he still thinks of in a childish > black-and-white way, while he has come to a more grownup > view of others. Geoff: I think Pippin has put her finger on it. We are seeing Harry's journey from childhood to manhood through his eyes. As children, we saw the world in clear bright colours with grown ups fitting into the catergories of friendly and kind or nasty and to be avoided. This was reinforced by the stories we read. The goOd were good and the bad werE bad and wore black hats. In message 118574, when we were discussing CapsLock!Harry, I wrote: We meet Harry as a na?ve, uncertain 11 year old in 1991. At that time, many boys of that age would be in the same situation. Up to that age, their thinking had been very much guided by their family; they usually conformed to the structure of the family. Boys of that age still see the world very much in black and white; things are good or bad. I remember, when my school was about to change from 11+ intake to a 13 year old intake, having a conversation with my Headmaster, who was a very wise old bird ? definitely in the Dumbledore mould. I said that I could see potential problems with boys coming in at Third Year level because we usually gained the loyalty and support of the First Years without any hassle but I could anticipate that, being two years older, they would probably be more streetwise and likely to question what was going on. My headmaster's perceptive comment about the First Year boys was something like "True. When they are at the age of 11, they haven't lost their sense of wonderment or magic." In my opinion therefore, Harry was not unusual at this age. He was quiet and reserved, not many close friends. So was I. I was a bit of a swot; I enjoyed finding out about things and wasn't particularly athletic. Harry also wasn't completely angelic. Although he kept his head down, metaphorically and physically, at Privet Drive, he obviously had his views which were sometimes a little "wicked". We see him in PS thinking of Dudley as a pig in a wig and he allowed himself to visualise Dudley resembling one of the gorillas at the Zoo. When he is annoyed or stressed, his wandless reflex magic surfaces from time to time. In COS, he has great fun frightening Dudley with his wand and he certainly produces a couple of sarcastic replies for Aunt Marge in POA. So there is certainly a spark present waiting to be triggered off! What about him in OOTP? I said earlier that at 11, things are black and white. It is as we approach our teens that the grey areas begin to creep in. People we have looked up to as marvellous ? maybe even parents or grandparents ? suddenly have occasions when they let us down, embarrass us and try to continue directing our lives as they did when we were younger. Teens want room to flex their muscles ? physically, behaviourally and socially ? and like to spend time pushing at the barriers and seeing if they can be prised open a little further. And with it can come the tempers and the outbursts. I know about that ? I had red hair (then!). It is here that the world begins to lose its clean shiny look and sometimes takes on a rather weathered and gritty look. It is here that hero Dumbledore begins to develop feet of clay; it is here that Harry sees the pain that Neville hides and his hatred for Voldemort deepens; it is here that we see the complex interweaving of themes which makes us consider - and even doubt - the motivations of so many characters both good and bad. The transition from fairy tale to real life mirrors the journey which we have all experienced at times when we turn a corner in our life story and see the page become smudged and blotted despite our best sttempts to keep it clean and tidy. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 22:10:57 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:10:57 -0000 Subject: Fairy tale v real life Was: Re: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123034 Geoff Bannister: almost complete snip of wonderful post The transition from fairy tale to real life mirrors the journey which we have all experienced at times when we turn a corner in our life story and see the page become smudged and blotted despite our best sttempts to keep it clean and tidy. Alla: Oh, Geoff. That was beatiful. ( I know I seem to be saying it a lot to you lately). In fact, I was even sorry to snip your post. I don't have a problem with Harry's journey. In fact, I think it has been handled amazingly well. Growing up, we do discover that world had more greyness than we thought earlier. I thought I was finally clear what was my problem with "fairy tale v realistic issue", but now I am confused all over. Let me try again. I think I have a problem with text while showing some characters' actions as realistic, still evaluating their actions in caricature manner. Let see how this interpretation will hold water. JMO, Alla From a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 22:13:10 2005 From: a_b_desert_king at hotmail.com (a_b_desert_king) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:13:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's Meyers- Briggs type( was : More on Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" <> > Tonks here; > > I had a boss once who was an INTJ and she was a living hell to work > for. Nasty... she would make Snape look like a Saint!! I like to > think that Harry is an INFP too. Intuitive and Feeling meets > Intuitive and Thinking. One sees the other as cold and uncaring. > That one sees the other as wearing their heart on their sleeve. > > THAT WOMAN I worked for. I just hated her and felt guilty for it > too. She was emotionally abusive. I would go home in tears or rage. > One day I came up with a way to keep her from getting to me. I guess > it was Occumency!! I put up a protective barrier around my > heart/mind. I would not let her insults in. I turned off my feeling > part when around her so she could not hurt me. And much to my shock > she knew it. She said to me one day "I feel a wall, like you have > put up a wall and I can not get in". How right she was!!! She could > sense it I guess because she was also intuitive. An intuitive that > is without feeling is a dangerous person in my option. They would > make a good spy, or a good DE. They could do what ever nasty thing > needed to be done without feeling bad about it. snip > > Now here is another thing that THAT WOMAN and Snape have in common. > Much to my surprise, in spite of her intelligence, and intuition she > did not really know the impact that her behavior had on others. big snip of great post > So I guess in > Snapes class I would have passed my OWLS with 100%, even with him in > the room. > > Tonks_op Heather here: I had to laugh - I too agree that Snape is an INTJ. I am an INFJ (most likely to have ESP of all the types) and I was married to an INTJ for 11 years. The last 8 of those years were Hell. He was very controlling, manipulative, and believed the best way to make himself look/feel better about himself was to put those around him down. My X always told me that it didn't matter whether a decision was right or wrong - as long as the person could justify the decision to him, it was right (sounds slytherin- like now that I think about it). As well the phrases "preferring that events and people serve some positive use" and "authority based on position, rank or publication has absolutely no force". Doesn't that sound like our Sevvie? As for how I eventually evolved in our marriage - I had no self confidence, thought I was a terrible mother (I had been told so many times), believed that I could do nothing on my own without his assistance or permission (when I tried it was never good enough) and had no friends of my own - they all ran away when they met him. I empathize a lot with Neville! But away from him now, I am a strong person of character and people turn to me often as they can trust and depend on me. Yes, I learned alot about myself thanks to him.... So yes, I have hope for the character of Neville and Harry when they can get away from their tormentor. Heather From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 25 13:56:17 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:56:17 -0000 Subject: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123036 > Trekkie: > I think his rejection of Lily's help was the general defense pattern popping up. The "don't let anyone get close enough - emotionally - to hurt you later. And given his upbringing, he DID have (and possibly has still) prejudices agaist mudbloods. Gerry: I think there might be something else. Lily is not helping him, that would means they would work together. She is trying to protect him. Probably Lily pities him. I don't know if anybody ever was on the receiving end of protection or pity from people who ought to be your equals, but it can be just as humiliating as being bullied. If anything, Lily acknowledges James' superiority over Snape, she does not trust him to fight his own fight. She also asserts (not meaning to I'm sure) her own superiority over Snape, at least in his eyes by placing herself above him. As for getting too close: that someone defends you against a bully does not mean they want to be your friend. That people don't like bullying does not mean they want to have anything to do with Snape. If Snape was really as unpopular throughout his youth and teenage years as is suggested in OoP he will have learned that lesson quite well. Gerry From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 22:31:39 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:31:39 -0000 Subject: Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123037 >>Tonks writes: >I am not saying that the Dursley's are wonderful people. I am saying that they are not as terrible as everyone thinks that they are. Harry hasn't had much in the way of material things and material things do not mean anything to him as a result. That is not a bad thing; in fact in some circles it is a very good thing. Harry is alive and well, so he was not starved. Harry is not a fat, little indulged pig like Dudley, and that is a very good thing.< >>Nicky Joe (I think?): >So as long as Harry is still breathing and has no bruises or broken bones, he isn't being abused. That's precisely the attitude of many CPS administrations in this country, which is why so many kids are left in deplorable conditions. Granted, there are only enough resources to help the most serious cases and that is how it is justified. In my opinion, abuse is abuse, regardless of degree of severity.< Betsy: I'm going to agree with Tonks here. And let me give a bit of my background, because I think it's relevent. I work in a law office in a small rural area in the SouthEastern United States. Our CPS is *very* vigilant, and has strong support from the judges in our area. They've investigated families with very little to go on, just a suspicion raised by school teachers, etc. The lawyers in our firm have represented children and families on both sides of the issue. So when I say that the CPS would be hard pressed to show actual, actionable abuse on the part of the Dursleys against Harry, I'm basing that opinion on cases I've seen pass through our office. I'm not a lawyer myself however, so my grasp of the law could be wrong. (And it's sort of moot anyway, 'cause this ain't England, but there you are.) Harry is not medically starving. He's small for his age in PS/SS, yes. But Draco Malfoy is described as being of similar build, and I don't think anyone would argue he's been starved. In OotP I think he's just a few inches shorter than his dad, so Harry's growth hasn't been adversly affected by lack of meals. Which means that while he's not fed like Dudley - he's not literally starved. Of course, food is used as a punishment, either by taking it away, or giving more to Dudley, and Harry is rarely full, which I agree is wrong, but I don't remember Harry ever being described as faint and dizzy from lack of food. (I could be wrong of course - please point me to canon!) Without a medical report showing the adverse affects of malnutrition, I don't know if a case could be made here. The fact that Dudley got ice-cream and Harry didn't does not fall under abuse by most standards. The cupboard and the locked and barred room is another story. There's a fire hazard issue with at least the locked room, and I *know* the judges in my area would have a problem with Harry living in a cupboard. However, I don't think they'd remove Harry from the Dursley's. Rather, they'd insist that he's given an actual room. His clothes are hand-me-downs, but they're clean, and he's clean. No obvious neglect here. And yes, Harry does chores around the house while Dudley lazes about. But again, Harry is not overworked for his age. Petunia seems to be responsible for the house and garden, and when she gives Harry work to do it almost seems of the make-work type designed to keep him out of her hair. Again, this is not kind at all to Harry, and it's decidedly unfair, but I cannot call it abuse. I've seen cases where children were sent to school soaked in their own urine, where children were punched by grown adults as a form of discipline, and where children were dumped on strangers and left for weeks at a time. I won't go into the sexual mistreatment. But *that* is abuse, and to me, comparing what those kids have gone through with what Harry endures at the Dursleys is almost disrespectful. Harry is badly treated, yes. And I think it may be fear of the neighbors that keeps the Dursleys from sliding into more reprehensible behavior, which says something about their character. But, I think we should be careful about throwing the word "abuse" around. Of course, this is only my opinion. >>Tonks again: >And DD had to put Harry with Patunia to protect Harry, it was the only way.< >>Nicky Joe: >I have extreme doubts about it being "the only way". I think it was the easiest way and DD is as guilty as the rest of us for choosing it when anything else would have been difficult. (And because JKR made him do it because it was better for the story.)< Betsy: The easiest way? I've never seen a more reluctant group than Dumbledore, Hagrid and McGonagall when Harry was left on the Dursley doorstep. And as per Dumbledore the ancient magic Lily used to protect Harry was the one branch of magic that Voldemort dismissed. Dumbledore doesn't even say that Voldemort was unaware of the ancient magic, he just had a contempt for it that caused him to underestimate it. Folks have been giving Dumbledore a hard way to go on the Dursley issue, but seriously - what was the other option? I'd love to know. >>Nicky Joe: >Why is it that Harry's single happiest moment was the thought of being able to live with Sirius? Was it because Sirius was so fabulous? I think it more likely that it was because the Dursley's were so horrid. I believe if Harry had been stuck with the Dursley's too much longer, he would have found life on the streets to be preferable and ended up another teenage runaway.< Betsy: Harry *does* become another teenage runaway - in PoA, when he's picked up by the Knight Bus. And interestingly enough, it wasn't the Dursley's who pushed him over the edge, it was Aunt Marge - who I think *would* have been horribly abusive of Harry if she ever got her hands on him. (A little too eager to hear about Harry being caned for my taste. *shudder*) I'm not, and I don't think Tonks is either, arguing that life with the Dursley's was sunshine and daisies. They were and are quite horrible to Harry, and they have very little excuse for their behavior. However, Harry was not as ill-treated as all that. >>JMM writes: >I realize in all that this is just a story but...I always wondered why social services of some type didn't step in. I realize that there were no outer signs of abuse such as bruises or broken bones but -- teachers must have questioned the fact that one child in the family has everything and the other doesn't even have clothing that fits and broken glasses.< Betsy: I really don't think there were any signs for the teachers to pick up on. Harry never passed out (as far as we've been told) from lack of hunger, and he's not outrageously skinny. His clothes are hand-me- downs, but I think it'd be hard to compare the biggest kid in class with the smallest. (Dudley certainly couldn't wear Harry's hand-me- downs.) Also, I doubt it's unusual for boys of that age to have broken glasses, just from the usual rough-housing, etc. I think Pippen also pointed out that Harry may have been seen as a trouble maker, what with the climbing onto the school roof, and turning his teacher's hair (or was is it a wig?) blue. Dudley, on the other hand, has shown an ability to suck-up when he wants to, so the teachers may have seen Harry as the problem child and Dudley as the angel. >>Nicky Joe: >I'll bet Harry had plenty of bruises from Dudley pounding on him. Betsy: I think Dudley probably had a hard time catching Harry. And when he was in real danger, Harry's magic would kick in. I'm betting Dudley was unable to get beyond normal bullying behavior. Of course, this isn't great for Harry, always having to be on alert, and knowing he'll be pinched or punched or stuck in a toilet if he gets caught, does not make for fun school days. Again, I really want to make clear that I'm in no way condoning the Dursley's behavior towards Harry - I just don't think he was abused. Not in the full meaning of that word. Betsy From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 14:32:51 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:32:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Fairy tale v real life (was: Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050125143251.5574.qmail@web61207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123038 SSSusan says: >Allow the fairytale, symbolic, don't-try-to- >analyze-this-as-real-life view of things, but then also have us see >it all as realistic. Have we shifted to "realistic" or is it a >mishmash of realistic and fairytale? Arynn replies: I think this is one of the reasons that children are so enamoured of Potter. The fact that it?s ?just real enough.? That there could be this magical world hidden in their world, and if they look hard enough they might even notice a wizard walking down their street. That?s why (IMHO) there are references to real life things (King?s Cross, Manchester United), to make it seem like this ?could be real?. It get children to look for "magic" (id est: "miracles") in real life. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 14:59:24 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 06:59:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050125145925.34258.qmail@web61202.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123039 Valky says: >Why does he have hearty fellowship with these *superficially well >behaved* people who he knows would as soon stab you from behind as >look at you, if he's afraid of being hurt? What *does* he believe >in, and is he as confused as he looks, or is he as superficial as >we don't want him to be? Arynn hypothesizes: I think that since Snape is distrustful, he distrusts trustful people. (Is that enough double talk?) I don?t think he can understand the concept that people can be motivated by honourable selfless reasons (He is a Slytherin after all), so he finds it easier to relate to people who think like he does. I do like his character tremendously, but he is not a nice guy, even if he is a good guy. --Arynn (loves both Lupin and Snape) From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Tue Jan 25 23:12:48 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:12:48 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? (longish) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123040 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla: > >When > RW themes are brought up - it does not matter to me that it IS about > magic, because then magic becomes to me just a setting, where > recognisable RW themes, characters, emotions take place and that is > exactly what happens in OOP IMO. > > Again, I am not sure how well JKR managed the transition, but I don't > see mauch of fairytale aspect ona deeper level of OOP. > Renee: Oh, "fairytale" shouldn't be taken too litterally, but "fantastic literature laden with symbolism" (or something in that vein) is such a mouthful... To me, magic is not just a setting like any other. As I said, we don't exactly know the rules. Did you foresee what the veil in the Death room would do before Sirius fell through? Many readers felt not just sad because Sirius died, but also disoriented because of the way he died (a bit like Harry, who *is* our vicarious explorer of the WW but asks disappointingly few general questions). Compare this to a story about two people fighting close to the edge of a precipice, and it should become clear there's at least some difference. The characters and emotions are the elements that provide the recognition without which we couldn't relate to this story and its characters. But why introduce magic, why fill these books with symbols (the animal symbolism alone is overwhelming), just to provide a decorative and amusing backcloth? There's a lot going on underneath the surface that we won't pick up by merely looking at psychological, social and political developments. According to JKR, the big question of OotP is why DD didn't kill Voldemort when he had the chance. We know that Harry is destined to vanquish Voldemort or be vanquished. Between these two, do you think a mundane conclusion to the story is very likely? By the way, I agree with what Pippin and Geoff say about the more realistic tone of OotP reflecting a development in Harry's world view. In fact, I claimed something similar in message #118155 concerning Harry's changing perception of Dumbledore. Still, the setting as such hasn't changed, the magic works like it did before, the symbols are still there, and the first books are still different in tone. And it's when the more realistic interpretation invited by OotP is projected back onto the earlier, less realistic books, that you get this transition problem. Which is why a more symbolic interpretation seems so promising to me: it has a better chance to keep the whole series together. Renee From bob.oliver at cox.net Tue Jan 25 23:24:50 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:24:50 -0000 Subject: Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123041 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy: > The easiest way? I've never seen a more reluctant group than > Dumbledore, Hagrid and McGonagall when Harry was left on the Dursley > doorstep. And as per Dumbledore the ancient magic Lily used to > protect Harry was the one branch of magic that Voldemort dismissed. > Dumbledore doesn't even say that Voldemort was unaware of the ancient > magic, he just had a contempt for it that caused him to underestimate > it. > > Folks have been giving Dumbledore a hard way to go on the Dursley > issue, but seriously - what was the other option? I'd love to know. That argument may perhaps work for leaving Harry with the Dursleys to begin with (although I'm not about to concede that point). It most emphatically does not explain, however, why he took no steps to alleviate Harry's suffering during the next ten years. Would a Howler saying "Let the kid out of the closet" be out of the question. More pointendly, why can't the greatest wizard in the world say "Mushrooms are wonderful things. Why don't you let Harry have more? Of course, perhaps you need to be one for a while to appreciate just how wonderful they are." His failure to take exactly these kind of actions is where Dumbledore cooperates with the Dursleys abuse of Harry (and yes, it most definitely IS abuse, even if not legally actionable). Lupinlore From casil30 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 19:55:26 2005 From: casil30 at yahoo.com (Lisa C.) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:55:26 -0000 Subject: Why I like Ginny! Quotes and more...(long) In-Reply-To: <20050125164402.78348.qmail@web54604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123042 Vivamus: > -- not at all because Ginny was clever enough to do that without being caught. Ellyddan: > I have to agree its not surprising to think of a Weasley being clever enough to do any of these things. We've certainly watched her older brothers display such talents. My only qualm is that the hints of her following in their footsteps before this book are few and far between. Its just too convenient for my taste. Casil: I think that JKR is finally writing her character as a normal teenage girl and forcing her brothers to look at her as more grown-up. In her first year of school, Mrs. Weasley was holding her hand in Diagon Alley. Ginny would have been almost 12 here. I have identical twin nieces who are almost 12, they would gladly die before allowing me to hold their hand in a public street. In GoF, Fred grabbed her hand before running into the woods, she would have been almost 14 at the time. When Mrs. Weasley is facing the boggart in OotP, she sees every one of her family members as dead, even Harry, except for Ginny. My opinion on this is that she doesn't see Ginny as anything more than a child and therefore doesn't think that she will have to worry about Ginny dieing in the war against Voldemort. I, for one, am glad to see Ginny growing up to be pure Weasley and very glad to see her being written at her real age level. Finally! Casil ---who is very glad to know that she isn't the only one who rambles. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Tue Jan 25 22:02:08 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:02:08 -0000 Subject: Why I like Ginny! Quotes and more...(long) In-Reply-To: <200501250539239.SM01312@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123043 Vivamus: > I look for her to be revealed as a Parselmouth or something similar at some point in the future. I think you are revealing a personal bias, though, when you say that you "pray her role isn't HP's LI". God, I may destroy my books if Ginny ends up a parseltongue. I think Jk couldn't do anything else that would make me hate the whole story more than that. I think what'll happen is Voldemort's transformation wasn't completed and he's going to need whatever's trapped in Ginny in order to finish it. some piece of him that was missing, but present in the diaries essence. I freely admit that I don't like Ginny as Harry's LI. based on Book five shes already starting to become as domineering as her mother and the last thing I want for my favorite character is to end up as henpecked and brow beaten as Arthur Weasley. Molly has him on leash so tight its pathetic. that'll be what happens if Harry ends up with Ginny IMO. Vivamus: > JKR can do whatever she wants, but Ginny has certainly been set up from book 1 as a potential love interest for Harry. It might be yet another red herring on JKR's part, but it would be a *lot* more subtle than her others, and it doesn't seem likely at all to me. I think that Harry's LI will be someone that Jk hasn't setup yet. I'm guessing Susan Bones for no apparent reason other than thats what my instincts say. I doubt it'll be Ginny because so Harry hasn't exhibited any attraction to her. Hell we saw Cho coming from three books away. No such animal with interactions between Ginny. Vivamus: > As to the sneaking out the brooms and flying them, I grew up in a large family, and I can tell you from personal experience, that kids get away with far more things like that in big families than in small ones, and the farther down the chain of siblings a child is, the better s/he is likely to be at avoiding being caught. You could be right about that. I grew up in a small family where my sister and I were far enough apart in age that we both got our parents undivided attention. but my mom wasn't an overprotective witch either. I can't believe there weren't charms on the doors or windows letting molly and arthur know when their kids were out of bed. for Merlins sake, there are wards at Hogwarts to make sure boys don't visit the girls' dorms. You're telling me that pureblooded parents can't whistle up an alarm charm strong enough to foil a six year old. Please. I think this is just another example of JK writing something without thinking through its logical ramifications first. Vivamus: > Ginny, a traitor? Yuck! It would be the greatest surprise since Luke I am your father in Empire. I think it would be great. Plus the young kids need a traitor of their very own and Neville is way too obvious. > Vivamus, who shudders to remember some of the things he did before the age of six (and didn't get caught) I didn't hit my stride until twelve, but between the fires, cops, and Catholic schoolgirls I caught up fast. *sigh* sometimes I miss my childhood. Ellyddan: > Here I have to disagree, I'm actually a bit disgruntled about the sudden reappearance of Ginny Weasley in Book Five. She doesn't appear of any interest besides a few asides in POA and GOF and suddenly she's almost a super-Ginny in OOTP. She can fly, she can cast excellent hexes at naughty Malfoys and has finally become a bit more of a firecracker. Not that I wouldn't expect a Weasley sister to have all these traits but to just suddenly develop them. I find it all too convenient. I think if Ginny was a parselmouth we would have had some sort of indication before (or perhaps I just demand it myself.) Where were you when I posted this very arguement four days ago? I could have used the backup from all these Ginny-lovers. Ellyddan: > Yes I doubt this will happen. She has been duped before I doubt you can pull the wool over her eyes a second time now. Again her past experience makes her a powerful ally to Harry now. I think Ginny will be a traitor only in darkfic fandom. Now Percy on the other hand... Naw, Percy is a plant for DD. I'm telling you watch out for Ginny. she's a wascally wabbit. You heard it here first folks. Susan Bones, HP love interest and Ginny!wormtail. Mark your calenders. Phoenixgod2000 From snow15145 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 23:53:17 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:53:17 -0000 Subject: Old prediction-New idea's? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123044 I found an old thread, pre-OOP, that had a prediction from our very own Pippin and was hoping to entice her into telling us if she still feels the same about the sword, as well as to kick around some new responses to an old idea. The post is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38061 Also check out the thread that follows especially post 38079! Snow From cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 25 22:10:25 2005 From: cyclone_61032 at yahoo.com (David & Laura) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:10:25 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: <20050125212450.52036.qmail@web53106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123045 Gerry wrote: > I think his detention was actually a good thing. He learned the hard way how far people are willing to go, and with what they can get away if they have the authority... Too bad he did not manage to control his temper. Lupinlore replied: > This comment is so flabbergastingly out of line and downright immoral that I choose to believe you did not intend to make it. Kindly review what you have said and be more careful. Dungrollin interjects: > Stick to your guns, Gerry! I am of exactly the same opinion - and I agree with McGonagall, too. If someone is in a position of power and authority and is bent on making your life hell, giving them extra incentive to do it is foolhardy. Magda: > You're right, Gerry and Dungrollin too. > It's worth remembering that when Umbridge was finally defeated by the staff and students of Hogwarts, it wasn't because they defied her. She knew how to handle defiance and was prepared for it. > They successfully opposed her by taking her ridiculous rules to their illogical extreme. The teachers called on her constantly to put down fireworks with the result that she ran around the school all day and was exhausted. The students charmed the Quibbler so that they seemed to obey her rule not to read it and had she tried to enforce the rule she'd have had to check every item they owned to see if it was a charmed tabloid. > Defiance did nothing except give Harry more physical pain. Know the enemy - first rule of warfare. Harry took a rather long time to figure that out. David now: I've been following this thread, as I do with most as a seasoned lurker, and thought I'd throw gas on the fire....having a can sitting here by the pc and all. Imagine OOTP if Harry had not defied Umbridge and the MOM. Imagine if Harry had not acted on his visions and charged in to save 'Sirius'. V'mort's plans would proceed unheeded. He could build his army and lay out the chess board in secret, thereby greatly improving his chance of victory and control. Yet again though, Harry's actions dealt him a serious shot to the gut. We can debate all the fine points and woulda/shoulda's, but the reality is now V'mort's exposed. The WW will be arming against him. The actions are now justified. If everyone had followed the rules, .....? David From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Jan 26 00:00:27 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:00:27 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123046 We are on yet another of our twice weekly Dumbledore/Dursley jags. I don't object, as I think this is one of the most crucial issues raised in the books. But there is a possible angle that never gets explored. The argument typically goes, "By not restraining the Dursleys DD is a party to their abuse," which is my position and that of several other people. The answer often is "What choice did he have?" To which the reply generally is "You mean to say that DD, the world's most powerful wizard, had no way to put pressure on a couple of Muggles?" To which the reply is usually "He's too noble," or "They would have thrown Harry out," or "We don't know enough." To which "my" side makes other replies and ....... But one question seldom asked is this. Suppose DD did not believe he could secure better treatment for Harry through threats or remonstrations or pressure. Let's not go into the arguments for or against, but just grant that for the moment. Why did he not simply BRIBE the Dursleys? As the Head of Hogwarts he must have access to considerable funds, not to mention Harry has considerable funds of his own. The goblins may keep a close watch on what goes on at the bank, but given the general ineptitude of the wizarding world its hard to believe anybody watches DD's accounts very closely. If he doesn't want to use money, its hard to imagine he could not use magic to deliver material advantages to the Dursleys. Yes, it is a violation of Wizarding Law. But it's impossible to believe Dumbledore couldn't have pulled that bit of larceny off. Besides, he countenances breaking rules and laws (he's sheltering a convicted murder in GoF and OOTP) on many other occasions, and if he refuses to bribe the Dursleys to prevent their abuse simply because of wizarding law he is a foul, mealy-mouthed old hypocrite. Just something I often wonder about. Lupinlore From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 26 00:34:27 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:34:27 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123047 Lupinlore: > > If he doesn't want to use money, its hard to imagine he could not use magic to deliver material advantages to the Dursleys. Yes, it is a violation of Wizarding Law. But it's impossible to believe Dumbledore couldn't have pulled that bit of larceny off. Besides, he countenances breaking rules and laws (he's sheltering a convicted murder in GoF and OOTP) on many other occasions, and if he refuses to bribe the Dursleys to prevent their abuse simply because of wizarding law he is a foul, mealy-mouthed old hypocrite. > Pippin: He certainly would be, since he had no objection to delivering some gifts for the Gurg. But bribes have a way of growing, and Dumbledore would have been looking at ten years of pay-offs. Not that he couldn't have afforded it, and as Harry notes to himself, he didn't think the Dursleys' objections to magic would extend to a pile of gold. But as I doubt the Dursleys could have restrained their greed for long, the Dursleys lifestyle would have improved to the point where the neighbours would have noticed, not to mention Inland Revenue. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 01:19:51 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:19:51 -0000 Subject: All about Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123048 Pippin wrote: > > Harry warns his class that they are not > prepared, even though some of them can do a corporeal > patronus, and says that they really need to be practicing with a > boggart. Carol responds: Forgive me for bringing up an old post here but I meant to respond to this before. Obviously having a Boggart!Dementor helped *Harry* to produce a corporeal Patronus when he faced a real Dementor, but how would practicing with Boggarts help anyone else really learn the spell? Is Neville supposed to cast a Patronus in response to Boggart!Snape or Ron to a Boggart!spider? They'd have to use Harry's boggart if they wanted a Boggart!Dementor, and that wouldn't work because the Boggart would get confused and keep changing its shape. Strange as it may seem, Harry has a built-in advantage in learning to cast a corporeal Patronus: His Boggart is exactly the one he needs to learn to cast the spell effectively when he's in peril from a real Dementor. No one else shares his worst fear or his advantage. Carol From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Wed Jan 26 01:50:17 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:50:17 +1100 Subject: Molly & Arthur - was Why I like Ginny! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123049 On Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 09:02 am, phoenixgod2000 wrote: > I freely admit that I don't like Ginny as Harry's LI. based on Book > five shes already starting to become as domineering as her mother > and the last thing I want for my favorite character is to end up as > henpecked and brow beaten as Arthur Weasley. Molly has him on leash > so tight its pathetic. that'll be what happens if Harry ends up with > Ginny IMO. I am beginning to have a slightly different perspective on this issue. I am beginning to see Arthur as someone who fails to step up to the plate a little too often. 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? At the beginning of the books he is held in high esteem in the Ministry & he's popular, but he LOVES his job. His family say he could have gone further but he didn't want to - a statement I personally took as face-saving loyalty at first. But I think it may have been true. 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 also seems to do all the discipline, leaving Arthur as the 'good guy'. I personally know several women who are frustrated to the nth degree because their partners avoid taking on the unpopular parts of childrearing. When a man refuses to step up to the plate this way, it leaves parental discipline as a game of 'good cop/bad cop', with the woman stuck as the bad one. This is bad for both parties, and for their partnership. 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. I am not saying it is all Arthur's fault - this is a pattern they made together. I am saying that I see faults in Arthur which work to draw out Molly's faults. I am also not saying that this is a bad marriage. All marriages have their flaws and after 20+ years there is still genuine love and friendship in this one, which puts it pretty high in the scale of good marriages. Jocelyn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 02:02:37 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:02:37 -0000 Subject: Snape at Godric's Hollow In-Reply-To: <00dd01c4fe58$f39f3150$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123050 Brothergib wrote: The feeling that I have never been able to shift, is that Snape WAS there at Godric's Hollow. If he was there, then I do not see how he could have been a spy at this point (Why wouldn't he have warned the OOTP about the impending attack - or previously about Peter's switch!). > > I think that Snape's Boggart would somehow illustrate what happened at Godric's Hollow and how it caused Snape's switch of allegiance. Carol responds: Dumbledore makes it clear in the GoF Pensieve scene (Karkaroff's testimony) that Snape became a spy well before Godric's Hollow. That does not mean that he was a member of the Order of the Phoenix--Sirius, who *was* a member, certainly doesn't know about his spy activities and he's not in the Order photograph. I think he was spying for DD only. It's also unlikely that he knew that Wormtail was the Order's spy given his refusal to believe Lupin's story in PoA and his stubborn belief that Sirius was a traitor and a murderer. I doubt very much that he was at Godric's Hollow or he would have rescued baby Harry himself. Wormtail, OTOH, *must* have been there or he could not have kept and hidden Voldemort's wand. IMO, Snape was already teaching at Hogwarts, teaching from the beginning of the term, when the Potters were killed. It's most unlikely that a vacancy would suddenly have opened just at the point when he needed it, when the Potters had been killed. He says that he's been teaching fourteen years, not almost fourteen years or fourteen years next month. And Snape, as the Potions Master, values precision. At any rate, it's clear that Godric's Hollow didn't cause Snape's change of allegiance. He was already spying on Voldemort and the Death Eaters--hard to do when Voldemort has been vaporized and the DEs are either being hunted down and arrested or claiming to have been Imperio'd. brothergib: I > > also believe that this {Godric's Hollow] is actually Snape's Worst Memory. We never saw the last memory of Snape's in the Pensieve!! Carol responds: Actually, we saw only one of three memories that Snape placed in the Pensieve. One might be the encounter with werewolf!Lupin when they were both sixteen; the other, as you say, is probably whatever made him leave the Death Eaters and switch to Dumbledore's side. I don't see how the Pensieve memories can come back into the plot, but I'm sure we'll find out the answer to that question. But IMO, it can't be Godric's Hollow. There's no way he could have been there without Wormtail knowing, and Wormtail would have happily found a way to pin the blame for his betrayal on Snape could he have done so. And there's no way he would not have known that Wormtail, not Sirius, was the traitor had he been there. Carol, who thinks that Snape learned about Voldemort's defeat through a change in his Dark Mark and informed Dumbledore immediately > > > > Finally, I believe that DD completely trusted Snape's story, but had > > to lie about Snape's previous work as a spy. No-one would beieve that > > Snape happened to change on the day that Voldemort was defeated. (I > > can't remember if there is any reference to Snape's presence in the > > Order other than from DD). > > .:Snapefan & Owl-collector:. From jferer at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 02:06:34 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:06:34 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123051 Lupinlore:"If he doesn't want to use money, its hard to imagine he could not use magic to deliver material advantages to the Dursleys." Pippin:"But bribes have a way of growing, and Dumbledore would have been looking at ten years of pay-offs. Not that he couldn't have afforded it, and as Harry notes to himself, he didn't think the Dursleys' objections to magic would extend to a pile of gold." Indeed. Heck, as far as we know it was only gold that restrained the Dursleys from further outrages in the first place; and we have to consider that the protective spells might not work if the protector is paid. Pippin:"But as I doubt the Dursleys could have restrained their greed for long, the Dursleys lifestyle would have improved to the point where the neighbours would have noticed, not to mention Inland Revenue." A business owner can usually hide the source of money coming in. Goodness knows it happens often enough on both sides of the ocean. Jim Ferer From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 02:10:49 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:10:49 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments - The Deadly Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123052 Tonks wrote: > Whatever it is that is in Harry LV needs back. > Hummm... Is it his power that went into Harry? (I don't like the > sound of that, because I never liked the ideas that Harry would have > to give up his powers and live as a Muggle in order to defeat LV.) Carol responds: He wouldn't have to give up all his powers, only those that came from LV. He'd still have the powers he was born with as the child of a powerful witch and wizard, including the ability to play Quidditch. Carol From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Tue Jan 25 21:27:13 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:27:13 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123053 SSSusan: > You're correct that he "knows" these things. OTOH, what he doesn't > know is the "why" behind all of them. WHY were the Dementors sent? > WHY was his trial rigged? WHY does Fudge seem to dislike him so > much? WHY won't they believe him? It's obvious to us readers, but I > don't think it's obvious to Harry. Well, now it's my turn not to agree : ). He has seen the way Fudge reacted at the end of GoF for a start. And in OoP it is explained to him in his first night at Grimmauld Place: p. 89 Oop (Bloomsbury Hardcover edition) 'How can he think that?' said Harry angrily. How can he think Dumbledore would just make it all up - that I'd make it all up? 'Because accepting that Voldemort's back would mean trouble like the Ministry hasn't had to cope with for nearly fourteen years,' said Sirius bitterly. 'Fudge just can't bring himself to face it. It's so much more comfortable to convince himself Dumbledore's lying to destabilise him.' Here it is actually spelled out to him. Further proof of this he gets in his trial. SSSusan: > So in one way I agree with you that Harry is to blame, but not > fully. His being kept in the dark contributed to his > inability/unwillingness to follow directives. But MM certainly did > better than DD in at least trying to help Harry understand. *And* > she offered him biscuits. :-) She sure did. But I don't think DD's mistake is really that huge as a lot of people make it. He could have done better. It would have been more fair to Harry, and probably would also have helped a bit, sure. But in every occasion Harry has enough information to put two and two together, he still behaves like a spoiled teenager who wants to get his own way. The way Harry is in OoP I don't believe for example Dumbledore explaining to him the value of Occlumency would have been enough to counteract Harry's own idea that his dreams would be valuable, as was the case with Arthur and the Snake. Dungrollin interjects: > Stick to your guns, Gerry! > I am of exactly the same opinion - and I agree with McGonagall, too. > If someone is in a position of power and authority and is bent on > making your life hell, giving them extra incentive to do it is > foolhardy. Nobody is defending Umbridge's actions in those > detentions, nor anywhere else. But Harry clearly wasn't listening to > McGonagall because he went and did the same thing again almost > immediately afterwards. Thanks. Exactly! Dungrollin: > Using his brain, listening to Hermione and McGonagall, and resisting > Umbridge's reign *in secret* was the sensible thing to do, and was > what he ended up doing anyway. But it appears that he wouldn't > consider that anybody else has a better understanding of the > situation than he, and has to go through the whole horrible week's- > worth of detentions again, before finally he learns to keep his head > down. Evidently he needed two weeks of hellish detentions to make > him take Umbridge seriously, because explaining it to him didn't > work. What's immoral about that? It was even worse. The score until detention: - he had dementors after him - he got a letter from the MoM he was expelled for using underage magic for defending his life and saving Dudley's - he got a trial the MoM tried every way they could to rig - the MoM was perfectly willing to ignore a dementor attack if that attack was meant for Harry Potter. Bill explained to him Fudge's position, and even that together with all this first hand experience was not sufficient to make clear to him that Fudge would rather see him dead than being believed. Fortunately for Harry he sent a petty sadist to Hogwarts, and she managed what real danger could not. Make him careful of the MoM. Make him finally believe that they meant business. That he should use his head to get around them, if he wanted to be able to use his wand in the next confrontation with LV. Lupinlore: > It is my hope that Gerry actually meant to say something closer to > the second meaning and not the first. Thus, as I said, I choose to > believe that he did not mean what he actually said, and request that > he be much more careful in the future. I'm sorry but I'm not into political correctness. I meant exactly what I said, and will do so again in the future. Good and nice are not the same thing. Sometimes the good thing is nasty, and the nice thing is bad for you. Those detentions were a very good thing, in themselves. Not something 'horrible but with some good coming out of it.' They were his wake up call. No matter how unpleasant and nasty they were, they made him finally understand how dangerous his situation really was, what the real danger he had been in before had not managed to. Apparently he needed a more hands on experience with injustice and pain to get that message across, and the detentions did that job quite nicely. Since the detentions he actually understands what Umbridge is capable of, and with what she can get away with. And that if he himself does not keep his head down, he will lose his place at Hogwarts, there will be no adult to protect him. Not nice, but it is the reality he has to live in. If Umbridge had not been a petty sadist, she would have been far more dangerous to him. He would have had a normal detention, would still not have believed that shouting out the truth would not make any difference at all. And would very likely have lost his wand the next time he did something heroic but very much against the rules. Besides I don't think they were horrible. Getting dementors after you is horrible. Getting the MoM that's supposed to protect you trying to expel you for defending yourself is horrible. Getting that same MoM to give you a criminal trial in which they do their utmost to get you convicted for defending yourself is horrible. Getting your MoM ignoring that dementors were after you is horrible. What Umbridge does with her detention is just petty evil. Not nice, not at all. But nothing compared to what happened to him during the Summer. Nicky Joe: > And just how many times does Voldemort have to try and kill him > before he picks up the clue phone and runs off to hide? I can't > believe anyone would think it a bad idea that he stand up to > Umbridge. Yeah, maybe it was stupid, but at least he made the > attempt! At least he tried to get through to that little evil > peabrain of hers. He's fought Voldemort, for crying out loud! why > should he be afraid to stand up to a teacher? Especially when she's > dead wrong? Oh wait, is this another one of those "repect for > authority" things? I have issues there... Well, Maybe because this teacher is actively looking for ways to get him expelled. Which means losing his wand and thus most of his magic. Which is a really bad thing if he wants to be able continue fighting Voldemort. Alla: > I think that text does not encourage "submission" to Umbridge either. > We clearly see at the end that Fred and George resistance is > approved by all teachers and they are greeted as heroes. > > I admire that Harry stood up to Umbridge. He did what good person is > supposed to do when faced with evil, IMO. I'm sorry I don't agree. Fred and George are of age and therefore they can afford to leave Hogwarts. They do so before she can expel them, and they actively pursue this course. They also have something to go to. Harry is a minor, and therefore subject to the department of underage magic. He cannot quit Hogwarts, without losing his place in the magical world. And if the prophecy is correct, deliver the magical world to Voldemort in the process. For him standing up to Umbridge openly is not a safe thing to do. And doing it in class is not a worthwhile effort, because it will have no effect at all except Harry getting more punishment. Organizing the DA is. Giving the interview also. But these are not as much actions against Umbridge as actions against LV. Here he chooses not to let Umbridge stand in the way of the higher purpose. The purpose is clear and has a chance of succeeding. Harry is aware of the risks and takes them willingly and with conviction. But standing up to Umbridge because she is evil? No, for Harry that is not a good thing to do. It may cost them the war against LV. Sometimes you have to keep out of things for the greater good. Gerry (female) From stonehenge.orders at verizon.net Wed Jan 26 02:31:33 2005 From: stonehenge.orders at verizon.net (kjirstem) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:31:33 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123054 lupinlore wrote: > Why did he not simply > BRIBE the Dursleys? kjirstem: Seems to me that paying the Dursley's to treat Harry better is pretty close to paying them to take him into their house. To me it seems likely that bribery would negate the blood protection charm that allowed Harry safety at the Dursley's house. After all, could he really have called it his home if they were paid to take him in? From editor at texas.net Wed Jan 26 02:39:47 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:39:47 -0000 Subject: So why NOT go mad? Was why should he listen, etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123055 David delurked to observe: > > Imagine OOTP if Harry had not defied Umbridge and the MOM. Imagine > if Harry had not acted on his visions and charged in to > save 'Sirius'. > > V'mort's plans would proceed unheeded. He could build his army and > lay out the chess board in secret, thereby greatly improving his > chance of victory and control. But central to Voldemort's plans was obtaining the prophecy. If Harry had not acted on his visions, Voldemort would have continued manipulating whatever he could, in scenarios internal to Harry and otherwise, to get Harry to the MoM to take down the prophecy. And hardly unheeded: canon evidence is strong in hinting that they have at least one spy in Voldemort's ranks and a pretty good clue to what's going on. > Yet again though, Harry's actions dealt him a serious shot to the > gut. > > We can debate all the fine points and woulda/shoulda's, but the > reality is now V'mort's exposed. The WW will be arming against him. > > The actions are now justified. If everyone had followed the > rules, .....? It might have taken longer, I'll give you that. And several DEs were caught. But I don't think your black/white conclusions are quite so cut and dried. Interesting thought: if anyone but Voldemort or Harry took down the prophecy, they would go mad. Well, *none* of these devoted DEs are willing to do this for their master? Surely one of them could take it down, go mad, and another could then safely carry it to Voldemort? Why such solicitousness on his part for his followers' sanity? ~Amanda From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 02:50:33 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:50:33 -0000 Subject: LV's experiments (Changeling!Harry varient theory) In-Reply-To: <20050120035451.17321.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123056 Carol earlier: > > > > > Is there any evidence to indicate that Voldemort wasn't already snake-faced in VW1? > > Juli: > In CoS Tom Riddle is described as good looking, and I > can't see why a snake could be handsome in any way. > Carol responds: Yes, but he undergoes about twenty-five years of transformations between the time he leaves Hogwarts in 1945 and the time he returns ca. 1970. Dumbledore says that he was unrecognizable at that point. My impression is that the Voldemort of VW1 looks exactly like at the Voldemort end of Gof--when he has his body back. If he had been handsome during VW1 and now looked like a snake, how would his followers recognize him and why would they follow him? He must have looked like a snake then, too. Carol From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 03:38:00 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:38:00 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123057 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kjirstem" wrote: > > lupinlore wrote: > > > Why did he not simply BRIBE the Dursleys? > > kjirstem wrote: > > Seems to me that paying the Dursley's to treat Harry better is pretty close to paying them to take him into their house. To me it seems likely that bribery would negate the blood protection charm that allowed Harry safety at the Dursley's house. Tonks now: DD does not bribe the Dursley's because he is a wise man who is too good and too noble to do that sort of thing. Period. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 03:55:53 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:55:53 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123058 Carol wrote: > > huge snip > > Oh, and Snape kept his emotions under remarkable control most of the > time, as I've illustrated in previous posts. It's only in the > Pensieve scene that he lost it--and that, too, is mostly Harry's > fault, as you have conceded in other posts. > > > Alla: > > I must have been REALLY unclear in my previous posts if you made > such conclusion and for that I apologise. I don't remember conceding > ANYWHERE that the only time Snape lost it was the Pensieve scene. > In fact, I think he kept his emotions under quite poor control > during Occlumency lessons. > > > I remember saying that Harry's nose did not belong in the Pensieve, > that is true, but from that I did not make the conclusion that it > was mostly Harry's fault that Snape went crazy. I blame that solely > on Snape's anger management issues. > > How about saying " Get out" and be done with it? No, I'd say Snape > still has plenty of "inner DE" to get under control. > > > Just my opinion, > > Alla Carol rsponds: You misread me. I meant your concession that Harry's invasion of the Pensieve (not Snape's anger afterwards) is mostly his own fault. But you also conceded that Snape's remark about the stinging hex ("Well, that was not as bad as it might have been") was praise coming from Snape, and that wasn't the only instance in which Snape praised Harry. He did so again after his own memories had been revealed through the involuntary Protego (Shield Charm)--and surely, for Snape, that illustrates remarkable control. I guess we'll just have to agree to differ about the degree of control Snape managed during the Occlumency lessons. I sure don't want to hunt up all those quotes again! Just as an aside, I know that in dealing with children I have kept my patience for hours and hours and then suddenly lost it when I just couldn't take any more. I don't mean hitting or abusing but just finally showing the anger that I've been bottling up in an effort to be patient and understanding. And if it's that hard for me, if must be really hard for Snape. Carol, who is glad that no one judges her as harshly as we judge these fictional characters From juli17 at aol.com Wed Jan 26 04:00:06 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 23:00:06 EST Subject: Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123059 Becky wrote: > I've seen cases where children were sent to school soaked in their > own urine, where children were punched by grown adults as a form of > discipline, and where children were dumped on strangers and left for > weeks at a time. I won't go into the sexual mistreatment. But > *that* is abuse, and to me, comparing what those kids have gone > through with what Harry endures at the Dursleys is almost > disrespectful. Harry is badly treated, yes. And I think it may be > fear of the neighbors that keeps the Dursleys from sliding into more > reprehensible behavior, which says something about their character. > But, I think we should be careful about throwing the word "abuse" > around. Of course, this is only my opinion. Julie says: "Abuse" is one of those words, like "good" and "evil," that has a variety of meanings on a variety of levels. I think Harry was abused, but it was a relatively mild form of abuse, mostly in the form of neglect. Legally, the Dursleys could probably be forced to change Harry's environment, or he could be removed from their home, if their actions were presented in a court and verified. It's doubtful though that they would ever be criminally charged, IMO. Truthfully, throughout the books I have found the Dursleys to be mean and small people, but not evil. The kind of abuse that ranks as evil to me is the sort of horrifying and irredeemable things that too large a number of parents, guardians, and others do to children, from broken bones, to cigarette burns, to sexual abuse to much worse. Harry's situation is unpleasant, but I never found it heartrending. I never felt his life or his sanity was in danger (and witholding love, while certainly unkind, isn't really abuse, because you cannot force a parent--or guardian in the case of the Dursleys--to love a child). I also suspect Dumbledore knew how Harry was being treated, and kept an eye on his progress. Had the Dursleys crossed the line into truly serious abuse, I think Dumbledore would have stepped in. Otherwise, whether he was bound by an oath, or by the boundaries of Lily's protection, or something else, he bided his time, assuring himself that Harry was handling his situation and that it was even a character-building experience (as opposed to the silver-spoon situation of Draco, for instance, who is building no character whatsoever). Kind of what others have mentioned about the DU detentions--good coming from a bad situation. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 05:00:36 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:00:36 -0000 Subject: Snape vs Quirrell In-Reply-To: <20050122032359.36412.qmail@web53108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123060 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > Juli earlier: > > > > 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 conversations, right? So how come > Voldemort does not know that Snape has changed sides? > That he is actually working for the Order and > Dumbledore? < < > > > > Carol responds: > > > As I see it, the incident planted a seed of doubt > about Snape in Voldemort's mind, but as he doesn't > know that Snape is an Occlumens, he wouldn't know that > Snape was blocking certain thoughts from reaching the > conscious level. That doubt, IMO, was increased when > Snape failed to show up for the DE meeting in the > graveyard (and perhaps by messages from Barty Jr. that > led to Voldemort's belief that Snape had left him > forever). As I've said before, Snape must have > explained to him (possibly through Lucius Malfoy) that > you can't apparate from Hogwarts and it was impossible > for him to attend the meetings. < > > Juli again: > I get your point Carol, but my question remains, if > Snape *knew* that Quirrell was after the stone for > Voldemort who was trying to regain his power, he > shouldn't have been so obvious about his dislike for > Quirrell!Mort. What I'm trying to explain is that > during PS/SS Snape was working for DD and being loyal > to him, then comes Quirrell searching for the stone > for LV (I'm sure Snape knew it wasn't for himself, > mainly because I think he's also a legimens) and Snape > tries to stop him, and by doing so he stops LV from > returning. So, LV must have known for sure that Snape > had left him for good. What Snape could have told him > later (during GoF-OoP) is an absolute mystery, he must > have done some serious convincing arguments in order > to get into LV's good side again. Maybe Lucius had > something to do with that, specially since Lucius > seems to be really close to LV, almost second in > command. > JMO > > Juli Carol responds: I see what you're concerned about (I think). But remember, Voldemort had no time to worry about Snape after SS/PS. He'd been reduced to vapor again. His sole concern was to get his body back (and then get rid of Harry). Unless Crouch!Moody was sending him information about Snape being Dumbledore's loyal lieutenant, the thought of Snape probably didn't enter Voldemort's mind until Snape's absence from the graveyard at the end of GoF. And then everything Snape had done, including his suspicion of Quirrell, would fall into place and Voldemort would conclude (rightly, IMO) that Snape had left him forever. At that point, Snape would have had to use all his Slytherin cunning (and his skills as a "superb" Occlumens) to convince either Malfoy or Voldemort or both that he was still loyal. As I said earlier, he could cover his graveyard absence by explaining that you can't apparate from Hogwarts and cover the Quirrell incident, if it came up, by saying that he'd had no idea that Voldemort was back, much less inside Quirrell's head, and that he thought Quirrell was trying to get the stone for himself. (How he would explain his remark about "where your loyalties lie," I don't know, but being Snape, a Slytherin and an Occlumens, I think he could manage.) Remember that Dumbledore says to Snape, near the end of GoF, "If you are ready, if you are prepared" (quoting from memory). They must have anticipated such a moment, and Snape must have prepared his stories, complete, possibly, with false memories for Voldemort to see. It seems that Malfoy, at least, still trusts Snape (he told him that he had seen Sirius Black in dog form on Platform 9 3/4) up till the end of OoP. Voldemort, however, could have remained skeptical yet chosen not to kill Snape (yet) because he found him useful as a source of information about Hogwarts. (It's possible that, by arrangement with Dumbledore, Snape gives Malfoy certain preapproved bits of information in exchange for "what Voldemort is telling his Death Eaters"). But if Voldemort learns from Kreacher that Snape sent the Order to the MoM, even Snape may find it hard to concoct a convincing lie. If JKR hadn't said that Snape had an important role to play in Book 7, I would be worried about his survival in HBP. As it is, I'm only curious to find out how he's managed to stay alive (assuming that JKR will tell us) and I'm dying to see how he relates to the Slytherins whose fathers are now in Azkaban (or St. Mungo's)--thanks, in part, to him. Carol, hoping that I didn't bury the point you're looking for in too much extraneous detail, but I like to be thorough From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 05:11:08 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:11:08 -0000 Subject: SHIP. Re: Why I like Ginny! Quotes and more...(long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123061 Phoenixgod: I freely admit that I don't like Ginny as Harry's LI. based on Book five shes already starting to become as domineering as her mother and the last thing I want for my favorite character is to end up as henpecked and brow beaten as Arthur Weasley. Molly has him on leash so tight its pathetic. that'll be what happens if Harry ends up with Ginny IMO. Alla: Actually, even though I agree with you that Molly certainly wears pants in the family (Does anybody doubt that? :)), I don't see Arthur being unhappy about the situation and isn't it what matters the most? Besides, I don't really see Ginny ending up being just as domineering as Molly is. She is tough yes, but I see her more like twins, who are always able to lend a helpful hand, not overpower your own personality. Phoenixgod: You heard it here first folks. Susan Bones, HP love interest and Ginny!wormtail. Mark your calenders. Alla: Any surprises are possible and Susan Bones is certainly a possibility, but I most certainly accept the bet that Ginny will not turn out to be a traitor. Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 05:11:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:11:36 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123062 Gerry: I'm sorry but I'm not into political correctness. I meant exactly what I said, and will do so again in the future. Good and nice are not the same thing. Sometimes the good thing is nasty, and the nice thing is bad for you. Those detentions were a very good thing, in themselves. Not something 'horrible but with some good coming out of it.' They were his wake up call. No matter how unpleasant and nasty they were, they made him finally understand how dangerous his situation really was, what the real danger he had been in before had not managed to. Apparently he needed a more hands on experience with injustice and pain to get that message across, and the detentions did that job quite nicely. Since the detentions he actually understands what Umbridge is capable of, and with what she can get away with. Alla: Basically you are saying that being tortured with the blood quill was a very good thing for Harry, in itself, correct? Please forgive me for asking you to clarify again, but I would like to be sure. Gerry: Well, Maybe because this teacher is actively looking for ways to get him expelled. Which means losing his wand and thus most of his magic. Which is a really bad thing if he wants to be able continue fighting Voldemort. Alla: Judging by the last pages of OOP, I am NOT sure at all, that Harry wants to continue to fight Voldemort. Do you think he is obligated to save WW? Alla wrote earlier : I think that text does not encourage "submission" to Umbridge either. We clearly see at the end that Fred and George resistance is approved by all teachers and they are greeted as heroes. I admire that Harry stood up to Umbridge. He did what good person is supposed to do when faced with evil, IMO. Gerry: snip. Harry is a minor, and therefore subject to the department of underage magic. He cannot quit Hogwarts, without losing his place in the magical world. And if the prophecy is correct, deliver the magical world to Voldemort in the process. Alla: Same question. Why does Harry have a duty to save WW? I am not talking about metathinking look at all - because Harry is the hero of the story, etc. I am asking why Harry who does not know that he is the main character in the books has a duty to save WW, who , IMO treats him quite horribly from times to times. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 05:11:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:11:26 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123063 Lupinlore wrote: Why did he not simply BRIBE the Dursleys? Kjirstem wrote: Seems to me that paying the Dursley's to treat Harry better is pretty close to paying them to take him into their house. To me it seems likely that bribery would negate the blood protection charm that allowed Harry safety at the Dursley's house. Tonks now: DD does not bribe the Dursley's because he is a wise man who is too good and too noble to do that sort of thing. Period. Alla: LOLOL! That was funny. I would think that Dumbledore would be forgiven by the higher powers if he would do that for the sake of improving Harry's home life. Seriuously, though I think that Kjrstem is right on money. :o) Bribery may not equal "willingly taken". I also liked Pippin's suggestion, but nevertheless I think Dumbledore can afford it indeed, no matter how much Dursleys would have asked. Just my opinion, Alla From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 05:23:07 2005 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:23:07 -0000 Subject: Fairy tale v real life Was: Re: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123064 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" > wrote: > > Pippin: > > I love the way Harry is making the transition from magical, > > fairytale thinking to a more realistic view of the world. I think > > it's very realistic that he has not made that transition > completely. > > Some of the people he knows, he still thinks of in a childish > > black-and-white way, while he has come to a more grownup > > view of others. > > Geoff: > I think Pippin has put her finger on it. We are seeing Harry's > journey from childhood to manhood through his eyes. As children, we > saw the world in clear bright colours with grown ups fitting into the > catergories of friendly and kind or nasty and to be avoided. This was > reinforced by the stories we read. The goOd were good and the bad > werE bad and wore black hats. > > characters both good and bad. > I think you are absolutely right. The fact that JK stated in the interview that DD was the Epitome of goodness..only means that DD has the best of intentions... However we all know how the best of intentions can go awry...hence our harsher judgement on DD's actions. Goodness does not always create pleasure...and "badness" does not always create pain." I think we are all, as readers, as readers perturbed that DD's actions did not involve the health and well being of Harry, but rather the world around him....(which indicates a self-preservation motive on DD's score).. Doddiemoemoe (Ahhhh JK...how dare you incorporate a self-preservation characteristic into one who would seem doesn't need it!--after all death is the next great adventure. In OOP, Harry learns that it is simply not about him and saving his own life and those immediately close to him emotionally. We can only hope that Harry will learn to be more than one of a 'sacrifical lamb'...In OOP it is also the place we learn that DD does not epitomize the WW...instead we get C. Fudge and Dumbridge insisting to us that THEY are the WW..) From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Jan 26 05:51:39 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:51:39 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123065 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Tonks now: > > DD does not bribe the Dursley's because he is a wise man who is too > good and too noble to do that sort of thing. Period. > > > Alla: > > LOLOL! That was funny. I would think that Dumbledore would be > forgiven by the higher powers if he would do that for the sake of > improving Harry's home life. > I agree. That's one of the funniest, role-on-the-floor-and-guffaw things I've read about Dumbledore in the past twelve months. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Jan 26 05:57:50 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:57:50 -0000 Subject: Threatening the Dursleys at the station (was Re: Why not BRIBE ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kjirstem" wrote: > > > kjirstem: > > Seems to me that paying the Dursley's to treat Harry better is pretty > close to paying them to take him into their house. To me it seems > likely that bribery would negate the blood protection charm that > allowed Harry safety at the Dursley's house. After all, could he > really have called it his home if they were paid to take him in? Excellent point. The problem is we don't know that the charm requires any "willingness." It may or may not. It may have required willingness at the first instance but not later. However, this raises another very important point. If bribing the Dursleys undermines the "willingness" factor, surely threatening them does so even more. And yet this is precisely what Lupin and the Weasleys and MadEye did at the end of OOTP. Now, if they couldn't be threatened or bribed before, why is it suddenly all right to do it NOW? And if it is all right to do it now, why in the world didn't Albus get off his be-robed butt and do it a looooong time ago? From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Jan 26 06:03:33 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:03:33 -0000 Subject: Wizard Chess WAS (McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry .....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123068 Gerry wrote: > For him standing up to Umbridge openly is not a safe thing to do. And doing it in class is not a worthwhile effort, because it will have no effect at all except Harry getting more punishment. Valky: With this I agree Gerry, and I also agree that it is a good thing Harry was able to learn the futility of squabbling with DU through her detentions, as painful as it all was. OTOH I can understand how Harry's agonising isolation at the time, contributed to his belief that DU was an obstacle in his path he needed to get through to *end this thing* with Voldemort. Yeah he's acting quite a bit bratty, especially in disregarding the advice he is given by elders and friends that he *knows* care about him, but at the end of his fourth year at Hogwarts he faced a mans battle, he struggled for his very life against the most sinister force in existence, he wants it over and QUICKLY! I understand his frustration, he drags himself from the graveyard just scraping his very young self out of the clutches of Death. He doesn't want to face that again next year, and who can blame him. You're right Gerry that Harry needed to gain the wisdom of strategic battle. Like the fifth challenge under the trapdoor, the fifth challenge of the books was to play wizard chess. Harry's not all that good at chess, but he needed to learn that strategy was important. Thus he did. Umbridge was merely a pawn in the end, which you have pointed out, uncanny that it was her that had the opening move in the story. Gerry: Organizing the DA is. Giving the interview also. But these are not as much actions against Umbridge as actions against LV. Here he chooses not to let Umbridge stand in the way of the higher purpose. The purpose is clear and has a chance of succeeding. Harry is aware of the risks and takes them willingly and with conviction. > > But standing up to Umbridge because she is evil? No, for Harry that is not a good thing to do. It may cost them the war against LV. Sometimes you have to keep out of things for the greater good. > Valky: Again like chess, Umbridge is just a pawn, you can work around her and for the most part ignore her. But be careful, because the pawn can take your King. DU does checkmate Harry with the DA, and Dumbledore, like first Knight is PS/SS, is sacrificed early in the game to undo the mistake. The game seems to end in stalemate though, doesn't it? Or does it? What did Sirius sacrifice really represent? If the dealings with Umbridge ended up fulfilling a positive purpose, could the same possibly be said about Sirius and the Veil? > Gerry (female) Valky: Oooh really, guilty as charged ma'am, I apologise. Often I am mistaken for a guy too so you're in good company. *G* | | | | | Wizard Chess - Logic Puzzle - Mystery Mirror - Figured it out yet? --- Label your Prophecy Orb at Row 97 -------- Go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Prophecy_Orb/ * * * | | | | _Signum Orbis_ From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Jan 26 06:52:27 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:52:27 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123069 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > Lupinlore: > > It is my hope that Gerry actually meant to say something closer to > > the second meaning and not the first. Thus, as I said, I choose to > > believe that he did not mean what he actually said, and request that > > he be much more careful in the future. > > I'm sorry but I'm not into political correctness. I meant exactly what > I said, and will do so again in the future. Good and nice are not the > same thing. Sometimes the good thing is nasty, and the nice thing is > bad for you. Those detentions were a very good thing, in themselves. > Not something 'horrible but with some good coming out of it.' They > were his wake up call. No matter how unpleasant and nasty they were, > they made him finally understand how dangerous his situation really > was, what the real danger he had been in before had not managed to. > Apparently he needed a more hands on experience with injustice and > pain to get that message across, and the detentions did that job quite > nicely. Since the detentions he actually understands what Umbridge is > capable of, and with what she can get away with. And that if he > himself does not keep his head down, he will lose his place at > Hogwarts, there will be no adult to protect him. Not nice, but it is > the reality he has to live in. > > If Umbridge had not been a petty sadist, she would have been far more > dangerous to him. He would have had a normal detention, would still > not have believed that shouting out the truth would not make any > difference at all. And would very likely have lost his wand the next > time he did something heroic but very much against the rules. > > Besides I don't think they were horrible. Getting dementors after you > is horrible. Getting the MoM that's supposed to protect you trying to > expel you for defending yourself is horrible. Getting that same MoM > to give you a criminal trial in which they do their utmost to get you > convicted for defending yourself is horrible. Getting your MoM > ignoring that dementors were after you is horrible. > > What Umbridge does with her detention is just petty evil. Not nice, > not at all. But nothing compared to what happened to him during the > Summer. > > > I am sorry but I simply cannot agree with this way of looking at things in any shape, form, or fasion. To wit: 1) The detentions as Harry's Wake Up Call. In a sense they may have been, and that means good came out of them. BUT MAKING A CHILD CUT HIS OWN HAND IS NOT GOOD AND NEVER WILL BE SO. 2) The difference between nice and good. This is a tired argument most often used to defend Snape. YES, GOOD AND NICE ARE INEXTRICABLY LINKED. It is true that nasty situations may have some good come from them, BUT THEY ARE NOT GOOD IN AND OF THEMSELVES. 3) Harry as a dunce who needs a wake-up call about what is going on. Harry understands very well how much danger he is in, and that the danger comes from the person of one Tom Riddle AKA Lord Voldemort. He also understands very well how much danger the Wizarding World is in. Harry is in absolutely no need of a wake-up call on these matters. It is Umbridge who is in need of this call. Much of this relates to the idea of whether the end justifies the means. If you mean "justifies" as in explains, the answer is ABSOLUTELY YES. If you mean "justifies" as in turns into a moral good in and of themselves, the answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT. It is true that one may sometimes have to put up with an evil to avoid a greater evil. This is perfectly logical and the end in this sense justifies the means. However, IN NO WAY do the means cease to be evil. IN NO WAY do they become good in and of themselves. In that sense the end NEVER justifies the means. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Jan 26 07:10:34 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:10:34 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123070 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Gerry: > I'm sorry but I'm not into political correctness. I meant exactly > what I said, and will do so again in the future. Good and nice are > not the same thing. Sometimes the good thing is nasty, and the nice > thing is bad for you. Those detentions were a very good thing, in > themselves. Not something 'horrible but with some good coming out of > it.' They were his wake up call. No matter how unpleasant and nasty > they were, they made him finally understand how dangerous his > situation really was, what the real danger he had been in before had > not managed to. Apparently he needed a more hands on experience with > injustice and pain to get that message across, and the detentions > did that job quite nicely. Since the detentions he actually > understands what Umbridge is capable of, and with what she can get > away with. > > > Alla: > > Basically you are saying that being tortured with the blood quill > was a very good thing for Harry, in itself, correct? > > Please forgive me for asking you to clarify again, but I would like > to be sure. > Lupinlore: Yes, I'm still interested in that one, too. I'm also really hoping that is precisely what you DO NOT mean. > > Gerry: > Well, Maybe because this teacher is actively looking for ways to get > him expelled. Which means losing his wand and thus most of his magic. > Which is a really bad thing if he wants to be able continue fighting > Voldemort. > > > Alla: > > > Judging by the last pages of OOP, I am NOT sure at all, that Harry > wants to continue to fight Voldemort. Do you think he is obligated > to save WW? > > > > Alla wrote earlier : > I think that text does not encourage "submission" to Umbridge > either. We clearly see at the end that Fred and George resistance > is approved by all teachers and they are greeted as heroes. > I admire that Harry stood up to Umbridge. He did what good person is > supposed to do when faced with evil, IMO. > > > Gerry: > snip. > > Harry is a minor, and therefore subject to the department of underage > magic. He cannot quit Hogwarts, without losing his place in the > magical world. And if the prophecy is correct, deliver the magical > world to Voldemort in the process. > > > Alla: > > Same question. Why does Harry have a duty to save WW? I am not > talking about metathinking look at all - because Harry is the hero > of the story, etc. I am asking why Harry who does not know that he > is the main character in the books has a duty to save WW, who , IMO > treats him quite horribly from times to times. Lupinlore: I also agree very strongly with this point. Why on Earth should Harry be expected to save the WW after they allow him to be abused in this fashion? Lupinlore From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 01:19:35 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 01:19:35 -0000 Subject: Another HBP idea.... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123071 First to explain my reasons for posting this... I was talking to a good friend of mine earlier this evening about Harry Potter and the conversation came round to the topic of HBP (no surprises there). She told me as soon as she'd heard the title she'd sat down with all the books to re-read and look for hints. I'm telling you this so you know I'm not taking credit! Her idea is that it is Hagrid. Not based on much evidence, but that he is half wizard, half giant (not muggle) and this seems like the kind of twist JKR is likely to use. Also, we know very little about his background, and basically none at all about his wizarding background. I've had a quick look and couldn't see a previous post like this. If I missed it, apologies and please point me in the right direction as she asked me to post this for her (seeing as she isn't a member), because she wants to know other people's reaction to her suggestion. Thank you all!!! Becky From gojunk at adelphia.net Wed Jan 26 03:07:36 2005 From: gojunk at adelphia.net (tyleradelphia) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:07:36 -0000 Subject: A few random thoughts (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123072 Here are some random thoughts that have been troubling me. For give me if these have already covered but I just found this site. I am very disappointed at the seemingly backward progression of Harry's magical abilities. It has been implied and even stated by some of the characters that Harry is a great wizard but other than the ability to fly good right off the bat and the patronus he has not shown any thing but courage (or bull headedness). He has had help in everything else. This is disappointing. I keep waiting for him to do something that makes you say "Wooo, that was awesome" ie. DD bringing the statues to life to save Harry in MoM. There is a lot of everyone saying that Harry will not kill LV but if you read in the American version of OoTP on page 844... in regards to the prophecy....So, said Harry, dredging up the words from what was felt like a deep well of despair inside him, "so does this mean that...that one of us has got to kill the other one ... in the end? Yes, says Dumbledore. So that tells me that they will meet one on one again but here is a problem. DD told Harry that because their wands are from the same phoenix they will not face each other and if forced would have the effect as in GoF. The reason I bring this up is that Harry's lack of remembering the things he has done is soooo frustrating. I think that Harry could be the most powerful wizard ever (the prophecy said that a child will be born with power to vanquish the DL) giving that he is extremely powerful. Harry has the ability to do magic without a wand ie. the glass, making things fly around, putting a jinx on his aunt. I have not read anywhere that any of the other people can do this. If he would think about these things he might say....Hey how did I do that?...Maybe (it is my hope) that he will and then he will realize the power he has. It will have to be something because he can't use his wand as we have found out and we also know that he can't use someone else's wand if you remember Neville in OoTP trying to use someone else's wand to no avail. I sincerely hope that the power he is full of and that is lock in the MoM is not what most people believe is "Love"... That is so sappy not to mention ridiculous...Love is a feeling, an emotion. I hardly think that that is something you lock in a room. I'm hoping it is some sort of ancient magic or something that would explain how he can do things without a wand. We know that wands are not necessary and are purely a human item - look at elves. Sorry this is so long just my thoughts. Ty From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 05:23:53 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:23:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly & Arthur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050126052353.10941.qmail@web61204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123073 Jocelyn said: >Why doesn't he get a better paying job? At the beginning of the books he is held in high esteem in the Ministry & he's popular, but he LOVES his job. His family say he could have gone further but he didn't want to < Arynn replies: I can't seem to find it, but somewhere in the books, somebody (Molly?) is talking about how Arthur never got promoted because of what Fudge's attitude is (some referace to his muggle prejudice). Can anyone help me find this? --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 Wed Jan 26 05:41:59 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:41:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050126054159.15558.qmail@web61204.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123074 Carol said: >But you also conceded that Snape's remark about the stinging hex ("Well, that was not as bad as it might have been") was praise coming from Snape, and that wasn't the only instance in which Snape praised Harry. and surely, for Snape, that illustrates remarkable control.< Arynn replies: Yes, he does praise Harry, but that has nothing to do with his anger problems (apples and oranges). A person with his anger under control would't throw a jar at a teenager's head just for acting like all teenagers do, (nosey and rebelious). Plus I seem to remember him pushing Harry hard enough that Harry fell over. Not to mention his constant "putting down" of Harry, even his "compliments" are ill-natured. --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 Wed Jan 26 05:52:27 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:52:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Snape vs Quirrell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050126055227.44008.qmail@web61202.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123075 Juli said: >So, my question is if Snape faced Quirrell 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? Arynn replies: We never heard the whole conversation. Maybe Snape was making it seem as though he was after the stone for himself. I'm sure Quirrell wouldn't have advertised the fact that he was "attached" to Voldie. And Voldie would think nothing of Snape being after the stone. He knows how Slytherins think. He would probably be more surprised if Snape wasn't after the stone. Snape could use this as a way of talking to Quirrell about the stone without arising Voldie's suspicions, (if he even knew Voldie was attached to Quirrell). --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From zanelupin at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 07:42:49 2005 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:42:49 -0000 Subject: Molly & Arthur In-Reply-To: <20050126052353.10941.qmail@web61204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123076 Arynn: >> I can't seem to find it, but somewhere in the books, somebody (Molly?) is talking about how Arthur never got promoted because of what Fudge's attitude is (some referace to his muggle prejudice). Can anyone help me find this?<< KathyK: Ooh! I can! I can! Molly says, GoF, Ch 36, The Parting of the Ways, US ed. p.71: "We know what Fudge is. It's Arthur's fondness for Muggles that has held him back at the Ministry all these years. Fudge thinks he lacks proper wizarding pride." I think it's a combination of Arthur's own interests (what better place than in the Misuse of Muggle artifacts to indulge a fascination for things Muggle?) and Fudge's attitude, not to mention the Wizarding World in general, toward Muggles. KathyK, who had a flat tire, changed it, drove halfway home only to discover the spare had gone flat as well From trekkie at stofanet.dk Wed Jan 26 08:47:51 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (trekkie) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:47:51 +0100 Subject: SV: [HPforGrownups] A few random thoughts (long) Message-ID: <8a0704040e24b81a87a239b6cc1010aa@webmail.stofa.dk> No: HPFGUIDX 123077 Ty: > Here are some random thoughts that have been troubling me. > > > The reason I bring this up is that Harry's lack of remembering the > things he has done is soooo frustrating. I think that Harry could be > the most powerful wizard ever (the prophecy said that a child will be > born with power to vanquish the DL) giving that he is extremely > powerful. Harry has the ability to do magic without a wand ie. the > glass, making things fly around, putting a jinx on his aunt. I have not > read anywhere that any of the other people can do this. If he would > think about these things he might say....Hey how did I do > that?...Maybe (it is my hope) that he will and then he will realize > the power he has. It will have to be something because he can't use > his wand as we have found out and we also know that he can't use > someone else's wand if you remember Neville in OoTP trying to use > someone else's wand to no avail. I really like the idea that Harry will defeat Voldie with Wandless Magic. That would take care of the "wand twins" problem for sure. I'm fairly new myself, so probably this has been debated earlier. If not, it's surely worth a though ~TrekkieGrrrl From cat_kind at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 09:56:28 2005 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:56:28 -0000 Subject: DEs, anonymity and the HBP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123078 catkind: An extremely random thought. The Death Eaters are to some extent into anonymity: they go about wearing masks, even when they're going to a meeting with no outside witnesses that are expected to live to tell the tale (the Graveyard in GoF); they don't know the names of very many other DEs (Karkaroff is unable to name many the Ministry don't already know about; Spy!Snape isn't able to get at many names either, presumably, or a lot more could have been safely behind bars, and he would have known about Pettigrew. Even in PoA, people still think Sirius Black had been Voldemort's right hand wizard. This would suggest the identity of said wizard was unknown, even to the spies and turncoats among us. If such anonymity is really the case, the Graveyard naming of names would be a major change of direction. Perhaps a punishment, or forcible rebuilding of solidarity after the break? But, and I'm heading in the direction of farfetched here, IF DEs were anonymous amongst themselves, how did they address each other at meetings? I hypothesise, in the tradition of all good spy stories, codenames. So I come to the random thought: could HBP be a Death Eater codename for Voldemort's mysterious second? Admittedly it would be a bit odd given LV's supposedly pure-blood politics, but he's already known to be a bit two-faced about that, and it could be a snide way of keeping the second in his place. It wouldn't be so unreasonable to suppose that not just LV and his nemesis but also his second-in-command are half-bloods. Minor supporting arguments: LV is the only character we've come across thus far who's interested in aristocratic titles, and it would save all the bother of suddenly discovering a royal family. And Lord Voldemort is itself a sort of codename. catkind (not particularly serious about this one) From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 26 10:11:17 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:11:17 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123079 Alla: > > Basically you are saying that being tortured with the blood quill > was a very good thing for Harry, in itself, correct? In this situation, yes. Rotten but beneficial. For the people who only want to equal good with virtuous, nobel, morally good etc. please check a dictionary and broaden your view of the English language. > Alla: > Judging by the last pages of OOP, I am NOT sure at all, that Harry > wants to continue to fight Voldemort. Do you think he is obligated > to save WW? Well, I don't think Harry is the one who has the choice here. If Voldemort want to fight him, he can ofcourse try to negotiate but somehow I don't think it will work. I'm fairly sure that Voldemort wants him dead. Not only because of the prophecy, but because Harry has done him serious damage in the past and he seems to me someone who is a really bad loser. > > Alla: > > Same question. Why does Harry have a duty to save WW? I am not > talking about metathinking look at all - because Harry is the hero > of the story, etc. I am asking why Harry who does not know that he > is the main character in the books has a duty to save WW, who , IMO > treats him quite horribly from times to times. Harry has a huge sense of responsibility. He knows the prophecy, and he will get after Voldmort because Voldemort and his supporters will attack the parts of the WW Harry loves best: his friend Hermione (mudblood), the Weasleys (blood traitors), people like Hagrid, DD etc. I cannot see this happen and Harry standing apart and doing nothing, even if LV would leave him alone, and if there was no prophecy. And as I said above I don't believe in LV leaving Harry alone, and loose all status among his followers because he is too scared to go after a boy. Gerry From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Wed Jan 26 11:18:18 2005 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:18:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Molly & Arthur - personlities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123080 > phoenixgod2000 wrote: > > > ... shes (Ginny) already starting to become as domineering as her > mother > > and the last thing I want for my favorite character is to end up as > > henpecked and brow beaten as Arthur Weasley.? Molly has him on leash > > so tight its pathetic... Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > > ...Molly also seems to do all the discipline, leaving Arthur as the > 'good > guy'.? I personally know several women who are frustrated to the nth > degree because their partners avoid taking on the unpopular parts of > childrearing.? I see Arthur and Molly as having opposite personality types that as a couple balances out. It's funny we've had another set of posts on Snape's personality type (Myer Briggs or Keirsey.) I take these personality sorters with a grain of salt, but sometimes they are useful. Fun too. A simple Google search various forms of "Harry Potter" and "Myer Briggs" (or "Keirsey") will lead to different sites with all sorts of speculations about the personality types of the characters in JKR's books. One site "Pirate Money" ( http://piratemonkeysinc.com/allresults.htm) says that Molly is an ESFJ (or Keirsey's Provider "guardian" type) and describes this type as "nurturing, generous and protective. In their interactions with others, they try to avoid conflict. ESFJ's are usually easy-going but they will not hesitate to scold someone of whom they disapprove." This does describe that seemingly contradictory trait of Molly's where she attempts "avoid conflict with others," by scolding her family to behave more conventionally. Arthur, on the other hand, is probably something akin to an ENFP ( a "champion") on Keirsey's Temperament Sorter (http://keirsey.com/personality/nfep.html.) or ENTP (an "inventor") perhaps? Perhaps the Inventor tag is closest. Anyway he is more an idea person and not terribly sensible, practical or conventional. Barbara Roberts [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vmonte at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 11:51:43 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:51:43 -0000 Subject: Drastic changes in store for school & classes in book 6? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123081 Nicky Joe wrote: This is exactly the thing that irritated me about OoP. At the end of GoF, Dumbledore is gearing up for war, Fudge has jammed his head firmly into the sand, and sides are beginning to be taken. Then Harry gets shuffled off to another crappy summer at the Dursleys, school starts, and DD tries to get everyone to pretend that it's simply school as usual. The entire time they are dealing with Umbridge and everyone is tiptoeing around, I was shaking my book and screaming, "HELLO??? Anyone remember Voldemort? That guy that's out there? Most likely plotting something horrible? Remember him? Why are we worried about OWLS and detention?" I was heartily let down to find that LV was after something as trite as a prophecy. I expected him to be out there creating monsters to fight for him. Or Polyjuicing all of the DEs. Or creating some scheme to mow down Hogwarts and crush Potter once and for all. But no, LV is looking for some prophecy and Harry is studying potions and arguing with Snape. Quite a letdown after GoF. I hope she ramps it up a bit for HBP. vmonte responds: I do think that things will change drastically at the beginning of the next school year. Dumbledore's opening speech to the students will of course include, what everyone in the WW now believes, that Voldemort is back. I wonder if classes will be more geared towards learning strategy and defense. Potions, Herbology, Transfiguration, etc, will be more geared towards military defense. This will also be interesting because Harry and gang will be learning human transfiguration this year with MM. That's probably something that will come in handy at the end of book 6 (since they always learn something during the year that they end up using at the end to save themselves). Runes classes, Divination, and WW History may be geared more to strategic divining and analyzing and developing alternate paths (strategic planning in Runes), and learning historical military strategy. I wonder if this is the year that Professor Binns will teach the children who Grindelwald was and Dumbledore's role in his defeat. We may also learn more about the Hogwarts of the past-- meaning the founders of the school and how and why they had to protect themselves from muggles... This may also be the year that Ron realizes that he has an important gift to offer the Order, his gift for strategy! Vivian From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 26 11:47:16 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:47:16 -0000 Subject: A few random thoughts (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123082 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tyleradelphia" wrote: Ty: > I sincerely hope that the power he is full of and that is lock in the > MoM is not what most people believe is "Love"... That is so sappy > not to mention ridiculous...Love is a feeling, an emotion. I hardly > think that that is something you lock in a room. > I'm hoping it is some sort of ancient magic or something that would > explain how he can do things without a wand. We know that wands are > not necessary and are purely a human item - look at elves. Geoff: This idea was expressed some months ago on the group and I wrote the following two replies at the time which probably encapsulate my own view. You might like to look at the original threads to get other contributors' take on this as well. In message 110254 on 16/08/04, I wrote: Why the "ugh!"? Or are you interpreting love in the words of a sentimental song? Love is the greatest force in the world. As a Christian, I believe that it was sheer love that took Jesus to the cross and beyond and it wasn't "ugh!", "icky" love. It was deep, sacrificial, strong and enduring. Harry isn't Christ. But Christians are enjoined to follow the example of Christ and, more than that, know the indwelling of his Spirit. So Harry, who is an everyman similar to any Christian on a journey of faith, discovery and love seeking to overcome evil, has every reason to seek to be filled with love of that kind in order to finally overcome Voldemort. and I wrote in message 110643 on 19/08/04: I think this takes us back to the old question of what do we mean by love? The word is a catch-all. "I love you", "I love strawberries and cream", "Don't you just love the way he scores points over the other guy?" 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. This is why I objected a few days ago when someone wrote something like "That's why I don't want Harry to win by using (ugh!) love." I pointed out that real love is the sort of love demonstrated by Christ on the Cross - not love being crooned about but real, strong, deep love unyielding in its aims to care for others and to put their needs in front. "Greater love has no man...." etc. Unless we can decide what we collectively mean by love when we talk about Tom Riddle or Harry, we shall be airing our misunderstandings from now until Book 6 comes out. :-) From meriaugust at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 13:45:48 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:45:48 -0000 Subject: Threatening the Dursleys at the station (was Re: Why not BRIBE ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123083 > > kjirstem: The problem is we don't know that the charm requires > any "willingness." It may or may not. It may have required > willingness at the first instance but not later. Meri now: I think we do know whether or not there was willingness on at least Aunt Petunia's part. IIRC in Order DD says something to the effect that Aunt Petunia took Harry in "furiously" but willingly. He is there at the Dursleys because Aunt Petunia wants him there to some extent. She keeps him and that keeps him alive. Whether or not financial recompense would negate that is up for debate, but he stays at the Dursleys because Aunt Petunia at least allows it. >Lupinlore: > However, this raises another very important point. If bribing the > Dursleys undermines the "willingness" factor, surely threatening them > does so even more. And yet this is precisely what Lupin and the > Weasleys and MadEye did at the end of OOTP. Now, if they couldn't be > threatened or bribed before, why is it suddenly all right to do it > NOW? And if it is all right to do it now, why in the world didn't > Albus get off his be-robed butt and do it a looooong time ago? Meri again: Again, IIRC, Mad Eye and Lupin weren't threatening the Dursleys to keep Harry, just to treat him better, and they probably weren't doing this with DD's knowledge or permission, but I don't see why their actions would negate the protection. OTOH, I would imagine that after what happened last summer the Dursleys probably wouldn't be able to treat Harry any way they wanted. After all, he saved Dudley's life. Now I know the Dursleys are Muggles, but there may very well be some sort of debt between them now. Meri From cat_kind at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 14:03:21 2005 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:03:21 -0000 Subject: Love again, was Re: A few random thoughts (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123084 > Ty: > > I sincerely hope that the power he is full of and that is lock in > the > > MoM is not what most people believe is "Love"... That is so sappy > > not to mention ridiculous...Love is a feeling, an emotion. I hardly > > think that that is something you lock in a room. > > Geoff: > > In message 110254 on 16/08/04, I wrote: > > > Why the "ugh!"? Or are you interpreting love in the words of a > sentimental song? > Love is the greatest force in the world. As a Christian, I believe > that it was sheer love that took Jesus to the cross and beyond and it > wasn't "ugh!", "icky" love. It was deep, sacrificial, strong and > enduring. catkind: I have to agree with Ty, in so far as I'll be disappointed if the power is love, although I rather think it will be. I don't see a problem with love as an abstract concept being represented behind the locked door: there will be some magical artifact that involves or shows or uses love, just as there are artifacts representing death, thought and space behind other doors. If a tankful of pickled brains can be thought, why can't a tankful of pickled hearts or something be love? It would be disappointing, not because love isn't a powerful force, but because it is, and everyone knows it, and it has already been done to death in religion and books and plays and every Hollywood film in the history of cheesiness. It occurs to me, though, that mostly (in Christianity for example), the power of love is that it motivates people to do good things. (God so loved the world that ..., not just God so loved the world and therefore we're all saved halleluja. ) I wonder, then, if we can expect a mechanism behind this power of love? Lily so loved Harry that she cast this spell, rather than the pure power of her-love-made-tangible saved him? Harry can beat Voldemort because he is capable of loving and being loved, so has true allies, whereas LV is, when it comes down to it, alone? If a mechanism is needed, then the fact that it's to do with love isn't so much of a cop-out. Although then nor does it answer any of our questions about how LV can be defeated, so we're back to square one. catkind, trying to keep its rabid atheism under control From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 26 14:20:22 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:20:22 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123085 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > Alla: > > > > Basically you are saying that being tortured with the blood quill > > was a very good thing for Harry, in itself, correct? > Gerry: > In this situation, yes. Rotten but beneficial. For the people who only > want to equal good with virtuous, nobel, morally good etc. please > check a dictionary and broaden your view of the English language. Geoff: As you rather brusquely suggested, I consulted the nearest dictionary to hand: good > adjective (better, best) 1 to be desired or approved of. 2 having the required qualities; of a high standard. 3 morally right; virtuous. 4 well behaved. 5 enjoyable or satisfying. 6 appropriate. 7 (good for) beneficial to. 8 thorough. 9 at least: (she's a good twenty years younger). rotten > adjective 1 suffering from decay. 2 corrupt. 3 informal very bad or unpleasant. beneficial > adjective favourable or advantageous. Please note that these definitions /do/ equate virtuous and morally right with the word; admittedly noble(sp) isn't included. Now, considering the situation between Umbridge and Harry, >From "good", I would eliminate 1,2,3,4,5,8 and 9 immediately. I presume that Umbridge considered her punishment fitted 6 and 7. I also fail to see a correlation between "rotten" and "beneficial" in this context. All things considered, I think that you missed an important point in Alla's remarks - that using the quill was /in itself/ correct. Are you suggesting that the action, which was improper and sadistic, was correctly started by this woman to bring home to Harry the need to conform? This standard of behaviour falls into the category which coincidentally is very much the leading news story in the UK today, whether the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and in our own Belmarsh Prison in London is correct or not. Dolores Umbridge has the right as a teacher at Hogwarts to seek to improve the educational achievement and social interaction skills of her pupils but I think the use of water torture, meat axes and even magic quills falls outside the parameters of what would be considered to be good teaching techniques. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 26 14:21:27 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:21:27 -0000 Subject: DEs, anonymity and the HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123086 Catkind: > But, and I'm heading in the direction of farfetched here, IF DEs were anonymous amongst themselves, how did they address each other at meetings? I hypothesise, in the tradition of all good spy stories, codenames.< So I come to the random thought: could HBP be a Death Eater codename for Voldemort's mysterious second? Pippin: Not so random. I've hypothesized that Ever-so-evil!Lupin's codename was "Wormtail". And since that codename is now being used by the hapless Peter P, ESE!Lupin needs a new one. And he's Voldemort's second-in-command (according to the theory, that is.) JKR has said Lupin's a half-blood. It fits. Obviously not canon, but when I came up with the ESE!Lupin theory years ago, my mental image of him suddenly acquired a purple shirt. I never could figure out why; it just seemed right. Maybe it was a hunch?! Catkind: > Admittedly it would be a bit odd given LV's supposedly pure-blood politics, but he's already known to be a bit two-faced about that, and it could be a snide way of keeping the second in his place. < Pippin: It would make it difficult for his second to pull off a coup -- and Voldemort has never been as wedded to his ideology as some would like to think. Remember when he said "killing Mudbloods doesn't matter to me anymore?" -CoS ch 17. Of course, Hitler didn't let his ideology keep him from signing the Hitler-Stalin pact or allying with Japan. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 14:24:48 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:24:48 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123087 Alla earlier: Basically you are saying that being tortured with the blood quill was a very good thing for Harry, in itself, correct? Festuco: In this situation, yes. Rotten but beneficial. For the people who only want to equal good with virtuous, nobel, morally good etc. please check a dictionary and broaden your view of the English language. Alla: Thank you for your reply. "Broaden your view of English language"... That is exactly what I had been doing during last seven years, every day of my life. :) But I most certainly continue doing so... Anyway, I checked the Webster dictionary I have at home and what do I see there? One of the definitions for "good" is indeed virtuous and nowhere "good" is defined as what Umbridge had been doing to Harry, so I think I will continue to associate DU actions towards Harry with "real evil" not "good", but this is just my opinion, of course. Alla earlier: Same question. Why does Harry have a duty to save WW? I am not talking about metathinking look at all - because Harry is the hero of the story, etc. I am asking why Harry who does not know that he is the main character in the books has a duty to save WW, who , IMO treats him quite horribly from times to times. Festuco: Harry has a huge sense of responsibility. He knows the prophecy, and he will get after Voldmort because Voldemort and his supporters will attack the parts of the WW Harry loves best: his friend Hermione (mudblood), the Weasleys (blood traitors), people like Hagrid, DD etc.I cannot see this happen and Harry standing apart and doing nothing, even if LV would leave him alone, and if there was no prophecy. And as I said above I don't believe in LV leaving Harry alone, and loose all status among his followers because he is too scared to go after a boy. Alla: So, Harry does have a huge sense of responsibility? because my previous reply was in response to your argument that Harry's irresponsible behaviour may have delivered WW to Voldemort. I was not asking you whether Harry has a choice or not, he probably does not, although I do believe that we almost always have a choice. I was asking you more along the lines why do you think that Harry OWES WW anything. Person making a conscious choice to fight and sacrifice himself in the fight is one thing, so far Harry has not been given a possibility to make the conscious choice to fight, because so much information was kept from him, but at the same time he is being held to the same standards as someone who is making such conscious choice. Am I being clear? Just my opinion, Alla From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 16:00:33 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:00:33 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <20050126054159.15558.qmail@web61204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123088 > > Arynn: > Yes, he[Snape] does praise Harry, but that has nothing to do with his anger problems (apples and oranges). A person with his anger under control would't throw a jar at a teenager's head just for acting like all teenagers do, (nosey and rebelious). Plus I seem to remember him pushing Harry hard enough that Harry fell over. Not to mention his constant "putting down" of Harry, even his "compliments" are ill-natured. > Finwitch: You know... I can't say I trust Snape nor approve much of what he's doing, but for the sake of fairness... He *has* told all 5th years, including Harry, one way to calm oneself of all emotions: Draught of Peace. If you recall, they were doing it, Harry missed only one ingredient, and actually did better than most (according to Hermione). Snape asked if he could read (referring to the ingredient he forgot). However.. if Snape expected Harry to drink Draught of Peace every night (Hermione could brew it, even if Harry couldn't...), I have a problem with it. It'd be like a drug! And I also think that if a teenager would drink it instead of learning how to control his emotions (I think Snape did), he will miss the chance, and never properly learn to control his anger. AND it would have played down the effect of Harry's grieving love for Sirius being so pure, raw and strong it could drive Voldemort away. It's even possible that if you're under the influence of the Draught of Peace, you cannot do magic at all. Finwitch From jferer at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 16:13:40 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:13:40 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123089 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kjirstem" > wrote: > > > > lupinlore wrote: > > > > > Why did he not simply BRIBE the Dursleys? > > > > kjirstem wrote: > > > > Seems to me that paying the Dursley's to treat Harry better is > pretty close to paying them to take him into their house. To me it > seems likely that bribery would negate the blood protection charm > that allowed Harry safety at the Dursley's house. > > Tonks now: > > DD does not bribe the Dursley's because he is a wise man who is too > good and too noble to do that sort of thing. Period. That's not wisdom or goodness. Morality is not so easy. Are you saying that it is moral, ethical, wise to allow Harry to be abused as he was, even if improving his life would violate some principle? Is nobility found in watching a child be treated with cruelty? No. Dumbledore must not have the power, for whatever reason, to stop what happened to Harry. Probably the protective spells would not have worked had the Dursleys taken him in because they were paid. It seems to me that Dumbledore was not completely aware how awful the Dursleys were, or it was beyond his power to help Harry. There's other ethical dilemnas about Dumbledore. Why does he allow sadistic teachers like Snape to do what he does? There's a lot that goes on that is questionable. Jim Ferer From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 16:16:15 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:16:15 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency, was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123090 "festuco" wrote: > Harry should learn to distinguish between > his gut feelings and his emotions. In the case of the Occlumency lessons that was easy because the feeling Harry was feeling in his gut was literal not figurative; they actually made him sick as well as weak. I don't know about you but I would need a very good reason to continue doing something like that; "because I said so" just wouldn't do it for me. > his tantrum at the beginning of OoP > to me was very arrogant. So if you had saved the world 3 times and had been tortured so horribly because of it you wanted to die you would be arrogant not to like being treated as a retarded four year old and called a lying brat. I don't think so. Eggplant From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 26 16:35:55 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:35:55 -0000 Subject: Love again, was Re: A few random thoughts (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123091 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cat_kind" wrote: > If a mechanism is needed, then the fact that it's to do with love > isn't so much of a cop-out. Although then nor does it answer any ofour questions about how LV can be defeated, so we're back to square one.< Pippin: It seems to me it's only a cop-out if you think there's an answer to the problem of evil that's not a cop-out. I mean, what kind of answer is throwing a magic ring into a fiery mountain? What made it not cheesy was that it was so difficult. I am sure whatever Harry is asked to do in the name of that power will not be easy for him. Pippin From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 16:39:11 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:39:11 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123092 I think it will turn out that Dumbledore has been bribing the Dursleys from day one and that is why they took baby Harry into their home. Think about it, Petunia doesn't work and Vernon is dumb as dirt, but somehow he makes enough money to have a very nice house and car and buys his son lots of expensive gifts. I don't think Vernon got all that money selling drills, he's not smart enough to have a job that good. They clearly hate Harry, especially Vernon, and treat him poorly but with the exception of a scene in book 2 they don't actually enter into the territory of child abuse, without that money from Dumbledore I think they would. Eggplant From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Jan 26 16:48:59 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 16:48:59 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123093 > Alla: > > > > Basically you are saying that being tortured with the blood quill > > was a very good thing for Harry, in itself, correct? > Gerry: > In this situation, yes. Rotten but beneficial. For the people who > only want to equal good with virtuous, nobel, morally good etc. > please check a dictionary and broaden your view of the English > language. Geoff: As you rather brusquely suggested, I consulted the nearest dictionary to hand: good > adjective (better, best) 1 to be desired or approved of. 2 having the required qualities; of a high standard. 3 morally right; virtuous. 4 well behaved. 5 enjoyable or satisfying. 6 appropriate. 7 (good for) beneficial to. 8 thorough. 9 at least: (she's a good twenty years younger). rotten > adjective 1 suffering from decay. 2 corrupt. 3 informal very bad or unpleasant. beneficial > adjective favourable or advantageous. Dungrollin: I believe Gerry was making the point that 'morally right' is not the *only* definition of the word 'good'. Indeed you listed 'beneficial' as one of the definitions. Geoff: I also fail to see a correlation between "rotten" and "beneficial" in this context. Dungrollin: Precisely that Umbridge's actions were rotten (very bad or unpleasant), but the effect they had on Harry was good (beneficial). It wasn't "rotten *and* beneficial", it was "rotten *but* beneficial". I fail to see how it could be unclear. Geoff: All things considered, I think that you missed an important point in Alla's remarks - that using the quill was /in itself/ correct. Are you suggesting that the action, which was improper and sadistic, was correctly started by this woman to bring home to Harry the need to conform? Dungrollin: Asking whether "using the quill was /in itself/ correct" is not the same as asking whether "being tortured with the blood quill was a very good thing for Harry, in itself". The former demands a judgement to the morality of Umbridge's actions, and the latter (which was what Alla asked) demands a judgement on the effects of the action on Harry. It was to the latter that Gerry replied. Of course Umbridge's actions were morally wrong ? I never understood Gerry to be saying that they weren't. But the effect on Harry (making him realise that some methods of opposing Umbridge were counter-productive) were good ('beneficial' ? if you need it spelling out again). Dung (Hoping she hasn't misrepresented Gerry.) From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Jan 26 17:23:52 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:23:52 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123095 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > > Of course Umbridge's actions were morally wrong ? I never > understood Gerry to be saying that they weren't. But the effect > on Harry (making him realise that some methods of opposing Umbridge > were counter-productive) were good ('beneficial' ? if you need it > spelling out again). > > Dung > (Hoping she hasn't misrepresented Gerry.) And yet Gerry REPEATEDLY rejects just that very option. That is, Alla and I have time and again expressed agreement that some good for Harry came out of the detentions, but that the detentions themselves and in themselves remain EVIL. And yet time and again Gerry rejects that option to argue that the detentions are GOOD. Now, we would simply want to know this, is Gerry saying: 1) The detentions are GOOD in themselves 2) The detentions are EVIL in themselves, but GOOD for Harry comes from them Again and again, Dungrollin, you seem to argue that Gerry means #2, to which Alla and I reply that we have no objection to that. Gerry, however, seems to be extraordinarily determined to insist upon #1 and to specifically deny the interpretation that you, I, and everyone else seems to be making. Lupinlore From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 17:26:59 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:26:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's Power (was: A few random thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123096 "tyleradelphia" wrote: > It has been implied and even stated by some > of the characters that Harry is a great > wizard but other than the ability to fly good > right off the bat and the patronus he has not > shown any thing but courage (or bull headedness). I can think of 7 times Harry showed extraordinary power, there are probably more: 1) Harry is the only one to receive the AK curse and live. Well OK Voldemort did too but Harry just got a minor cut on his forehead while Voldemort nearly died with far more serious injuries. Actually Harry has received all three Unforgivable curses and overcome them all. 2) At age eleven with no instruction Harry could fly better than anyone his age and better than most wizards of any age. 3) In all of recorded history only 3 wizards have been able to speak Parseltong. Harry is one of them. 4) Harry could produce a Patronis at a extraordinary young age, but more important, it was so powerful it awed even Hermione because the only other wizard she knew who could repel a hundred Dementors was Dumbledore. 5) Harry could easily overcome the Imperious Curse, something even formidable wizards like the real Moody and Crouch junior and senior found extremely difficult to do. It took them years and then were only partially successful,it only took Harry a few minutes to beat it entirely. 6) I can't think of a better demonstration of pure raw power than the scene in GoF where Harry engages man to man in magical arm wrestling with the most powerful dark wizard in a thousand years and wins. 7) Voldemort was able to possess Ginny and even a defense against the dark arts teacher for months, but when he tried to do the same thing to Harry he had to retreat in defeat after just a few seconds. Eggplant From cat_kind at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 17:26:34 2005 From: cat_kind at yahoo.com (cat_kind) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:26:34 -0000 Subject: Love again, was Re: A few random thoughts (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123097 catkind: > > If a mechanism is needed, then the fact that it's to do with love > > isn't so much of a cop-out. Although then nor does it answer > any ofour questions about how LV can be defeated, so we're > back to square one.< > > Pippin: > It seems to me it's only a cop-out if you think there's an answer to > the problem of evil that's not a cop-out. I mean, what kind of > answer is throwing a magic ring into a fiery mountain? > > What made it not cheesy was that it was so difficult. I am sure > whatever Harry is asked to do in the name of that power will not > be easy for him. catkind: I don't disagree. The answer to evil can be love, for suitable definitions of both, and I wouldn't call that a cop-out. But the question isn't evil, the question is how to dispose of Lord Voldemort. What I would find cheesy is for example if Harry was protected as a baby simply because his mother loved him so much, if love has actual magical power in this universe. It's not (so) cheesy if there's a mechanism there: she cast the protectcutebabybingo charm, or whatever, because she loved him so much. The throwing of rings into volcanos (can't imagine what you could possibly be referring to there, Pippin;->) is the mechanism. If Harry has to *do* something, then that something is what defeats LV, the mechanism, the charm, the volcano. I've no objection to love as a motive, but if love is the "power he does not know", then it's threatening to be the mechanism as well. (And for me as a reader, love-as-a-motive works better the less is said about it. If Dumbledore gets to do too much pontificating about how love has saved the world, catkind will start griping about dairy produce again.) But then, if love is just the motive, why does it need a locked room in the department of mysteries? Indeed, isn't it entirely obvious that Harry and his cronies are motivated by some kind of love? So that's no big answer, and the question remains, what is the mechanism by which LV can be killed? catkind From bob.oliver at cox.net Wed Jan 26 17:29:15 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:29:15 -0000 Subject: Threatening the Dursleys at the station (was Re: Why not BRIBE ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123098 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > > > >Lupinlore: > > However, this raises another very important point. If bribing the > > Dursleys undermines the "willingness" factor, surely threatening > them > > does so even more. And yet this is precisely what Lupin and the > > Weasleys and MadEye did at the end of OOTP. Now, if they couldn't > be > > threatened or bribed before, why is it suddenly all right to do it > > NOW? And if it is all right to do it now, why in the world didn't > > Albus get off his be-robed butt and do it a looooong time ago? > > Meri again: Again, IIRC, Mad Eye and Lupin weren't threatening the > Dursleys to keep Harry, just to treat him better, and they probably > weren't doing this with DD's knowledge or permission, but I don't > see why their actions would negate the protection. OTOH, I would > imagine that after what happened last summer the Dursleys probably > wouldn't be able to treat Harry any way they wanted. After all, he > saved Dudley's life. Now I know the Dursleys are Muggles, but there > may very well be some sort of debt between them now. Okay, but that doesn't answer the point. If it's OK to threaten the Dursleys NOW in order to get better treatment for Harry, why on Earth wasn't it OK before now? In other words, if it is OK for the Dursleys to be threatened at the end of OOTP, why didn't Dumbledore do this long ago? The crux that you bring up is the question of whether DD KNOWS about the Order's actions. If he did not, we are thrown back on our original questions. If he DID, then the confusion deepens still more. Lupinlore From happydogue at aol.com Wed Jan 26 17:33:30 2005 From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:33:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? Message-ID: <546807FF.5655EB7D.0B4B226A@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123099 I don't know if this was brought up in this discussion but - how about just paying for his expences. It sounds as if the Drusleys have enough cash. Mrs. doesn't work outside of the home and Mr. has a good job but they may not have resented Harry as much if some of his living expences had been covered. It's not cheep to raise a kid. I don't know how social services work in GB and the Dursleys may not have wanted to go that route but in my state if you take in the child of a relative as a "foster child" the state pays you the foster care rate for the cost of the child's expences. The Dursleys seem like the kind of people who would want to pick up the extra cash. That brings be to another question...Harry must of had a birth certificate or sometype of record to get into school. I wonder how they worked that? Just my rantings... Joan From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Jan 26 17:34:43 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:34:43 -0000 Subject: Love again, was Re: A few random thoughts (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123100 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cat_kind" > wrote: > > > If a mechanism is needed, then the fact that it's to do with love > > isn't so much of a cop-out. Although then nor does it answer > any ofour questions about how LV can be defeated, so we're > back to square one.< > > Pippin: > It seems to me it's only a cop-out if you think there's an answer to > the problem of evil that's not a cop-out. I mean, what kind of > answer is throwing a magic ring into a fiery mountain? > > What made it not cheesy was that it was so difficult. I am sure > whatever Harry is asked to do in the name of that power will not > be easy for him. > Renee: What made it not cheesy was that it was impossible and eventually took an evil character and either Providence or Coincidence to be accomplished. I wonder if we'll get any parallel to this in the HP books. From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 26 17:40:46 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:40:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Harry (15) Message-ID: <20050126174046.69821.qmail@web25106.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123101 Before discussing Book 5 I want to talk about sequence. My understanding of Harry Potter is that it does not necessarily follow the sequence of the Alchemical Path of Liberation. For example Harry's descent into the Chamber of Secrets is a cameo of the whole Path. In fact when an apprentice alchemist faces the serpent of the kundalini, he faces the three temptations which Jesus faced in the desert. The serpent is the representative of the higher self (this comes out clearly in CoS) and before an alchemist can kill this serpent he is tested three times. If he succeeds, the new soul-force ascends the spinal column and reverses the rotation of the chakras. When this force reaches the crown chakra it opens it up to the Original Spirit and the Alchemical Wedding commences. This is the wedding of the Immortal Soul and the Original Spirit. Jo has not mentioned the three temptations at this stage because obviously that would finish the series at the end of book 2. The events in the Chamber of Secrets are more like a summary of what is to come. My understanding is that the three temptations are the climaxes in books 5, 6 and 7. We'll discuss that later in this post. The five "initiations" mentioned in my essay also appear to be in the wrong order in Harry Potter. That may be due to my misinterpretation, of course. The reader of this post should throw any ideas of initiations by Masters or adepts overboard. By initiation I mean self-initiation. When the new soul is born one does not need a Master or guru. The new soul itself becomes the Master, assisted by the new mentality as personified by Hermione. On the Path of Liberation the five initiations, which are part of a set of seven, follow the order of the planets as they exist in the solar system: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. It is possible that Uranus and Neptune will come up later. In my essay I have described Harry's victory over Voldemort in the graveyard at the end of book 4 as symbolising the Mars initiation. I have also said there that I strongly suspect the ever locked room in the Department of Mysteries in book 5 will lead to the Venus initiation. However that would mean Mars comes before Venus, which is contrary to the divine laws governing the process of alchemical liberation. Venus has to come before Mars! Divine Love has to come before the new Omnipotent Will. Why? The New Will is so incredibly powerful that it needs a strong guiding force to keep it under close control. This Will is like the High Priest in the reborn human being. It carries out all the orders of the new consciousness without any restrictions. If it is not guided by the Divine Love in the heart it can easily escape control and then we would have the same conditions as caused the Fall. The new Will must by controlled by the Divine Love in the heart of the alchemist. In other words, the Will must be subject to the Divine Plan, or deviation will occur again. This is what caused the Fall in the first place. Just as an aside, the unicorn is the symbol of the new Will. Its horn symbolises the power that radiates from the forehead of the human being who has this omnipotent tool. The conclusion I draw from all this is that it is possible that Harry's victory over Voldemort in book 4 does not symbolise the new Mars but foreshadows an event to come after Harry enters the Room of Venus. However the election of Harry as leader of Dumbledore's Army is so completely identical to the way leaders on the Path of Liberation are chosen it seems almost impossible for it not to be the Jupiter Initiation. Similarly the ancient archway through which Sirius passes in book 5 is so unmistakably the Gate of Saturn that I just can't believe it to be anything else. And the same thing with the locked room in the Department of Mysteries. It is so similar to the Sepulchre of (sleeping) Venus in "The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross" that it would take Jo herself to swear on her mother's grave with a signed testimony by the Queen, the Pope and Harry Potter before I'd believe that these three aforementioned things are not Jupiter, Saturn and Venus respectively. It just bothers me that they're not in the right order, and I can't explain why. I'm telling you all this because I want to be totally honest with you. I'm absolutely certain Harry Potter describes the alchemical process of liberation, but I can't explain everything down to the last detail. Perhaps when this series of posts is finished we can discuss the 5 initiations in more detail, but for now let's continue looking at Harry's triumphal march through the 7 planes of the time-spatial universe. The plane of life above the mental plane is the plane of the mental I. The human consciousness is a trinity: the mental I, the emotional I and the consciousness I. Obviously the highest of these is the consciousness I, the central consciousness governing both the head and the heart. However this consciousness is constantly addressed by two voices: the head and the heart. The mental I is what I mean by the voice of the head. It's the voice of reason, the Minister of Cranial Affairs under the Prime Minister. The emotional I is the Minister of Cordial Affairs. He provides the voice of the emotions. Obviously the mental I works closely with the mentality in the brain. I guess we could say the Minister of Cranial Affairs is the head of the Department, while the Department itself is the actual workings of the mind. Similarly the Minister of Cordial Affairs is the head of the Department of everything that happens on the emotional, i.e. astral plane. By extrapolation we can work out that the Prime Minister's department is also in charge of Etheric Affairs. To put it simply: The mental I governs the mental body, the emotional I governs the astral body, the consciousness I governs the etheric body (as well as being in charge of the other two ministers). I hope the somewhat banal comparison above helps you understand how the very top of the human organism works. There are undoubtedly very many people to whom this is all new, and I think it's wonderful to be able to put this on Internet. To get back to Harry: In book 5 Voldemort attempts to gain control over Harry's mental I. Dumbledore knows this and tells Snape to give Harry occlumency lessons. (occlud- Latin: to shut up, ment- Latin: mind). As we know, this doesn't work. However when Voldemort makes the effort to possess Harry's mental I, Harry is able to expel Voldemort through the love he feels for his God-Father, Sirius. Why does Dumbledore choose Snape of all people? Snape represent our shadow side, our "black" side (he always wears black). This is the apprentice alchemist's past experience of the "dark arts", which we call occultism. Every candidate on the Path of Liberation has first attempted to reach the goal by means of occult experiments. It is inherent in the human being to learn by making mistakes, and this is what Snape personifies. He therefore tries to teach Harry to shut his mind to Voldemort by using the will. Harry has to shut out all emotions and concentrate all his mind on closing it off. But Harry fails. What can this teach us about liberation? That the new soul cannot reach liberation by using the will. Using the will to achieve liberation is occult, and this takes us back to the the causes of the Fall. "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" teaches us that occult methods do not work on the Path of Liberation. We must not be guided by the voice of our dark past, the voice of experimentation. The only guide on the Path is the New Soul itself. The Soul is linked to the God-Father, and its love for what this represents will always triumph against the old fallen Higher Self, personified by Voldemort. This how Jo says it: "'There is a room in the Department of Mysteries,' interrupted Dumbledore, 'that is kept locked at all times. It contains a force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature. It is also, perhaps, the most mysterious of the many subjects for study that reside there. It is the power held within that room that you possess in such quantities and which Voldemort has not at all. That power took you to save Sirius tonight. That power also saved you from possession by Voldemort, because he could not bear to reside in a body so full of the force he detests. In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you.'" I'm surprised some of you haven't asked why I compare the three attempts by Voldemort to take over Harry's three-fold I, to Jesus' three temptations in the desert. In book 5 Voldemort's attempt to possess Harry's mental I doesn't seem much like a temptation. I'll have to admit that I can't really answer that. We are taught by the Masters of Compassion that before he can enter total liberation, the apprentice alchemist is faced by three attempts by the old higher self, Lucifer or Voldemort, to take control of the new human being, of which the new soul is the leading principle. The story of liberation is very abstract and we can understand it only by the use of symbols and personification. These have their limits, because comparisons with symbols or persons never match perfectly. A story told in symbols can never deal with the process in its entirety but just highlights certain aspects. I guess the best way to see the three events we're talking about is as three final tests, three ordeals, the apprentice alchemist has to pass in order to prove his allegiance to God and his total rejection of Lucifer. Seen in that light, both Jesus' and Harry's first trial make sense. In "The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross" the three trials are represented as three men trying to pull down the scale which contains the seven weights testing Christian's suitability as an alchemist. In "The Angel of the West Window" by Gustav Meyrink the three trials are woven into one and John Dee is tempted by Queen Elizabeth to come to him to unite with her for ever. After he passes the test he sees that if he had taken one single step forward he would have stepped over the edge of a precipice. I'm sure these tests are described in many works of literature. My theory is that book 6 will describe Harry's victory over Voldemort's attempt to take possession of Harry's heart, i.e. his emotional I. Jo has already said that Harry will have to learn to control his temper and I think that's a clue. As I said in my essay I suspect the room of Venus will come into this. This room is the innermost part of the heart. It is in fact Lily, but this time the symbol is not just a flower of great purity and beauty. It is the Inner God, TAO, the Holy Temple of the Spirit, asleep in the heart of every seeker. In "The Alchemical Wedding" this is symbolised by a sepulchre in which Venus has lain asleep for aeons, just like "Briar Rose" (It's always a woman, isn't it?). Perhaps Jo will somehow connect this room with Lily. Like all of you I just can't wait to see how Jo is going to describe Harry's victory over Voldemort this time. All I can do is raise questions. What is in the Room? How will Voldemort try to take possession of Harry's heart? Will it be a race between Voldemort and Harry to see who can get into the Room first? Will Lily be connected with that Room? Has the Department of Mysteries put her body in there because it was her love that defeated Voldemort in the first place, and they want to study this force? Does Voldemort think perhaps that if he removes Lily's body from the Room he can defeat Harry? Is Lily's body preserved just like Venus' body in "The Alchemical Wedding"? The mind boggles. Is James in there too? Why do we never hear of Lily's and James' grave? Is it because Lily's body is in the Room of Love? It certainly fits the pattern! Lily - Briar Rose - Venus - the Great Mother as mentioned in the "Tao Te Ching". This is what I wrote in my post, "Harry (5)": '"I am different. I am nourished by the great mother." Who is the great mother? Why, Lily, of course.' Some of you may have thought it far-fetched to say that the great mother mentioned by Lao Tzu could be Lily, but when you realise that the Inner God, the Kingdom of Heaven asleep in the heart, the absolute Divine Plan for the eternal growth and development of the Immortal and Eternal Child of God who will live for ever in unimaginable and mind-blowing splendour and glory, with 12 ineffable faculties which defy description, we can understand that the symbol for its potential is a mother. Friends, it is my theory that Harry Potter is telling us that in our heart sleeps the Mother of God. When this God is born it is in a manger surrounded by animals, and he will live in a cupboard under the stairs, but he will grow up to defeat the Dark Lord in our being and take us on a journey that leads to so much goodness, so much love, so much wisdom, and so many other Godlike gifts that we can scarcely believe it. Do you find the above fantastic? The figments of a deranged mind? Yet this is what the legends and the gospels tell us. There is a Temple in our heart where the Great Mother lies asleep for a hundred years, until the Temple is opened. It is this same Temple that contains Briar Rose (sometimes called Sleeping Beauty), or the princess in "The Glass Coffin", or Venus in "The Alchemical Wedding". And this Temple "contains a Force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature." Whether this force is connected to Lily in Harry Potter I do not know, but it doesn't seem far-fetched to me. Friends, if just ONE person in the whole world reading these posts understood what Harry Potter is really about, I would feel my effort in sending these long posts would all be worthwhile. Just before I finish this long rant, let me just speculate on book 7. The passing of the last ordeal on the Path of Liberation is called, by the Masters of Compassion, "passing through the Gate of Saturn". Will Harry pass through the archway in the Department of Mysteries to find Sirius, as I said in my essay? Whatever happens, Voldemort will try to take possession of Harry's consciousness. Voldemort will know that if he doesn't get Harry this time, he'll be finished. He will therefore make a final desperate effort to make Harry join his side. This time I think it WILL clearly be a temptation. Voldemort will "take him to a very high mountain and show him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them." And he will say to Harry: "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me*." But Harry will choose Sirius instead. That's enough predictions. You can read post 229, "My predictions" if you want to know more. Finally one last issue. Sometimes I wonder whether it is my place to reveal these intensely powerful spiritual values to the world. But then Jo has put in so many clues that shout out to be revealed! Every time I make a discovery I see that all clues come in pairs. If I come to a discovery from one direction there is always a clue from another direction to confirm the correctness of my discovery. I'll explain that when I discuss the other characters, starting with Sirius, in my coming posts. What I do want to say for now is that the presence of so many obvious clues convince me that Jo WANTS people to find the clues and draw the conclusions. That's right, isn't it Jo? I do so with caution, but until Jo tells me otherwise I'll tell the world about what the clues are screaming to announce! Hans *Matthew 4: 8 & 9 ===== 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 happydogue at aol.com Wed Jan 26 17:45:01 2005 From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:45:01 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? Message-ID: <3121041A.45F3F833.0B4B226A@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123102 Hold it...where does it say that Vernon is "dumb as dirt." He may be very good in the drill industry. We don't really know what he does there but he has a good office and did it say somewhere a company car. Just because he doesn't act rationally in a home situation doesn't mean that he is dumb. Situations like this build up and people began to act stupidly. Think of the child abusers who think they are acting for the child's own good. If you asked them right out if it was OK to do some of the stuff they do they would say 'no.' But somehow over time the parent builds an evil way of reacting to the smallest infraction of the child. JMM From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Wed Jan 26 17:46:05 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:46:05 -0000 Subject: Threatening the Dursleys at the station (was Re: Why not BRIBE ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123103 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > >Lupinlore: > If it's OK to threaten the > Dursleys NOW in order to get better treatment for Harry, why on Earth > wasn't it OK before now? In other words, if it is OK for the Dursleys > to be threatened at the end of OOTP, why didn't Dumbledore do this > long ago? > Renee: The cynical answer: It has come to JKR's attention that the Wizarding World in general and Dumbledore in particular have been criticized for leaving Harry with the Dursleys without ensuring he was treated well. Now she's trying to remedy this for the sake of greater realism. The non-cynical answer: For the first time in the series Harry has suffered defeat despite his heroic attempt to rescue a loved one. For the first time he has consciously suffered a personal loss. Never before has he been in such need for support. That's why this is the moment he gets it. From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 13:32:02 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 05:32:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: A few random thoughts (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050126133202.33829.qmail@web61207.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123104 Ty says: >Harry has the ability to do magic without a wand ie. the glass, making things fly around, putting a jinx on his aunt. I have notread anywhere that any of the other people can do this.< Arynn Replies: Actually they mention it quite a lot. Nevelle does it when dropped from a window. Hagrid asks is Harry ever makes things happen when he's uoset, and at the trial Dumbledore sats that wizards can loose control of their emotions sometimes and accedently do magic. JKR says that you get into Hogwarts if you show some magic before you're 11. Since you don't have a wand before 11 that would be impossible. --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) From tonisan9 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 26 17:08:57 2005 From: tonisan9 at hotmail.com (tonihollifield) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:08:57 -0000 Subject: How did everyone know? (OOP pages 610-625 -- American Hard Cover) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123105 Hi everyone. I've been lurking for a few weeks now, but this is my first post. I'm currently re-reading OOP (as I'm sure many of you are), and I'm wondering if this topic has come up in the past. I can't figure out how to access the archives effectively, so I couldn't look it up. I'm sorry if this has been discussed-to-death! After the altercation between DD, Fudge, etc. in DD's office, we're told that notices of Umbridge becoming Headmistress have gone up all over the school overnight, but that "they did not explain how every single person within the castle seemed to know that Dumbledore had overcome two Aurors, the High Inquisitor, the Minister of Magic, AND HIS JUNIOR ASSISTANT to escape." (My emphasis, sorry about the caps, I couldn't figure out how to italize.) Now, I know that I've read past discussion about who it was that started to spread the news around the school, but I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that it was Percy. I would argue that the information spread is classic Percy. We know that Percy was not present in DD's office during the altercation, as he had been sent by Fudge to copy his notes of DD's "confession" and send them on the the Daily Prophet for the morning addition. Let me add that I believe that Percy is working for the Order as a spy at the Ministry, and has not betrayed his family. This said, I think it makes sense that Percy/the Order would want the truth about what occurred in DD's office to be known before Umbridge/the Ministry has a chance to put their own spin on it. In addition, the inclusion of the Minister's "Junior Assistant" in the list of those DD had to overcome serves noone's interests other than Percy's. From what we know of Percy from the earlier books (I'm sorry, I can't cite canon from them, I only have OOP with me right now), he wants to be highly regarded, and looked up to by those around him. While I believe that Percy is working for the Order, it stands to reason that his general personality traits would remain intact. Why not throw himself into the mix while spreading the true story of what occurred. Any thoughts? Toni (who's sorry that she rambled in her first post, and really wants to believe that Percy wouldn't betray his entire family.) From va32h at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 14:51:54 2005 From: va32h at yahoo.com (va32h) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:51:54 -0000 Subject: A few random thoughts (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123106 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tyleradelphia" wrote: > > Here are some random thoughts that have been troubling me. > > For give me if these have already covered but I just found this site. > > I am very disappointed at the seemingly backward progression of > Harry's magical abilities. It has been implied and even stated by some > of the characters that Harry is a great wizard but other than the > ability to fly good right off the bat and the patronus he has not > shown any thing but courage (or bull headedness). He has had help in > everything else. > > This is disappointing. I keep waiting for him to do something that > makes you say "Wooo, that was awesome" ie. DD bringing the statues to > life to save Harry in MoM. I think part of Harry's problem is that he is unable to control his emotions effectively enough to do that sort of "awesome" magic. Dumbledore is in control of himself and his emotions at all times. As with so many talents, the pure ability itself is not enough; one must also have discipline and focus. > > There is a lot of everyone saying that Harry will not kill LV but if > you read in the American version of OoTP on page 844... in regards to > the prophecy....So, said Harry, dredging up the words from what was > felt like a deep well of despair inside him, "so does this mean > that...that one of us has got to kill the other one ... in the end? > Yes, says Dumbledore. > > So that tells me that they will meet one on one again but here is a > problem. DD told Harry that because their wands are from the same > phoenix they will not face each other and if forced would have the > effect as in GoF. The wands cannot duel directly, but that does not mean they are useless against each other. In GoF, Voldemort was able to use the Cruciatus Curse against Harry with no problem. The Priori Incantatem only occurred when the two wands cast spells at each other directly. So, Harry can still use his wand against Voldemort in other ways, or he can vanquish him with some form of wandless magic, or, since Voldemort has returned to a mortal state, Harry can kill him in a more traditional manner (which would be suitably ironic - for Voldemort to die like the Muggles he so despises.) > The reason I bring this up is that Harry's lack of remembering the > things he has done is soooo frustrating. I think that Harry could be > the most powerful wizard ever (the prophecy said that a child will be > born with power to vanquish the DL) giving that he is extremely > powerful. Harry has the ability to do magic without a wand ie. the > glass, making things fly around, putting a jinx on his aunt. I Again this goes back to Harry's inability to focus his power. The prophecy only says that he has the power, not that he will be able to effectively harness it to actually conquer Voldemort. I think that is a major theme of the books, accepting the gifts that you were born with, and learning how to use them. > I sincerely hope that the power he is full of and that is lock in the > MoM is not what most people believe is "Love"... That is so sappy not > to mention ridiculous...Love is a feeling, an emotion. I hardly think > that that is something you lock in a room. > I think the power that Harry has is definitely love. Love is a mystery - who can explain exactly what it is that makes one person love another? It is powerful and terrible, because it carries both the promise of tremendous joy (when the love we feel is returned) and tremendous pain (when the one we love dies, leaves us, hurts us, etc.). It is also a very courageous act to love someone - to expose yourself to that potential hurt. Why humans are willing to risk so much for the sake of love, over and over again, is a mystery worth studying. I am not certain how Harry will be able to use "love" to conquer Voldemort, but ultimately that is what will do it.... "va32h" From va32h at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 15:26:33 2005 From: va32h at yahoo.com (va32h) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:26:33 -0000 Subject: Another HBP idea.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123107 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bleckybecs" wrote: > Her idea is that it is Hagrid. Not based on much evidence, but that > he is half wizard, half giant (not muggle) and this seems like the > kind of twist JKR is likely to use. Also, we know very little about > his background, and basically none at all about his wizarding > background. I have read a few theories that it is Hagrid. My first thought would be that Hagrid is more of a "half-breed" than "half-blood". Being part giant and all. "Half-Blood" seems to be a term that is applied to wizards who are half wizard, half Muggle. I think the HBP will be either an entirely new character, or a character we have heard about in name only, but not met. I actually have a more complete theory about the HBP, but that would be digressing from this thread From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 18:04:49 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:04:49 -0000 Subject: How did everyone know? (OOP pages 610-625 -- American Hard Cover) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123108 "tonihollifield" wrote: > He [Percy] wants to be highly regarded, > and looked up to by those around him. Yes, so Percy would have reason to keep the incident where Dumbledore beat the all as quiet as possible, it doesn't make them look very good. Minerva McGonagall is probably the one who told the school about it. Eggplant From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 18:18:59 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:18:59 -0000 Subject: Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123109 Betsy writes: >Harry is badly treated, yes. And I think it may be >fear of the neighbors that keeps the Dursleys from sliding into more >reprehensible behavior, which says something about their character. >But, I think we should be careful about throwing the word "abuse" >around. Of course, this is only my opinion. Betsy has supplied a very American Legal System definition of "not abuse" which is one reason I see teenagers roaming my neighborhood in the middle of the night during the week. Where are their parents? Oh right, the parents don't care about them and the people that do can't help them. I can't argue with Betsy because she's absolutely correct and I've seen it in action. Friends and neighbors can't even step in to help these "not abused" children because they have no legal recourse. There may have been teachers in Harry's school that wanted to help him, but what could they do, short of bringing him treats now and again? Reality sucks, which is why I read fantasy. At least I can pretend that good will triumph over evil. Nicky Joe From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 26 18:25:08 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:25:08 -0000 Subject: How did everyone know? (OOP pages 610-625 -- American Hard Cover) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123110 "tonihollifield" wrote: > > He [Percy] wants to be highly regarded, > > and looked up to by those around him. Eggplant: > Yes, so Percy would have reason to keep the incident where > Dumbledore beat the all as quiet as possible, it doesn't make them > look very good. Minerva McGonagall is probably the one who told the > school about it. SSSusan: I think a widely-held assumption is that the portraits in DD's office talked to other portraits, who talked to other portraits, who.... Siriusly Snapey Susan From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Jan 26 18:54:51 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:54:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Love again, was Re: A few random thoughts (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <002b01c503d8$85047bd0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 123111 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cat_kind" wrote: > If a mechanism is needed, then the fact that it's to do with love > isn't so much of a cop-out. Although then nor does it answer any ofour questions about how LV can be defeated, so we're back to square one.< Pippin: It seems to me it's only a cop-out if you think there's an answer to the problem of evil that's not a cop-out. I mean, what kind of answer is throwing a magic ring into a fiery mountain? What made it not cheesy was that it was so difficult. I am sure whatever Harry is asked to do in the name of that power will not be easy for him. Pippin Sherry now: I also think that whatever is the thing that defeats Voldemort in the end, magic will only be the tool. I don't know if we are going to see a new incredible wandless spell that disintegrates him. To me, one of the strongest themes in the entire series is that magic *doesn't* solve the problems. It is a useful tool, as my computer is a useful tool, or my oven, or my telephone. Over and over, it seems that what Harry learns is that friendship, bravery, hard work, loyalty, and yes, love, are the things that help him get through everything. I would be disappointed if we are presented with a completely magical solution to the series. I expect and hope that it will be combination of all the things I mentioned AND MAGIC. Sherry G From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 18:57:40 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:57:40 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123112 Tonks writes: >DD does not bribe the Dursley's because he is a wise man who is too >good and too noble to do that sort of thing. Period. Good one. I can see his halo and wings. Very shiny. Jim Ferer writes: >Morality is not so easy. Are you saying that it is moral, ethical, >wise to allow Harry to be abused as he was, even if improving his >life would violate some principle? Is nobility found in watching a >child be treated with cruelty? Exactly the problem I had with DD leaving him there unattended for 10 long years. DD did not have to go through any legal system to help Harry. I don't believe the bribery thing would work because, like someone pointed out, the Dursleys' greed would have grown and grown. However, I think the simplest of threats would have worked. And it wouldn't even have to be specific. DD would only have to tell them, "Treat Harry well or 'things' will happen to you. 'Things' that you will not like, oh no, you will not like at all." The Dursley's hate and fear magic above all else - they wouldn't risk doing anything to Harry. >No. Dumbledore must not have the power, for whatever reason, to stop >what happened to Harry. Probably the protective spells would not have >worked had the Dursleys taken him in because they were paid. It seems >to me that Dumbledore was not completely aware how awful the Dursleys >were, or it was beyond his power to help Harry. I hope JKR can come up with a darned good reason, because right now it looks like he blithely dropped Harry off, assumed the Dursleys were going to love him like their own son (even with McGonagall's warning), and didn't bother to check on him again. >There's other ethical dilemnas about Dumbledore. Why does he allow >sadistic teachers like Snape to do what he does? There's a lot that >goes on that is questionable. I used to think that DD knew about everything that went on in Hogwarts, but now I'm more of the opinion that he has so many responsibilities that he really doesn't know too many intimate details about what goes on there. Nicky Joe From editor at texas.net Wed Jan 26 19:07:18 2005 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:07:18 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123113 Lupinlore held forth: > And yet Gerry REPEATEDLY rejects just that very option. That is, Alla > and I have time and again expressed agreement that some good for Harry > came out of the detentions, but that the detentions themselves and in > themselves remain EVIL. And yet time and again Gerry rejects that > option to argue that the detentions are GOOD. Now, we would simply > want to know this, is Gerry saying: > > 1) The detentions are GOOD in themselves > 2) The detentions are EVIL in themselves, but GOOD for Harry comes > from them > > Again and again, Dungrollin, you seem to argue that Gerry means #2, to > which Alla and I reply that we have no objection to that. Gerry, > however, seems to be extraordinarily determined to insist upon #1 and > to specifically deny the interpretation that you, I, and everyone else > seems to be making. May I suggest to all involved that the resolution of this point won't make much difference to canon interpretation? This is a philosophical debate best pursued elsewhere? Because What Gerry Really Meant may be fascinating, but in and of itself, it doesn't have all that much to do with Harry Potter. Thanks, ~Amanda From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 26 19:17:29 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:17:29 -0000 Subject: How did everyone know? (OOP pages 610-625 -- American Hard Cover) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123114 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > "tonihollifield" wrote: > > > He [Percy] wants to be highly regarded, > > > and looked up to by those around him. Eggplant: > > Yes, so Percy would have reason to keep the incident where > > Dumbledore beat the all as quiet as possible, it doesn't make > > themlook very good. Minerva McGonagall is probably the one who > > told the school about it. > > SSSusan: > I think a widely-held assumption is that the portraits in DD's office > talked to other portraits, who talked to other portraits, who.... Geoff: This topic was touched on briefly back in April last year. Similar conclusion were offered. The thread was "Rumours" and the relevant section began at message 97273. From kempermentor at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 19:58:14 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:58:14 -0000 Subject: How did everyone know? (OOP pages 610-625 -- American Hard Cover) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123115 Toni wrote: Let me add that I believe that Percy is working for the Order as a spy at the Ministry, and has not betrayed his family. Kemper now: Others have responded to how everyone in school found out with the portraits talking with one another. So... I, too, wanted Percy to be a spy and had thought he was when I first read OoP. But no. In an interview... http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm ... JKR was asked by Echo: "Was Percy acting entirely of his own accord in Order of the Phoenix?" JK Rowling replied, "I'm afraid so." Percy is a git. Kemper Who hopes Percy will redeem himself for Molly's sake. From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 20:33:05 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:33:05 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? (Was: McG / DD / ...) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123116 Alla: >Same question. Why does Harry have a duty to save WW? I am not >talking about metathinking look at all - because Harry is the hero >of the story, etc. I am asking why Harry who does not know that he >is the main character in the books has a duty to save WW, who , IMO >treats him quite horribly from times to times. Interesting question. It made me ask another: What's in it for Harry? If he defeats Voldemort, then he won't have to worry about the freak dogging his footsteps and trying to kill him for the rest of his life, but what else would Harry get out of it? Maybe he could achieve the same results by moving to Australia. Would LV really follow Harry across the globe, or would he be happy taking over Europe, possibly Asia, wreaking havoc and whatever else he plans to do? I suppose the ONLY obligation Harry has to defeat LV is so that his friends will not have to suffer from whatever psychotic reign LV has planned. He doesn't owe it to anyone in the WW except Ron and Hermione, the ones who have stood by him through thick and thin. DD certainly wasn't there when Harry was young, in fact he abandoned him in the Muggle world with no knowledge of what he was. Justified or not, that IS what happened. If the defeat of LV lies solely on his shoulders, he should be asking the WW just what he'd be getting for risking his neck. Frankly, I think Harry could go disappear into the Muggle world. Maybe LV could find him. Maybe not. Nicky Joe From pjarrett at gmail.com Wed Jan 26 16:59:31 2005 From: pjarrett at gmail.com (Patrick Jarrett) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:59:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard Chess WAS (McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry .....) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3def328f0501260859bc9e7a7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123117 > Valky: > Yeah he's acting quite a bit bratty, especially in disregarding the > advice he is given by elders and friends that he *knows* care about > him, but at the end of his fourth year at Hogwarts he faced a mans > battle, he struggled for his very life against the most sinister > force in existence, he wants it over and QUICKLY! I understand his > frustration, he drags himself from the graveyard just scraping his > very young self out of the clutches of Death. He doesn't want to > face that again next year, and who can blame him. -- Patrick: Sometimes I think the fact that Harry's still a kid gets lost. Whether you follow Nature vs Nurture you have to know that a kid needs attention. It's amazing he grew up as 'normal' as he did with the way he was raised by the Dursleys. Sure he's got a chip on his shoulder, and then he enters three years of blissful existence with people who actually care about him, gone from the Dursleys for the school year and in contact with friends while at home. And suddenly when he comes home for a summer, he writes to his friends and gets no response or a bare minimum of a response. He's ostracized and alone now, he doesn't know why, he's not only facing the evil being who could be his end and wants to be his end but he's dealing with a confusing life where suddenly he feels as if he's alone again. I just felt it needed to be said. Yes, he did cross into what we perceive as bratty behavior, but if I were in his position I doubt I'd listen to people who 'cared about me' as they did over that summer. Valky again: > The game seems to end in stalemate though, doesn't it? Or does it? > What did Sirius sacrifice really represent? > If the dealings with Umbridge ended up fulfilling a positive > purpose, could the same possibly be said about Sirius and the Veil? Patrick: Harry as I said, is growing up. He had grown up on his own, then he found Dumbledore as a surrogate father in a way. A male role model may be a better statement. Then after a few years, he discovers friends of his parents, one specifically who shares a lot with him, misunderstood, forced into the limelight, an affection for trouble. I know most of this has been said before, but I think Sirius' departure is a forced maturing for Harry. Another realization that this isn't a game, this isn't Wizard's chess. I know that isn't what you meant, I'm just extending the metaphor. When we're teenagers (hell, I was one 2 years ago), you drive fast, you do stupid stuff because you're immortal. You know you are. Nothing can touch you. You're larger than life. Why is that? Perhaps its biology and its a bi-product of your body changes, or perhaps its society, regardless - it is. And Harry, though he may know its a real battle, especially as he has a close relationship with Death, still doesn't seem to realize his bullheadedness really can get him killed. And others can die as well. These kids are growing up fast, physically and mentally. They're mature for their age, but they haven't grown up. Or, reading over it, perhaps I'm just prattling. -- Patrick From karen at dacafe.com Wed Jan 26 20:59:21 2005 From: karen at dacafe.com (kmcbears1) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:59:21 -0000 Subject: Threatening the Dursleys at the station (was Re: Why not BRIBE ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123118 > >Lupinlore: > > If it's OK to threaten the > > Dursleys NOW in order to get better treatment for Harry, why on > Earth > > wasn't it OK before now? In other words, if it is OK for the > Dursleys > > to be threatened at the end of OOTP, why didn't Dumbledore do this > > long ago? > > > Renee: > The cynical answer: It has come to JKR's attention that the > Wizarding World in general and Dumbledore in particular have been > criticized for leaving Harry with the Dursleys without ensuring he > was treated well. Now she's trying to remedy this for the sake of > greater realism. > > The non-cynical answer: For the first time in the series Harry has > suffered defeat despite his heroic attempt to rescue a loved one. > For the first time he has consciously suffered a personal loss. > Never before has he been in such need for support. That's why this > is the moment he gets it. kmc adds: At the end of book 1 Hagrid gave Harry an equalizer with the Dursleys with the statement about the Dursleys not knowing Harry could not do magic. The beginning of book 2 Harry is imprisoned by the Dursleys and needs rescuing. This act puts the Dursleys on notice that Harry is not alone. In books 3, 4 and beginning of 5, Harry has had the threat of his godfather to hold over the Dursely's. The "reminder" at the end of OotP is just that. A reminder to both Harry and the Dursleys that even though Sirius is dead. Harry is not alone. Just my knut on the subject, KMc From pjarrett at gmail.com Wed Jan 26 17:05:19 2005 From: pjarrett at gmail.com (Patrick Jarrett) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:05:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DEs, anonymity and the HBP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3def328f0501260905644e277b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123119 > catkind: An extremely random thought. > If such anonymity is really the case, the Graveyard naming of names > would be a major change of direction. Perhaps a punishment, or > forcible rebuilding of solidarity after the break? > But, and I'm heading in the direction of farfetched here, IF DEs were > anonymous amongst themselves, how did they address each other at > meetings? I hypothesise, in the tradition of all good spy stories, > codenames. Patrick: This is quite logical. Before V's fall, he had the ability to run his organization with the minimum reliance of its members one each other. And then, when he was gone, it still somehow managed to survive and make actions such as in GoF. Perhaps that was spontaneous, but if it wasn't what it is is a strict, almost mafioso hierarchy where you know X other people, who also know X other people. You don't tell anyone anything else, but if one person tells his network, they tell his network, word spreads and soon everyone knows. To go geeky, it's a P2P social network. No one can fully break the system without finding key nodes and removing them. > So I come to the random thought: could HBP be a Death Eater codename > for Voldemort's mysterious second? > Admittedly it would be a bit odd given LV's supposedly pure-blood > politics, but he's already known to be a bit two-faced about that, and > it could be a snide way of keeping the second in his place. It > wouldn't be so unreasonable to suppose that not just LV and his > nemesis but also his second-in-command are half-bloods. > > Minor supporting arguments: LV is the only character we've come across > thus far who's interested in aristocratic titles, and it would save > all the bother of suddenly discovering a royal family. And Lord > Voldemort is itself a sort of codename. Patrick: This seems possible, I like the theory and if it proves untrue I'd like to see an AU FF based on it. *shrug* We'll see how it goes. -- Patrick From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jan 26 21:15:17 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:15:17 -0000 Subject: WW Cultural bias re clothes and cupboard? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123120 Y'know, all we can really point to, besides the lack of love, which even DD couldn't do anything about, is the clothes and the cupboard. But would the wizards recognize those as mistreatment? It's been a running gag throughout the series that the wizards have no idea how Muggle clothing is supposed to look. One of the funnier moments for me in GoF is when Mr. Crouch shows up at the QWC, every stitch painfully correct -- except that it's completely wrong for the occasion. The wizards don't know enough about Muggle clothing to realize that Harry isn't properly dressed. Ditto for the cupboard. Where do the Slytherin kids sleep? In a windowless dungeon, for heavens sake. Arthur Weasley's office doesn't have a window either. Bog-standard for wizards, it seems. Would Dumbledore's watchers know that Muggle clothing isn't supposed to look like loose elephant skin and it's generally considered unhealthy for Muggle kids to sleep in a windowless room? Pippin From stonehenge.orders at verizon.net Wed Jan 26 21:39:20 2005 From: stonehenge.orders at verizon.net (kjirstem) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:39:20 -0000 Subject: WW Cultural bias re clothes and cupboard? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123121 pippin wrote: > > Y'know, all we can really point to, besides the lack of love, which > even DD couldn't do anything about, is the clothes and the > cupboard. But would the wizards recognize those as > mistreatment? > > > Ditto for the cupboard. Where do the Slytherin kids sleep? In a > windowless dungeon, for heavens sake. Arthur Weasley's office > doesn't have a window either. Bog-standard for wizards, it > seems. > > Would Dumbledore's watchers know that Muggle clothing isn't > supposed to look like loose elephant skin and it's generally > considered unhealthy for Muggle kids to sleep in a windowless > room? kjirstem: Not to mention all the magical space expansion that is common in the WW. I'm thinking of the tent used at the QWC that appeared to be a small two-person tent on the outside but that resembled a flat on the inside. There's also the incredible capacity of the Anglia, IIRC. The WW folks seem to accept that sort of spatial non-linearity without a second thought, so why would a cupboard be any different? Pippin's observations make a lot of sense to me. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 21:48:25 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:48:25 -0000 Subject: WW Cultural bias re clothes and cupboard? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123122 Pippin: all we can really point to, besides the lack of love, which even DD couldn't do anything about, is the clothes and the cupboard. But would the wizards recognize those as mistreatment? It's been a running gag throughout the series that the wizards have no idea how Muggle clothing is supposed to look. One of the funnier moments for me in GoF is when Mr. Crouch shows up at the QWC, every stitch painfully correct -- except that it's completely wrong for the occasion. The wizards don't know enough about Muggle clothing to realize that Harry isn't properly dressed. Ditto for the cupboard. Where do the Slytherin kids sleep? In a windowless dungeon, for heavens sake. Arthur Weasley's office doesn't have a window either. Bog-standard for wizards, it seems. Would Dumbledore's watchers know that Muggle clothing isn't supposed to look like loose elephant skin and it's generally considered unhealthy for Muggle kids to sleep in a windowless room? Alla: I love your observations, Pippin, even when I completely disagree with you, because they are so interesting always. It is an interesting argument, BUT it seems that Dumbledore himself clearly recognised at the end of OOP that Harry WAS wronged and Dumbledore acknowledges that he watched him closer than Harry could ever imagine. So, whether all wizards recognise it as mistreatment or not, Dumbledore clearly does. Just my opinion, Alla From jferer at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 21:50:10 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:50:10 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123123 Nicky Joe: > "I hope JKR can come up with a darned good reason, because right now it looks like he blithely dropped Harry off, assumed the Dursleys were going to love him like their own son (even with McGonagall's warning), and didn't bother to check on him again." Dumbledore has acknowledged he was condemning Harry to "dark and difficult years" when he left him with the Dursleys, so he knew it wouldn't be a picnic, even if he didn't know fully how bad it was going to be. NJ:"I used to think that DD knew about everything that went on in > Hogwarts, but now I'm more of the opinion that he has so many > responsibilities that he really doesn't know too many intimate > details about what goes on there." Do you suppose that JKR is trying to draw a parallel to an old theological argument about God, being the conflict between an omnipotent God and an all-loving God? I don't want to cross the line into religious discussion here, but this argument crosses many philosophical boundaries. Some here have seen theological parallels in HP before now. To bring it back to the series, I find myself running into a conflict between a loving Dumbledore (he certainly seems that way) and a Dumbledore that knows everything, can do anything, and fix anything. I personally never believed in an omnipotent Dumbledore. I know nothing is tidy, totally organized, and sewn up perfectly; actually, I wonder how anything gets done in this messy world, and there's no reason to think the wizard world is any different. Jim Ferer From richard at sc.lug.org.uk Wed Jan 26 20:08:39 2005 From: richard at sc.lug.org.uk (richard_smedley) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:08:39 -0000 Subject: Harry's birth certificate [was Re: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake] In-Reply-To: <546807FF.5655EB7D.0B4B226A@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123124 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, happydogue at a... wrote: > Mrs. doesn't work outside of the home and It's interesting that neither does Molly Weasley, yet it was poor Arthur who got the blame for their poverty in another thread [snip] > That brings be to another question...Harry must of had > a birth certificate or sometype of record to get into > school. I wonder how they worked that? It's an interesting question if you expand it to all wizards who have to get by in the Muggle world (no NI [1] number, no passport, etc.). However in this case HP would have been fine - you don't need a birth certificate to go to school in the UK, certainly not in England and Wales, at any rate. I would imagine wizards who live ``undercover'' lives, integrated into muggle communities, probably conform to a lot of bureaucratic requirements, and those that don't would either magic up necessary documents, or persuade officials to look elsewhere (like Obe Wan in Star Wars IV). [1] NI is National Insurance - introduced after the war as a compulsory tax to cover the cost of the welfare state (pensions, et al.), it is now an extra, non-hypothecated tax (and a whopping extra 20% if you pay yourself through your own limited company). - Richard -- http://www.affs.org.uk/grants/ - Grants for Free Software development in the UK www.kyfieithu.co.uk - Meddalwedd Rhydd yn Gymraeg www.cymrux.org.uk - GNU/Linux Cymraeg ar un CD! From apzdcmsw at yahoo.ca Wed Jan 26 21:28:39 2005 From: apzdcmsw at yahoo.ca (Matt) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:28:39 -0000 Subject: Wizard Chess WAS (McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry .....) In-Reply-To: <3def328f0501260859bc9e7a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123125 Patrick Jarrett wrote: > Sometimes I think the fact that Harry's still a kid gets lost. > (SNIP) > And suddenly when he comes home for a summer, he writes to his > friends and gets no response or a bare minimum of a response. He's > ostracized and alone now, he doesn't know why, he's not only > facing the evil being who could be his end and wants to be his end > but he's dealing with a confusing life where suddenly he feels as > if he's alone again. > > I just felt it needed to be said. Yes, he did cross into what we > perceive as bratty behavior, but if I were in his position I doubt > I'd listen to people who 'cared about me' as they did over that > summer. > SNIP the rest of this great post! Matt now: Thanks very much for this Patrick! It seems that in a couple of recent threads, a lot of people seem to really be criticizing Harry, and pointing out the very many mistakes he made and how he was stupid, etc. etc. However, I agree that people are overlooking the fact that Harry Potter is still a 15-year old teenage wizard. It is easy to look back at Harry's actions and look at all these "mistakes" he made, however I think that Harry made the decisions he did under conditions of extreme pressure and anger. And who wouldn't have been angry at what was happening around him in OotP? Given the intense pressures he was under, such as the torture suffered by Umbridge, the feelings of anger he had at being left in the dark by his friends, the avoidance of DD, etc., I am not surprised he was angry and acting on this emotion. After keeping him at arms length for so long and keeping him totally out of the information loop, it would be hard for Harry to simply go along with everything that DD and others were telling him to do (example: the occlumency lessons that made him feel weak and were taught by Snape who always gives Harry the impression that he hates him). Although Harry might have made some mistakes (although not as many IMO as others seem to believe), given all the pressures on him in this year, along with the regular teenager issues, I think Harry did better than most teenagers would have under those circumstances. >From Harry's perspective, given that there was a war going on and the leader of the evil side wanted to see you dead, while at the same time you were asked to do something painful (occlumency) without adequate explanations or additional information, I am not surprised it added to some pretty angry feelings! Matt MSW From lsanford at lnls.org Wed Jan 26 21:54:09 2005 From: lsanford at lnls.org (L Sanford) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:54:09 -0600 Subject: Who's on the LV hit list? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123126 Hi ! I'm new to the list and like someone else who's name escapes me at the moment, I was a little frustrated in OoP by LV pouring the whole of his energy into the pursuit of a prophesy. True, impartial knowledge of this prophesy resulted in his downfall at the beginning of the series but it's not clear in the canon that HE understands that - we as readers have the advantage here. But it did make me wonder since the recorded prophesy is now lost to him, if he won't try to uncover what it said from it's original source - Professor Trelawney. Given her eccentric ways, her reluctance to socialize with her collegues(clouds her "inner eye), and her lack of actual everyday ability (with two notable exceptions) it would be easy for a DE to arrange a meeting with her outside Hogwarts for a personal reading of the ol tea leaves. I think she would find such a request flattering and would feel reinforced in her belief that she DOES "See", even if no one else thinks so. I believe this is a real point of vulnerability and as ST is out of the loop as far as the struggle against LV is concerned, it probably hasn't occurred to any of the order members to consider that LV still needs to know what the prophecy actually said. As far as my frustration goes, I think it just may be a plot set-up for HBP. Thoughts anyone? Molley From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 26 22:11:29 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:11:29 -0000 Subject: McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: Alla: > > > > > > Basically you are saying that being tortured with the blood > > > quill was a very good thing for Harry, in itself, correct? Gerry: > > In this situation, yes. Rotten but beneficial. For the people who > > only want to equal good with virtuous, nobel, morally good etc. > > please check a dictionary and broaden your view of the English > > language. Geoff (earlier): > As you rather brusquely suggested, I consulted the nearest dictionary > to hand: > > good > adjective (better, best) 1 to be desired or approved of. 2 > having the required qualities; of a high standard. 3 morally right; > virtuous. 4 well behaved. 5 enjoyable or satisfying. 6 > appropriate. 7 (good for) beneficial to. 8 thorough. 9 at least: > (she's a good twenty years younger). > > rotten > adjective 1 suffering from decay. 2 corrupt. 3 informal > very bad or unpleasant. > > beneficial > adjective favourable or advantageous. > > > Dungrollin: > I believe Gerry was making the point that 'morally right' is > not the *only* definition of the word 'good'. Indeed you > listed 'beneficial' as one of the definitions. Geoff (earlier): > I also fail to see a correlation between "rotten" and "beneficial" in > this context. Geoff: I actually then correlated Gerry's adjectives with the words in my definition - that bit got snipped.... Hence, beneficial wasn't listed because she didn't include it in that context. Dungrollin: > Precisely that Umbridge's actions were rotten (very bad or > unpleasant), but the effect they had on Harry was good > (beneficial). It wasn't "rotten *and* beneficial", it was > "rotten *but* beneficial". I fail to see how it could be unclear. Geoff: It isn't unclear. I just don't aceept that "rotten" action which can lead to "beneficial" results is acceptable. You can take extreme cases such as the bombing of London in the Second World War; from that came great cases of sacrifice and the building of powerful friendships among neighbours who often gave of what little they had left and provided shelter for others who had nothing which created bonds continuing long after the war. But it doesn't justify the initial rottenness. The same could be said of prisoners in concentration camps; some showed great kindness and performed humanitarian acts for other inmates, sometimes giving their lives in place of others. But it doesn't justify the initial rottenness. Geoff (earlier): > All things considered, I think that you missed an important point in > Alla's remarks - that using the quill was /in itself/ correct. Are > you suggesting that the action, which was improper and sadistic, was > correctly started by this woman to bring home to Harry the need to > conform? > Dungrollin: > Of course Umbridge's actions were morally wrong ? I never > understood Gerry to be saying that they weren't. Geoff: Well, that impression has been given. Dungrollin: > But the effecton Harry (making him realise that some methods of > opposing Umbridge were counter-productive) were good ('beneficial' > if you need it spelling out again). Geoff: Thank you, no. Spelling is one of my better abilities. :-) From pjarrett at gmail.com Wed Jan 26 16:46:09 2005 From: pjarrett at gmail.com (Patrick Jarrett) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 11:46:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A few random thoughts (long) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3def328f05012608467b1317f9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123128 Ty: > So that tells me that they will meet one on one again but here is a > problem. DD told Harry that because their wands are from the same > phoenix they will not face each other and if forced would have the > effect as in GoF. -- Patrick responds: When I read this just now something clicked and I am wondering if perhaps, when they do meet, the end will not involve Harry's wand. They say magic is possible without the wand, we've seen it a few times I think, in the movies definitely - I cannot recall in the books. The wand acts as a lens and focuses the magical power, but it is possible to do things without the wand. Mostly simple things like lighting candles or something. So what if, Harry doesn't use the wand. He realizes that they would be locked in it, or maybe is stripped of his wand and uses his ability to focus his power and cast the charm or however it ends. That's my theory. -- Patrick From happydogue at aol.com Wed Jan 26 22:19:12 2005 From: happydogue at aol.com (happydogue at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:19:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's birth certificate [was Re: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake] Message-ID: <79EECB5E.61D274F0.0B4B226A@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123129 Maybe not a birth certificate to get into school but some officeial document or shot records. Things werea bit more lax in the 80's. J From manawydan at ntlworld.com Wed Jan 26 22:41:04 2005 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:41:04 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? References: <1106761907.66574.67866.m24@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002201c503f8$1f8f87c0$704b6d51@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 123130 Eggplant speculated: >buys his son lots of expensive gifts. I don't think Vernon got all >that money selling drills, he's not smart enough to have a job that >good. They clearly hate Harry, especially Vernon, and treat him poorly Well, it's certainly canon that Vernon was in that job _before_ he and Petunia took on responsibility for Harry. We don't know the age difference between Lily and Petunia (though I think it's reasonable to assume that Lily was the younger sister) or how old Petunia and Vernon were when they got married. But I can imagine the young Vernon as a rising young sales executive in Grunnings and being something of an icon of safety, solidity, and respectability to Petunia, faced as she was during Lily's teenage with a sister who was suddenly able to do outrageous and incomprehensible things to bend reality (as well as hanging around with equally outrageous and incomprehensible friends). (And it got her killed in the end, adds Petunia). We also have very little canon for Vernon in the workplace. But if Potterverse history is the same as ours, his firm has survived through two of the worst periods of economic disaster for English manufacturing industry and it's still there. If he was _that_ incompetent, he'd either have been "let go" (sacked to you or me) or have dragged the firm down into bankruptcy or merger, the way so many others went in those dark times. I'm not setting myself up as a Vernon fan, but I don't think we can knock him down on that front, Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 22:49:14 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:49:14 -0000 Subject: Love again, was Re: A few random thoughts (long) In-Reply-To: <002b01c503d8$85047bd0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123131 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" I would be disappointed if we are presented with a completely magical solution to the series. I expect and hope that it will be combination of all the things I mentioned AND MAGIC. > > Sherry G Tonks here: As Geoff pointed out upthread the type of Love that Christ had for the world is a special type of love. And I think that it is the ultimate *magic* or *magick* if you will. As Geoff pointed out we often get confused with the term *love*. The type of love that can love ones enemy is a love of CHOICE, not a feeling. In a book called "The Road Less Traveled" the author points out this concept of Love as a choice. Anyone would find it hard to love an enemy if it required a goodie, goodie feeling. It is not a feeling. Affection is a feeling. Love, real love is a choice. And it is a choice to place the welfare of another on at least an even basis without own. I just finished rereading SS/PS. And DD tells Harry that LV can not be killed. So there must be something else that has to be done. Tonks_op From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Wed Jan 26 22:52:49 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:52:49 -0000 Subject: Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123132 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Harry is not medically starving. He's small for his age in PS/SS, [deleted] > Of course, food is used as a punishment, either by taking it away, or > giving more to Dudley, and Harry is rarely full, which I agree is > wrong, but I don't remember Harry ever being described as faint and > dizzy from lack of food. (I could be wrong of course - please point > me to canon!) In CoS when he was locked in his room after the pudding incident he was described as such. We don't know how long the Dursleys would have kept on with it if the Weasleys did not show up with the flying car. > The cupboard and the locked and barred room is another story. > There's a fire hazard issue with at least the locked room, and I > *know* the judges in my area would have a problem with Harry living > in a cupboard. However, I don't think they'd remove Harry from the > Dursley's. Rather, they'd insist that he's given an actual room. He was also forbidden to be anywhere else but school or his cupboard - or Mrs. Figg. I don't have the book here, but it's explicitely mentioned in the SS book. > His clothes are hand-me-downs, but they're clean, and he's clean. They are also extremely ill fitting, causing ridicule by other kids. This is not abuse per se, agreed, but part of a pattern of emotional neglect and abuse. > to me, comparing what those kids have gone > through with what Harry endures at the Dursleys is almost > disrespectful. Harry is badly treated, yes. And I think it may be > fear of the neighbors that keeps the Dursleys from sliding into more > reprehensible behavior, which says something about their character. > But, I think we should be careful about throwing the word "abuse" > around. Of course, this is only my opinion. The Dursleys don't engage in criminal activities (which is the type of abuse you were discussing). What they do is not abuse in the legal sense but emotional neglect and mistreatment. They are raising a child in their home without giving him love or care for his emotional needs. It all flows from the fact that they dislike everything about Harry. They are not abusive people by nature - ignorant and coarse yes, but not abusive. But they let Harry know in no uncertain terms from day one that he is a worthless human being. I view this as a type of emotional abuse, which can sometimes be worse than physical abuse (which at least shows the person cares enough to hit - no I am not in any way justifying it - but the fact that neglected kids tend to act out because they think negative attention is better than no attention - is a well documented fact). Incidentally, Dudley is certainly not fairing much better. Both boys suffer from the two sides of the same malaise - the Dursleys' total lack of parental skills. The difference is that Harry is unloved and uncared for by anyone (to his knowledge) during most of his formative years. There are plenty of studies documenting the damage to children's development due to lack of care and love even when all their physical needs are fulfilled. > >And DD had to put Harry with Patunia to protect Harry, it was the > only way.< I thought that Petunia's decision to take the risk and keep Harry in OoP may be a turning point in her relationship with him. It is the first time ever that she shows him - and perhaps discovers herself - that she cares for him. I guess we'll find out if this is really the case in about 6 months time... Salit From erikal at magma.ca Thu Jan 27 00:06:16 2005 From: erikal at magma.ca (Erika L.) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:06:16 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Strategist!Ron proof? (was: Drastic changes in store for school & classes in book 6?) Message-ID: <002901c50404$06925200$a4a51a40@yourc44d19af4e> No: HPFGUIDX 123133 Vivian wrote: >I do think that things will change drastically at the >beginning of the next school year. >This may also be the year that Ron realizes that he has >an important gift to offer the Order, his gift for strategy! I'd like to ask something at this point. Other than Ron's chess playing abilities do we have any canon-based evidence that he's a good strategist? After all, good chess players are not always good military strategists and vice versa. A while ago I was reading an old chess book by Edward Lasker who was a leading chess player in his day and, in addition to writing many chess books, also attained the status of International Chess Master-- in 1960, I believe... Anyway he points out the following: "Probably you will be surprised to learn that Napoleon himself, the master strategist, was a persistent but poor player. On the other hand, you will discover that there were some celebrated chess masters who were anything but mental giants. They offer strong evidence that chess skill may go hand-in-hand with an astonishing lack of other mental attainments." The Adventure of Chess by Edward Lasker, p xvii I'm not by any means an expert on chess and no I'm *not* trying to say that Ron is an idiot. I think he's an average student like most of the others in his class. However I keep hearing about strategist!Ron and I would like to know if there's anything other than his accomplishments at chess to support the theory. Best, Erika (Wolfraven) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 23:12:27 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:12:27 -0000 Subject: How did everyone know? (OOP pages 610-625 -- American Hard Cover) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123134 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tonihollifield" wrote: > > > ... > > After the altercation between DD, Fudge, etc. in DD's office, we're > told that notices of Umbridge becoming Headmistress have gone up all > over the school overnight, but that > > "they did not explain how every single person within the > castle seemed to know that Dumbledore had overcome two Aurors, the > High Inquisitor, the Minister of Magic, AND HIS JUNIOR ASSISTANT to > escape." (My emphasis, sorry about the caps, I couldn't figure out > how to italize.) > > Now, I know that I've read past discussion about who it was that > started to spread the news around the school, but I don't think I've > seen anyone suggest that it was Percy. I would argue that the > information spread is classic Percy. We know that Percy was not > present in DD's office during the altercation, ... > > ...edited... > > Any thoughts? > > Toni bboyminn: As others have suggested, given how outraged the Headmaster/mistriss protraits were by Fudge's action, that it was indeed they who spread the word. First to other portraits then eventually those other portraits passed the news to students and teachers. As to Percy's inclusion, I think that probably occurred because some students and portraits would have seen Percy arrive with Fudge and two Aurors; so his presents was known and people would have assumed he too was involved. It's possible Percy did speak to someone on his way to the owlry, but the information he would have conveyed would have been that Dumbledore had been caught. Or, he may have said something that made other people or portraits realize that something MAJOR was afoot in the headmaster's office. Any clues he dropped would have made people aware something was up and would have then heightened the level of curiosity. That high level of curiousity would have increased the speed at which news would have spread once that news was available. Even before the events had played out, there would have been people and portraits eagerly waiting to find out the details. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 23:15:12 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:15:12 -0000 Subject: WW Cultural bias re clothes and cupboard? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: Snip) RE: clothes and the cupboard. But would the wizards recognize those as mistreatment? > > It's been a running gag throughout the series that the wizards > have no idea how Muggle clothing is supposed to look. Snip)> > Ditto for the cupboard. Where do the Slytherin kids sleep? In a > windowless dungeon, for heavens sake. (Snip) > Would Dumbledore's watchers know that Muggle clothing isn't > supposed to look like loose elephant skin and it's generally > considered unhealthy for Muggle kids to sleep in a windowless > room? Tonk here: Many health children in loving homes have live without a window in their small bedrooms. And I like to think that what JKR is showing us here is that the middle class American, (and maybe British) idea of having a fancy house, the right style of clothing and everything that you want, etc. is not the important thing. And it isn't after all. The important thing is not what you wear or where you sleep, it is who you are. Look at Dudley, look at Draco, they are the pampered little brats, but not Harry. Harry is a good decent human being. And I for one am always asking myself "how is it that Harry is so good?" He has a terrible home life, a bully for a cousin that makes his school life hell too, yet Harry is a very kind, forgiving and loving person. There is just *something* about Harry. I like the fact that Harry can overcome the middle class cultural bias (easier for a boy anyway when it comes to clothes) and turn out to be someone who lives for what is important and not for the next *in* style of whatever. Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 23:37:27 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:37:27 -0000 Subject: Realism or Fairytale(was: Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123136 >>Alla: >Again, I am not sure how well JKR managed the transition, but I don't see mauch of fairytale aspect on a deeper level of OOP.< >>Renee: >Oh, "fairytale" shouldn't be taken too litterally, but "fantastic literature laden with symbolism" (or something in that vein) is such a mouthful...< Betsy: Thank you for clearing that up a bit Renee. I think I see what you and SSSusan were talking about up thread (and now I'm a bit embarrassed by my earlier response - because I did not quite get it at the time. *blushes*). Because a reader *does* have different expectations for a "fairytale" story vs. a "realistic" one. And the first book seems to be on a "fairytale" track. So of *course* Harry is an orphan, and of *course* his relatives are mean and nasty. It goes with the story-type, and unlike a more realistic story, we the readers, just sort of go with it. We're not offended by the Dursleys because this isn't real. And of course there *has* to be a "Wise-Man" type character who provides the hero with just enough hints for him to fulfill his task and reap his reward. Dumbledore fits the bill beautifully, and of course we don't worry about how exactly he got to be so all-knowing or if he really *is* all-knowing. That's what the character is supposed to be like, and so that is how he is. But then, as the books go on, the track shifts just a bit. Suddenly the hero isn't perfectly good and innocent, the good guys and bad guys aren't as easily discerned, and the wise-man ain't so wise. And what you're asking, Renee, (I think) is if JKR is successfully bringing us along this sudden twist in the ride. Or if she's even meaning for the story to cross completely into realism. >>Renee: >The characters and emotions are the elements that provide the recognition without which we couldn't relate to this story and its characters. But why introduce magic, why fill these books with symbols (the animal symbolism alone is overwhelming), just to provide a decorative and amusing backcloth? There's a lot going on underneath the surface that we won't pick up by merely looking at psychological, social and political developments.< Betsy: I agree with you that this is a mythical journey, so there must be and is a great deal of symbolism in the story. JKR obviously put a lot of research into the content of the books, and I doubt she did it *just* for backcloth. However, I think for most casual readers of these books, the symbolism *is* backcloth. But its very richness is what pulls so many readers in, and provides so much fodder for the more involved readers to chew on. And it is what makes the series a little deeper (or multi-layered) than most children's "coming of age" books. So yes, *only* debating the RW issues misses some of what the series has to offer. >>Renee: >By the way, I agree with what Pippin and Geoff say about the more realistic tone of OotP reflecting a development in Harry's world view. In fact, I claimed something similar in message #118155 concerning Harry's changing perception of Dumbledore. Still, the setting as such hasn't changed, the magic works like it did before, the symbols are still there, and the first books are still different in tone. And it's when the more realistic interpretation invited by OotP is projected back onto the earlier, less realistic books, that you get this transition problem. Which is why a more symbolic interpretation seems so promising to me: it has a better chance to keep the whole series together.< Betsy: This is where we differ a bit. Because I think JKR set out some "tells" in the first books that hinted that the story was not quite "fairy-tale" and setup the more "realistic" books to come. (I went into those "tells" in my last response, so I won't bore everyone by repeating myself. :)) But I think the big question is really (as Alla pointed out), how well is JKR handling the transition? Did she drop enough hints for readers to follow along or is everything suddenly different? I don't know if these questions can be fully debated until the end of the series, but it is interesting. Betsy From gbannister10 at aol.com Wed Jan 26 23:43:10 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:43:10 -0000 Subject: Wizard Chess WAS (McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry .....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123137 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" wrote: Matt: > Although Harry might have made some mistakes (although not as many > IMO as others seem to believe), given all the pressures on him in > this year, along with the regular teenager issues, I think Harry > did better than most teenagers would have under those > circumstances. From Harry's perspective, given that there was a war > going on and the leader of the evil side wanted to see you dead, > while at the same time you were asked to do something painful > (occlumency)without adequate explanations or additional > information, I am not surprised it added to some pretty angry > feelings! Geoff: I wrote some thoughts along these lines about 2 months ago. You might like to follow it up.... Message 118574 "Harry's developing behaviour - average or uniaue?" From tonisan9 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 26 20:51:05 2005 From: tonisan9 at hotmail.com (tonihollifield) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:51:05 -0000 Subject: How did everyone know? (OOP pages 610-625 -- American Hard Cover) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123138 > Kemper: > I, too, wanted Percy to be a spy and had thought he was when I first > read OoP. But no. In an interview... > > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm > > ... JKR was asked by Echo: "Was Percy acting entirely of his own > accord in Order of the Phoenix?" JK Rowling replied, "I'm afraid so." I don't see why Percy acting of his own accord has to be contrary to his working for the Order. I understood JKR's answer to that question to mean that he wasn't acting under the Imperius Curse. Toni, who is enjoying doing more than just lurking. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 23:48:09 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:48:09 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: <20050126054159.15558.qmail@web61204.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123139 Carol earlier: > > But you also conceded that Snape's remark about the stinging hex ("Well, that was not as bad as it might have been") was praise coming from Snape, and that wasn't the only instance in which Snape praised Harry. and surely, for Snape, that illustrates remarkable control.< > > Arynn replied: > Yes, he does praise Harry, but that has nothing to do with his anger problems (apples and oranges). A person with his anger under control would't throw a jar at a teenager's head just for acting like all teenagers do, (nosey and rebelious). Plus I seem to remember him pushing Harry hard enough that Harry fell over. Not to mention his constant "putting down" of Harry, even his "compliments" are ill-natured. Carol responds: True, the praise has nothing to do with anger--except that it came at a time when we'd expect Snape to be angry and he wasn't. But I was talking about Alla's concessions, not about anger per se. Also, we don't actually know that Snape threw the jar of cockroaches. That's Harry's after-the-fact perception. I think it may have exploded through accidental magic much like Harry's own when he's angry ("blowing up" Aunt Marge--no doubt he wishes she'd blown up in the other sense). And note that Snape threw Harry *from* him and told him to get out of his office, probably because he knew that he was too angry to control his anger if Harry stayed. At no other time does Snape express his anger through physical action (unless you count hitting James with a slashing hex after James has repeatedly hexed him). I still think that Snape did a remarkable job of controlling his anger during the Occlumency lessons themselves. (I've already cited numerous examples.) Compare Crouch!Moody, who turns Draco into a ferret and bounces him. Draco may have deserved it, but it must have hurt him physically as well as emotionally and that's child abuse in my book--or Filch, who wants to torture the students to make up for his own magical incompetence. For a Slytherin and a former DE, Snape manages pretty well in controlling both his anger (*almost* always expressed through words or nonphysical punishments) and his natural antipathies. Carol From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jan 26 20:09:15 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:09:15 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: <001101c50265$0f515cb0$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123140 > Trekkie: > I still think you can compare creating a new timeline with creating a > parallel or alternat universe. That way, things CAN affect each other - in > ONE reality, but not in the one you came from, thus making it possible to > kill yourself as a child. > Speaking of killing oneself, I'm tempted to kill myself over this headache! I've read everyone's replies and I'm pleased to see what everyone thinks, but it all still does my head in because I can't get past the original loop hole, ie that Harry can't save himself in the way JKR described. His first time line reaches a bad conclusion with the Dementors so there's just no way he can be in a position to stop it from happening because he doesn't survive to get there. It just seems so obvious to me that I can't believe JKR let it slip through. If you compare the way of intervening with the way that Bob Taylor intervenes in his own past in The Guardian Of Time, that intervention is dealt with in the original plot's time line - so it all works out, and I don't get severe brain ache. The natural course of events is never messed up because everything reaches it's natural conclusion ie his intervention does not prevent his earlier self from doing anything that wouldn't otherwise have happened. It's a little tricky to explain, but works in such a way that I'm happy about it... But back to PoA, the Time Turner does get conveniently forgotten in the next two books, doesn't it? Sandra. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Jan 27 00:14:20 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:14:20 -0000 Subject: Wizard Chess WAS (McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry .....) In-Reply-To: <3def328f0501260859bc9e7a7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123141 > > Valky: Yeah he's acting quite a bit bratty, especially in disregarding the advice he is given by elders and friends that he *knows* care about him, but at the end of his fourth year at Hogwarts he faced a mans battle, he struggled for his very life against the most sinister force in existence, he wants it over and QUICKLY! I understand his frustration,> > -- Patrick: > Sometimes I think the fact that Harry's still a kid gets lost. > I just felt it needed to be said. Yes, he did cross into what we > perceive as bratty behavior, but if I were in his position I doubt I'd listen to people who 'cared about me' as they did over that summer. > Valky replys: I am glad this thread has finally turned in Harrys favour. You're so right Patrick, and Matt and Geoff. Harry is actually a really decent kid when all is said and done. I don't think his OOtP blowups are any indication of the opposite, at all. Despite the determination of others to prove it to me. :D > Valky again: > > The game seems to end in stalemate though, doesn't it? Or does it? What did Sirius sacrifice really represent? > > If the dealings with Umbridge ended up fulfilling a positive > > purpose, could the same possibly be said about Sirius and the Veil? > > Patrick: > but I think Sirius' departure is a forced maturing for Harry. Another realization that this isn't a game, this isn't Wizard's chess. I know that isn't what you meant, I'm just extending the metaphor. > Valky: I agree with that, I think you know I was using the Wizard Chess metaphor in terms of plot construction, and cracking the code of PS/SS to see the foreshadowings of the next books, but on another level to that I totally agree that there is no Wizard Chess or game of any nature, to be found. OTOH I discovered that I was wrong about Wizard Chess being the fifth step under the trapdoor, which thoroughly confused me. Its the fourth AFAIK so now I am wondering why the Chess metaphor fits the plot so remarkably? And I was kind of hoping I could apply the Logic Puzzle to a foreshadowing of the HBP as a follow up, but that's not working now. I guess I'll have to create a new theory about the under the trapdoor foreshadowings called JMO (JKR Mixed the Order). ;D Where there's a will..... > Or, reading over it, perhaps I'm just prattling. > > -- Patrick No not at all Patrick, It needs to be said and I am glad you said it. Personally, I find it depressing that the focus of so many readers of OOtP became a harsh thorough and deliberate judgement of the heroes, their behaviour and their attitudes and the list of their wrongs on Wizardkind. It was the atmosphere of the story, IMO and doesn't need to be applied to drastically to undo Harry as a good character. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 00:15:09 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:15:09 -0000 Subject: Ginny comes out of nowhere, but how about Ron? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123142 "Brian Brinkman" wrote: > Onto Ron... > I had a hard time taking in what I perceived as Ron's "new" > persona. When Ron re-enters the scene in OOTP, he seems different. > In fact, he seems more life Steve Irwin from "Crocodile Hunter" than > the Ron I came to know in the first four books. Since when did he > begin speckling his addresses to Harry with "mate"? Or is this > simply an example of my misunderstanding of British English. I was > aware of the "mate" designation, but its relative infrequency in GOF > vs. its frequency in OOTP had me wondering, "What does it mean?" Is > JKR attempting to show Ron employing a strategy in dealing with > Harry's new emotional state? Carol responds: The "mate" business surprised me, too. It sounds more like the twins than Ron. (IIRC, one of them addresses Sirius as "mate.") I didn't think of Steve Irwin--it sounded British, not Australian, to me--but it did strike me as "not Ron," if you understand my meaning. Is he trying to sound more grown up, or at least more like a teenager and less like a child? Or is it a means of stating his affection and empathy for angry!Harry is a way that will be acceptable to another teenage boy? Did Ron talk this way in the British editions of the other four books, or is it indeed something new? If so, has JKR just forgotten how Ron talks or does it mean something that we Americans (who think of "mate" as the sexual partner of an animal) are missing? Carol From alex51324 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 27 00:19:36 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex boyd) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:19:36 +0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: <1106761907.66574.67866.m24@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123143 I have (what I think is) a new side to the "why didn't Dumbledore *do* something about the Dursleys?" question: He didn't know quite how bad they were, because he wasn't paying attention. he wasn't paying attention not because he's negligent, but because there are a *lot* of orphans in the wizarding world, and the Headmaster of the (best or only, take your pick) wizarding school in Britain doesn't have the time to make sure that they are all sleeping in proper bedrooms and getting as many birthday presents as their foster siblings. We know that loads of people died in Voldemort's first uprising, and plenty of them probably had just enough time to have kids before they did. All of those orphans had to have places to live. Harry probably isn't the only one to end up living with Muggle relatives. I don't think is particularly realistic to expect Dumbledore to watch over all of them, and why should Harry be special? (Because he defeated Voldemort, of course, but that particular situation is taken care of by the blood magic protection thingy.) To extend the arguement that Harry ought to have been removed from the home because he was emotionally neglected and treated in an unfair manner, are we then going to say that Dumbledore ought to have done something about Neville's grandmother undermining his confidence and convincing him he'd never be a good enough wizard to go to Hogwarts? Should he have done something about Draco Malfoy being raised by two Dark wizards who turned him into a spoiled brat? What about Ron Weasley--should Dumbledore have been monitoring that situation to make sure that his parents could afford to provide everything he needed? Of course not, because it's not Dumbledore's job to make sure that all wizarding children everywhere are recieving appropriate nurturance. "But!" I hear you saying. "Dumbledore left him at the Dursley's house. Doesn't that make him responsible?" Maybe, but I sort of think that that scene was motivated more by economy than a sense that Dumbledore ought to have a continuing responsibility to Harry during his childhood--JKR probably didn't want to invent a Wizarding Department of Social Welfare just for that one scene. Or, to Watson it, if I offered to drive a friend's orphaned child to his new guardians (maybe I'm close friends with this theoretic deceased person, maybe I just happened to be going that way, I don't know), I wouldn't feel that that gave me the right to meddle in the new family's business for the next eleven years. Alex From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Thu Jan 27 00:38:48 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:38:48 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123144 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sandra87b" wrote: > > But back to PoA, the Time Turner does get conveniently forgotten in the next two books, doesn't it? > > Sandra. Valky: If you read my reply, you'll know what my answer to that is, but just in case you haven't, I am *absolutely sure* timeturning is making a come back. You may know that sometimes with JKR the biggest clues to what is to come, rather than what we are told, is what we are *not* told... ;P http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2000/1000-aol-chat.htm "Will Harry time-travel again? Not telling! " From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 00:55:41 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:55:41 -0000 Subject: Ennervate & Innervate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123145 Geoff wrote: > > The prefix "en-" to me implies an expansion rather than a > > contraction - "enfranchise" and "ennoble" spring to mind. > > > > And, as I pointed out yesterday, the Bloomsbury edition do use the > > correctly spelt "Enervate" with only one "n". > > > > Geoff > > (having a pedantic moment) > > bboyminn: > > Certainly, Innervate is not a common word, I don't think I've ever > heard any one use it in speaking or writing in my entire substantially long life. > Sure enough, I stumbled across 'innervate'. When the words are so > close in sound, using an 'E' instead of an 'I' would be a common > mistake. Also, one could subconsciously compound the mistake by making an association between the 'en' in ennervate and the 'en' in energy. > > As I said before, given that JKR makes up words, and that these > particular words are somewhat obscure, I can see how the Editors > missed it. > > As far as the Bloomsbury editions using 'enervate' with one 'N', I > suspect that was a Auto-Spell Checker correction. An editor running an initial spell check may have taken it for a spelling error, whereas > the US Scholastic editors may have left it 'as is' assuming it was a > made up word. > > Regardless of all that, I still think the correct word is 'Innervate'. Carol: I agree with Steve that the American edition is correct (the editor left JKR's spelling alone and the British editor miscorrected it), and I agree with Geoff that en- means "to put into" (so the stunned persons's nerves are awakened or put into an alert state). The "n" is correctly doubled in JKR's made-up word because the root "nerv-" starts with an "n" (like "noble" in "ennoble," Geoff's excellent example.) "Enervate" is clearly an editing error, one that JKR could easily have missed when she read the copyedited manuscript or the page proofs, especially if she trusts her editor's spelling to be better than her own. (It should have been queried and the correct spelling placed on a Style Sheet for the proofreader and typesetter. Remember the editors who tried to change Tolkien's "Dwarves" to "dwarfs"?) At any rate, I'm pretty sure that "ennervate" is right and "enervate," despite being a real word, is wrong. And Steve's "innervate" would be wrong, too, for the same reason, since it would suggest taking the nerves out of their alert state, which has already happened through the stunning spell. Maybe "ennervate" should be "renervate"--also made up but perhaps a bit more self-explanatory. A spell that strikes me as just plain wrong, as "Ennervate" apparently struck Steve, is the disillusionment spell that the Advance Guard places on Harry in OoP. Surely Harry is "illusioned" when he's made to blend into his surroundings like a chameleon and "*dis*illusioned" when the camouflage is removed? But I think that JKR sacrificed logic for a pun; she wanted Mad-Eye Moody (IIRC) to say that he was disillusioning Harry so that both he and the reader would think for a moment that meant rob him of his illusions about someone or something that he had idealized. BTW, disillusion literally means disenchant, so that would mean removing rather than placing the spell. Sorry I didn't take the time to recheck the passage, but I think I remember it correctly. Carol, who thinks that automatic spell checkers should be banned from the publishing industry (and freshman composition classes) From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Jan 27 00:58:39 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:58:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123146 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex boyd" wrote: > > "But!" I hear you saying. "Dumbledore left him at the Dursley's house. > Doesn't that make him responsible?" Maybe, but I sort of think that that > scene was motivated more by economy than a sense that Dumbledore ought to > have a continuing responsibility to Harry during his childhood--JKR probably > didn't want to invent a Wizarding Department of Social Welfare just for that > one scene. Or, to Watson it, if I offered to drive a friend's orphaned > child to his new guardians (maybe I'm close friends with this theoretic > deceased person, maybe I just happened to be going that way, I don't know), > I wouldn't feel that that gave me the right to meddle in the new family's > business for the next eleven years. > > Alex I agree with most everything you say up to this part, Alex. And the reason I disagree is that, for whatever reason, Dumbledore IS the one who makes the decision with regard to Harry. He IS NOT simply dropping him off in answer to some law or somebody else's decision. He MADE the decision. It is entirely possible that JKR wrote the scene this way for reasons of narrative mechanics as you point out. So what? For whatever reason, THE SCENE IS WRITTEN THAT WAY. Therefore, to excuse Dumbledore on the basis of "economy" is simply to say "well, it's a book and it doesn't make very much sense sometimes so we'll just have to take the bad with the good and accept that DD is one of the heroes and we shouldn't ask questions." Now, I get the strong impression sometimes that this last policy is the one JKR herself would like to advocate. Hence all the epitome of goodness stuff, basically saying DD is a good guy and JKR is very uncomfortable with the thought that the kind of "realism" applied to someone like Fudge or Umbridge should be applied to DD. But unfortunately that just doesn't work for me or for a lot of other people. JKR has written her scenes, now she needs to explain them or face people who will continue to find a glaring gap between what she keeps saying the characters are MEANT to be and what the actually ARE in the text. Of course JKR can do absolutely anything she wants and tell us all to like it or lump it. That is the power and right of the author. But we can say anything we want about what she writes, and judge it by whatever criteria we find appropriate. That is the power and the right of the reader. Lupinlore From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 01:15:51 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:15:51 -0000 Subject: Who's on the LV hit list? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123147 Molley:"it would be easy for a DE to arrange a meeting with her outside Hogwarts for a personal reading of the ol tea leaves. I think she would find such a request flattering and would feel reinforced in her belief that she DOES "See", even if no one else thinks so. I believe this is a real point of vulnerability and as ST is out of the loop as far as the struggle against LV is concerned, it probably hasn't occurred to any of the order members to consider that LV still needs to know what the prophecy actually said. As far as my frustration goes, I think it just may be a plot set-up for HBP." Sybil Trelawney wouldn't recognize the danger, but Dumbledore does, I think. That knowledge, and compassion, is why he would not let Umbridge expel Trelawney from the castle when Umbridge fired her. If I were Dumbledore, I'd tell Sybil that her inner eye would be so valuable to the Enemy and is so vital to the forces of Good that she must be protected at all costs. But does Sybil even *know* that she made this vital prophecy? She didn't remember the one we witnessed. Could the prophecy be extracted from her by magical force, in the same way Bertha Jorkins was broken? Can't take the chance. Jim Ferer From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Thu Jan 27 01:12:17 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:12:17 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Imperius Resistance and Occlumency, was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7CA36D80-7000-11D9-9F71-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 123148 On Thursday, January 27, 2005, at 03:16 am, eggplant9998 wrote: > In the case of the Occlumency lessons that was easy because the > feeling Harry was feeling in his gut was literal not figurative; they > actually made him sick as well as weak. I don't know about you but I > would need a very good reason to continue doing something like that; > "because I said so" just wouldn't do it for me. > I was reading OotP to my son last night before bed and he was up to the scene in Dumbledore's office before Dumbledore does a runner. It's a pretty powerful plea Dumbledore makes to Harry to learn Occlumency! Not just a passing mention. Also it follows a scene where Dumbledore takes responsibility for the DA in order to keep Harry from being forced out of Hogwarts. Harry clearly interprets the events as Dumbledore protecting him, too, so no misunderstanding there. His powerful ally/protector who has just made a sacrifice for him implores him to learn Occlumency in the last moments they have together. But Harry won't. Yes I agree with you that Harry deserved to be told more by the adults. He wasn't, so he had to make a decision based on the information he had - and he had plenty of resources. This is a kid with brains and friends but he won't listen to either. He goes with his gut (whether because he's a sulky adolescent or, as others have more charitably speculated, because LV is manipulating him) and it ends with a friend being killed. Let's hope he learns from that. Jocelyn From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 01:25:23 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:25:23 -0000 Subject: Love again...The Lord of the Rings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123149 Pippin wrote: It seems to me it's only a cop-out if you think there's an answer to the problem of evil that's not a cop-out. I mean, what kind of answer is throwing a magic ring into a fiery mountain? What made it not cheesy was that it was so difficult. I am sure whatever Harry is asked to do in the name of that power will not be easy for him. Renee responded: What made it not cheesy was that it was impossible and eventually took an evil character and either Providence or Coincidence to be accomplished. I wonder if we'll get any parallel to this in the HP books. vmonte now: I'm guessing your talking about The Lord of the Rings? I don't really remember the books because I read them when I was 12-years-old, but I did see the movies last year. What I loved was how Frodo gave Gollum a second chance, even though Sam kept warning him about Gollum's loyalty. And even though Sam did turn out to be right about Gollum, if it wasn't for Frodo, Gollum wouldn't have been around to leap for the ring and save them all in the end. So, even though Gollum could not escape his past or the hold the ring had over him, he still saved Frodo. It really sounds awfully familiar to me... Vivian From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Thu Jan 27 01:24:10 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:24:10 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's birth certificate [was Re: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <25542EC0-7002-11D9-9F71-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 123150 On Thursday, January 27, 2005, at 07:08 am, richard_smedley wrote: >> Mrs. doesn't work outside of the home and > > It's interesting that neither does Molly Weasley, yet > it was poor Arthur who got the blame for their poverty > in another thread Molly was homeschooling 6 children. She could have gone to work after Ginny went to Hogwarts, but not before. I don't know what she would be qualified for though, she would probably need to retrain, and she seems to be busy with volunteer work for the Order at the moment. Jocelyn From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 27 01:34:17 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:34:17 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 6 - Hieroglyphics might be clue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123151 Kaesa said: >I don't know that Egypt will eventually be important - it seems more >like a marketing gimmick to me, to make the products "mysteeerious" - >(though I suppose it might be important and I'd definitely SQUEE if >Egypt came up) Egypt has come up. Bill Weasley works there for Gringott's, and it's where the Weasleys went on vacation when they won the lottery. It's also where Mr. and Mrs. Weasley went during a Christmas vacation. Come to think of it, it's where the referee for the Quidditch World Cup was from. And didn't Arthur Weasley have some disagreement with an Egyptian about importing magic carpets? Hmm. There must be a thriving wizard community in that part of the world. I'm not sure exactly where Assyria is (except in the Middle East), but Neville's Uncle Algie brought him his rare Mimbletonius etc. (sp) from Assyria. I read somewhere that the kings of Assyria were noted in their day as being really good at herblore. Just thinking, Janet Anderson From kempermentor at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 01:36:34 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:36:34 -0000 Subject: How did everyone know? (OOP pages 610-625 -- American Hard Cover) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123152 I wrote: I, too, wanted Percy to be a spy and had thought he was when I first read OoP. But no. In an interview... http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm ... JKR was asked by Echo: "Was Percy acting entirely of his own accord in Order of the Phoenix?" JK Rowling replied, "I'm afraid so." Toni responded: I don't see why Percy acting of his own accord has to be contrary to his working for the Order. I understood JKR's answer to that question to mean that he wasn't acting under the Imperius Curse. Kemper again: Toni, I see how you can interpret it that way. I took "I'm afraid so" to include the tone of "I'm so sorry for writing such an anally lame character, but what can you do?" -Kemper Who still wants to see Percy's redemption From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 01:37:06 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:37:06 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123153 Voldemort's suffered about as bad a defeat as you can and still remain on the field of battle. Many or most of his key Death Eaters are busted (even when Lucius breaks out, as he probably will, his usefullness as an agent of influence is over), Harry and Dumbledore are vindicated, and the wizard world knows, once and for all, that Voldemort's back. I wouldn't want to be Wormtail locked up in the hideaway with Lord Voldemort after that experience, let me tell you, especially if LV had a couple of shots of snake venom in him. Now what for LV? What has he learned that he may not have known before? Harry has friends who are vital to him. Harry is a leader of some of his main enemies. Harry will expose himself for his friends' sakes. Harry, then, is vulnerable to the same tactic as LV tried with Sirius -- only *this time it'll be real.* I expect the DE's to lash out at Harry's friends and loved ones. If LV can get at one or more of Harry's friends - Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Neville, Luna, take your pick - it will either force Harry out into the open (LV's best case scenario) or damage Harry by hurting him and depriving him of the support of the friend taken (the consolation prize). The revenge and sadism that goes along with it is just icing on the cake to LV. Does LV understand how important Harry is? He doesn't know the Prophecy, but I bet that by now he's got a sense of Harry's importance. The Good Side knows it for sure, and that preserving Harry Potter is an absolute strategic necessity. That makes protecting those closest to Harry a necessity too. Jim Ferer From kempermentor at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 01:58:56 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 01:58:56 -0000 Subject: WW Cultural bias re clothes and cupboard? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123154 Pippin: All we can really point to, besides the lack of love, which even DD couldn't do anything about, is the clothes and the cupboard. But would the wizards recognize those as mistreatment? Would Dumbledore's watchers know that Muggle clothing isn't supposed to look like loose elephant skin and it's generally considered unhealthy for Muggle kids to sleep in a windowless room? Then Alla: I love your observations, Pippin, even when I completely disagree with you, because they are so interesting always. It is an interesting argument, BUT it seems that Dumbledore himself clearly recognised at the end of OOP that Harry WAS wronged and Dumbledore acknowledges that he watched him closer than Harry could ever imagine. So, whether all wizards recognise it as mistreatment or not, Dumbledore clearly does. Kemper now: Dumbledore also keeps up with Muggle events. He knew about Frank Bryce missing. It seems as though he's at least done this for the past 13 years as of GF, monitoring for suspicious goings-on... like people disappearing which happened in LV's hay-day. DD doesn't stand for dumdum, he probably picked up a thing or two from the news about Muggle culture if he wasn't aware of any prior to that Halloween. From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 26 22:33:27 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:33:27 -0000 Subject: Threatening the Dursleys at the station (was Re: Why not BRIBE ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123155 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meriaugust" wrote: > Meri again: Again, IIRC, Mad Eye and Lupin weren't threatening the > Dursleys to keep Harry, just to treat him better, and they probably > weren't doing this with DD's knowledge or permission, but I don't > see why their actions would negate the protection. OTOH, I would > imagine that after what happened last summer the Dursleys probably > wouldn't be able to treat Harry any way they wanted. After all, he > saved Dudley's life. Now I know the Dursleys are Muggles, but there > may very well be some sort of debt between them now. > Interesting, and I really liked your argument. Some other thing about threats: a threat is only effective as long as you are willing to act up on it. For DD to effectively threathen the Dursleys he would have threathened them for the whole ten years. In ten years time, there would have been at least a couple of occasions in which he would be forced to act. And for an effective threat it would have involved something unpleasant with magic. Apart from breaking the law, I cannot see him (or Minerva for that matter) as someone who would willingly do such a thing to a person. Result: the Dursleys would have called his bluff and guess who would suffer for it. Now Snape on the other hand, could easily have pulled this off. But Snape taking care of a nice environment for little Harry... Gerry From leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com Wed Jan 26 23:52:40 2005 From: leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com (moondance241) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:52:40 -0000 Subject: How did everyone know? (OOP pages 610-625 -- American Hard Cover) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123156 > > > Kemper: > > I, too, wanted Percy to be a spy and had thought he was when I > first read OoP. But no. In an interview... > > > > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm > > > > ... JKR was asked by Echo: "Was Percy acting entirely of his own > > accord in Order of the Phoenix?" JK Rowling replied, "I'm afraid > so." > > > > Toni: > I don't see why Percy acting of his own accord has to be contrary to > his working for the Order. I understood JKR's answer to that > question to mean that he wasn't acting under the Imperius Curse. > Moondance now: Thats my understanding as well, Toni. What I don't understand is why Molly and Arthur would be acting like the way they are if Percy was working for the order. Is it being suggested that Percy is working for the Order under DD direction without Molly and Arthur knowing? What good is it for the Order or the Weasley family to have everyone angry at Percy? From easimm at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 23:10:14 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:10:14 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? (Was: McG / DD / ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123157 (I wish I could find out who Alla is, but I can't. Sorry. Searching for anything through "Search Archive" is a joke.) > Alla: > > >Same question. Why does Harry have a duty to save WW? I am not > >talking about metathinking look at all - because Harry is the hero > >of the story, etc. I am asking why Harry who does not know that he > >is the main character in the books has a duty to save WW, who , IMO > >treats him quite horribly from times to times. Great question. I think Harry won't be saving only the WW, but the regular world as well. Voldemort and his deatheaters killed lots of muggles, so it seems that the regular world would be in great danger if Voldemort won. Harry wouldn't be much safer in the regular world if all he wanted to do was to save himself. And why is it Harry who has to save everything? Perhaps because he's just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The question of whether Harry has the duty to save the WW brings up the question of whether it is a good idea to save the WW. The WW society is very flawed, filled with seriously disturbed people who wield immense power. It sort of reminds me of ourselves and weapons of mass destruction, etc. I think this topic was touched upon in one of the Must Read posts. (Sorry - I could not find it). Perhaps a resolution of this in the books will be that the entire WW will lose its magic. I'm predicting it for book 7. I won't go anymore into whether the WW deserves to lose its magic since discussions of what's naughty or nice or moral or immoral don't interest me if they don't predict anything about the outcome of the story or don't challenge or validate the realism of the characters, but it's another thought to ponder. -Snorky From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 02:27:04 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:27:04 -0000 Subject: Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123158 Salit wrote: I thought that Petunia's decision to take the risk and keep Harry in OoP may be a turning point in her relationship with him. It is the first time ever that she shows him - and perhaps discovers herself - that she cares for him. I guess we'll find out if this is really the case in about 6 months time... vmonte responds: Really? I don't think she cares for Harry at all. It seemed to me that the letter was sent to Petunia to remind her of the deal she once made with Dumbledore. Dumbledore is definitely holding something over her head. And Petunia is definitely the person who under extreme circumstances will gain magical ability. Vivian From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 02:57:14 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:57:14 -0000 Subject: Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123159 >>Salit: >The Dursleys don't engage in criminal activities (which is the type of abuse you were discussing). What they do is not abuse in the legal sense but emotional neglect and mistreatment. They are raising a child in their home without giving him love or care for his emotional needs. >I view this as a type of emotional abuse, which can sometimes be worse than physical abuse (which at least shows the person cares enough to hit - no I am not in any way justifying it - but the fact that neglected kids tend to act out because they think negative attention is better than no attention - is a well documented fact). >Incidentally, Dudley is certainly not fairing much better. Both boys suffer from the two sides of the same malaise - the Dursleys' total lack of parental skills. The difference is that Harry is unloved and uncared for by anyone (to his knowledge) during most of his formative years. There are plenty of studies documenting the damage to children's development due to lack of care and love even when all their physical needs are fulfilled.< Betsy: I agree with you, Salit, that the Dursleys do not provide a loving home for Harry. And I want to clarify that I'm in no way condoning the behavior of the Dursleys. What I *was* trying to point out was that Harry's treatment *would* go unnoticed by his school teachers and neighbors. So there would be no legal interference. However, I also want to point out that Harry doesn't act much like a victim of emotional (or physical for that matter) abuse. In PS/SS he actually climbs all over Vernon to get to his Hogwarts' letter. He screams at Vernon (yes, there is an all-caps moment) for his letter and makes snarky comments when Vernon doesn't give it to him. There's no love lost between the Dursley's and Harry, but Harry doesn't seem to actually *fear* the Dursley's or to be very hurt that they don't love him. (I think the fact that he's so obviously the outsider is a help to Harry. He can cling to the idea that at one point in his life he *did* have loving parents.) But, if Dumbledore was monitoring Harry in someway, I don't know if he'd see Harry hurting in a way that would demand interference. I mean, yeah, the cupboard sucks, but Aunt Petunia's blood is the best protection against Voldemort and cronies that Dumbledore can think of. That's not something to be given up lightly. Especially when Harry seems to be handling life at the Dursleys. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 03:04:38 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:04:38 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? (Was: McG / DD / ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123160 Snorky: (I wish I could find out who Alla is, but I can't. Sorry. Searching for anything through "Search Archive" is a joke.) Alla: Hi! I am not sure what you meant by " find out who Alla is" ( it was amusing regardless :)), but here I am at your service. Alla wrote earlier: Same question. Why does Harry have a duty to save WW? I am not talking about metathinking look at all - because Harry is the hero of the story, etc. I am asking why Harry who does not know that he is the main character in the books has a duty to save WW, who ,IMO treats him quite horribly from times to times. Snorky: Great question. I think Harry won't be saving only the WW, but the regular world as well. Voldemort and his deatheaters killed lots of muggles, so it seems that the regular world would be in great danger if Voldemort won. Harry wouldn't be much safer in the regular world if all he wanted to do was to save himself. And why is it Harry who has to save everything? Perhaps because he's just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Alla: Oh, I like that answer. Yes, there is a definite possibility that Harry will not be safe in "our world" till Voldemort is dead, but theoretically he can at least try to escape, right? We don't even know whether there are any Voldemort supporters in other countries besides Englad and whenever Durmstrang is , so theoretically there can be a safe haven for Harry in the muggle world, but all of this of course just speculation. Snorky: The question of whether Harry has the duty to save the WW brings up the question of whether it is a good idea to save the WW. The WW society is very flawed, filled with seriously disturbed people who wield immense power. It sort of reminds me of ourselves and weapons of mass destruction, etc. I think this topic was touched upon in one of the Must Read posts. (Sorry - I could not find it). Perhaps a resolution of this in the books will be that the entire WW will lose its magic. I'm predicting it for book 7. I won't go anymore into whether the WW deserves to lose its magic since discussions of what's naughty or nice or moral or immoral don't interest me if they don't predict anything about the outcome of the story or don't challenge or validate the realism of the characters, but it's another thought to ponder. Alla: Yes, absolutely - this is the angle that bugs me - not whether Harry is heroic or not to save them, but why does he owe them anything. Probably the post you are talking about was Pip's post about developments in MD theory. I said many times that I wholeheartedly agree with it. I believe that WW will die and be reborn just like Phoenix. I have no clue how it will happen, but I do think that it will happen, because indeed it IS a deeply flawed society, IMO. Just my opinion, Alla From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 27 03:06:56 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:06:56 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Half Blood Prince Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123161 Tonks_op observed: >Trevor as the HBP. Well now it would be just like JKR to do that! *snip* >Who gave Neville that frog, >wasn't it his grandfather? And all this time we thought it was >because the giver was just out of step with what was fashionable. It was his Uncle Algie, who was so relieved when Neville showed signs of magic. The same Uncle Algie that gave him the rare plant from Assyria. More things that make you go "Hmm ..." Janet Anderson From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 03:16:59 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:16:59 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123162 Carol responds: snip. I still think that Snape did a remarkable job of controlling his anger during the Occlumency lessons themselves. (I've already cited numerous examples.) Compare Crouch!Moody, who turns Draco into a ferret and bounces him. Draco may have deserved it, but it must have hurt him physically as well as emotionally and that's child abuse in my book--or Filch, who wants to torture the students to make up for his own magical incompetence. For a Slytherin and a former DE, Snape manages pretty well in controlling both his anger (*almost* always expressed through words or nonphysical punishments) and his natural antipathies. Alla: Let's put it this way - I think that Snape BARELY manages to control his physical temper and that is why he lets loose his tongue all the time, because he probably thinks that it is better to hurt with the words, they make no blows on your body, but lots on your soul. But I am sure Snape thinks he does a remarkable job doing it ( all my speculation, nothing more) What I also think that due to some bangy event Snape will fault to control his physical temper too. Actually, when I started this post, I only wanted to comment on Crouch!Moody. I actually think that he did a remarkable job of controlling his temper. I don't think he was angry at all at this moment. I believe that the action was well thought out and very well executed. :) Just my opinion, Alla From snow15145 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 03:19:25 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:19:25 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123163 Sandra snipped: I've > read everyone's replies and I'm pleased to see what everyone thinks, but it all > still does my head in because I can't get past the original loop hole, ie that > Harry can't save himself in the way JKR described. His first time line reaches > a bad conclusion with the Dementors so there's just no way he can be in a > position to stop it from happening because he doesn't survive to get there. It > just seems so obvious to me that I can't believe JKR let it slip through. Snow: I had the same problem with understanding the time sequence for the same reason. I'm waiting on this one because if the first three books mirror the second three books respectively, the time-turner should show up in the HBP. There was a two-part post some time back from Sienna that was very good about the books mirroring each other to some extent. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/93289 And Part 2 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/93297 If the time turner factor is a plot device in the 6th book, I can just visualize JKR's very evil grin as she awaits our response, it could certainly turn things a bit more topsy-turvy than we ever could have imagined. As statistics go, POA is the most favored book of the series thus far. Again, if book six images book three we end up with JKR's statement from the Edinburgh Festival: (Q) Out of all your books, which one is your favourite? (A) It varies. I would have to say that it is probably Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, although at the moment?it is unfair of me to say it?Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince is my favourite book. Snow From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 03:24:48 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:24:48 -0000 Subject: Spy!Percy (was: How did everyone know?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123164 >>Moondance: >What I don't understand is why Molly and Arthur would be acting like the way they are if Percy was working for the order. Is it being suggested that Percy is working for the Order under DD direction without Molly and Arthur knowing? What good is it for the Order or the Weasley family to have everyone angry at Percy?< Betsy: The only way Percy could be useful as a spy is if it is well known that he is on the outs with his family, because the Weasleys are so publically Dumbledore's people. It would take major acting ability on the part of Arthur and Molly to fake this kind of split. So if Percy is a spy, his family would *have* to be kept in the dark. If everyone in the Weasley family and the Order are mad at Percy, Fudge is more likely to trust him. I would imagine that if Percy is a spy, he's reporting straight to Dumbledore. Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 03:37:37 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:37:37 -0000 Subject: Abusive Crouch!Moody (was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123165 >>Carol: >Compare Crouch!Moody, who turns Draco into a ferret and bounces him. Draco may have deserved it, but it must have hurt him physically as well as emotionally and that's child abuse in my book...< >>Alla: >Actually, when I started this post, I only wanted to comment on Crouch!Moody. I actually think that he did a remarkable job of controlling his temper. I don't think he was angry at all at this moment. I believe that the action was well thought out and very well executed. :)< Betsy: Alla, are you seriously condoning Crouch!Moody publically humiliating and physically assaulting Draco? Does it matter if he did it out of anger or not? Betsy From alex51324 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 27 03:40:39 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:40:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123166 Lupinlore wrote: > I agree with most everything you say up to this part, Alex. And the > reason I disagree is that, for whatever reason, Dumbledore IS the one > who makes the decision with regard to Harry. He IS NOT simply > dropping him off in answer to some law or somebody else's decision. > He MADE the decision. You're right that this is the weak point in my interpretation of the scene. However, are we absolutely sure that it *was* his call? Did he have the option of making other arrangements? I'm looking at the first chapter of SS/PS. He says, "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now." and then, after iMcGongall protests, "It's the best place for him. HIs aunt and uncle will be able to explain everything to him when he's older." (page 13 of the Scholastic paperback). Now, it's reasonable to figure that DD is implying, "*I've decided* it's the best place for him." But not necessarilly. He could mean, "*according to what is usually done and according to what we know about childrearing*, with relatives is the best place." Or something. Are there other passages I've forgotten about where DD says that he decided to leave Harry with the Dursleys? And if it *was* his decision, my question is, where did he get the authority to make that decision? Did James and Lily leave a will to that effect? (And if so, why him and not Sirius?) In the absence of a will, it's generally assumed that an orphan will go to his nearest relatives. I think Dumbledore would have to have some specific directive, either from Lily and James or from the Wizarding Department of Social Welfare that I've postulated in order to make arrangements *that differ from* what is usually done in that situation. It certainly would have been for the best if, having placed Harry with the Dursleys, Dumbledore had paid attention to what happened afterwards, but I remain unconvinced that he had a positive duty to do so. Alex From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 03:45:58 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:45:58 -0000 Subject: Abusive Crouch!Moody (was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123167 Alla: > Actually, when I started this post, I only wanted to comment on Crouch!Moody. I actually think that he did a remarkable job of controlling his temper. I don't think he was angry at all at this moment. I believe that the action was well thought out and very well executed. :)< Betsy: Alla, are you seriously condoning Crouch!Moody publically humiliating and physically assaulting Draco? Does it matter if he did it out of anger or not? Alla: Nope, I don't condone what he did to Draco at all, even though I WAS amused by the incident, but I most certainly don't condone it. No matter how much I dislike Draco, he did not deserve it. But you misunderstood me completely. My comment had nothing to do with Draco. Carol COMPARED Snape's ability to control his anger to crouch!Moody and I responded that IMO Crouch!Moody controlled his anger MUCH better than Snape does. Just my opinion, Alla From pjarrett at gmail.com Thu Jan 27 04:19:42 2005 From: pjarrett at gmail.com (Patrick Jarrett) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:19:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why should Harry save the WW? (Was: McG / DD / ...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3def328f050126201959df2929@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123168 > > Alla: > > > > >Same question. Why does Harry have a duty to save WW? I am not > > >talking about metathinking look at all - because Harry is the hero > > >of the story, etc. I am asking why Harry who does not know that he > > >is the main character in the books has a duty to save WW, who , > IMO > > >treats him quite horribly from times to times. Patrick sayeth: If this were the 1940s and you found out you were the only person who could defeat Hitler, would you? You may not directly have anything to gain from it, and granted he probably wasn't out to kill you directly, but if you lived in Europe you would be in his way and suffer the consequences. Could any of us, with a clear conscience, decide not to save the world if we knew we were the only ones who could do it? Perhaps a handful would turn it down and leave the world to fend for themselves. Yes, his life is in immediate danger because of it but if I was forced to pick to save the world and possibly lose my life or save my own life for a short while with no guarantee I would be safe forever, I'd probably pick the first option. I'd like to think I would at least. And Harry has. Though JKR hasn't shown us any thought of running away in his mind (he is a Gryffindor of course) I suspect it might have fleetingly crossed it and been dismissed, but as the danger arises I predict we'll see some internal conflict along those lines. So, that's my 2 cents. -- Patrick From pjarrett at gmail.com Thu Jan 27 04:30:28 2005 From: pjarrett at gmail.com (Patrick Jarrett) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:30:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who's on the LV hit list? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3def328f050126203055d272f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123169 Molley: > Hi ! I'm new to the list and like someone else who's name escapes me at the > moment, I was a little frustrated in OoP by LV pouring the whole of his > energy into the pursuit of a prophesy. True, impartial knowledge of this > prophesy resulted in his downfall at the beginning of the series but it's > not clear in the canon that HE understands that - we as readers have the > advantage here. Patrick sayeth: I love chess. I've never played Wizard's chess but I'd love to. Chess is an interesting game because it is a battle where nothing is hidden except motives. You see all the pieces and watch them move, and yet people still manage to slip the noose around your neck and yank it. But if you were to say, hide half the board and you have to play normally while your opponent can see the full board. Pieces would appear and disappear and cause all sorts of confusion, something you couldn't handle and adapt to. You need to know where your opponents pieces are, it becomes imperative to your survival. The point is, knowledge is power. The more you know the more dangerous or powerful you can be. If you were to hear there is a prophecy which involves you, and it could possibly affect the outcome of your 'war' - you would want to know to. He may not know it caused his downfall the first time, but he knows he needs to know what it said. Especially with all the protection the Order put around it. Some say the best security is none at all, act as if its worthless and it is perceived as worthless but that wouldn't have worked here and so V knew he needed to read it / hear it / experience it. -- Patrick From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 04:31:13 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 04:31:13 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? (Was: McG / DD / ...) In-Reply-To: <3def328f050126201959df2929@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123170 Alla earlier: Same question. Why does Harry have a duty to save WW? I am not talking about metathinking look at all - because Harry is the hero of the story, etc. I am asking why Harry who does not know that he is the main character in the books has a duty to save WW, who , IMO treats him quite horribly from times to times. Patrick sayeth: If this were the 1940s and you found out you were the only person who could defeat Hitler, would you? You may not directly have anything to gain from it, and granted he probably wasn't out to kill you directly, but if you lived in Europe you would be in his way and suffer the consequences. Could any of us, with a clear conscience, decide not to save the world if we knew we were the only ones who could do it? Perhaps a handful would turn it down and leave the world to fend for themselves. Yes, his life is in immediate danger because of it but if I was forced to pick to save the world and possibly lose my life or save my own life for a short while with no guarantee I would be safe forever, I'dprobably pick the first option. I'd like to think I would at least. And Harry has. Though JKR hasn't shown us any thought of running away in his mind (he is a Gryffindor of course) I suspect it might have fleetingly crossed it and been dismissed, but as the danger arises I predict we'll see some internal conflict along those lines. Alla: Thank you for your input, I appreciate it, but let me state it again - my question and argument was mainly not about whether Harry should exercise the choice and be a Hero ( do we all have any doubt that he will be?) My main argument was that Harry was NOT given the possibility to exercise the conscious choice of whether to be a Hero or not ( and frankly, I would perfectly understand him if he would not want to. :))) while at the same time Harry is being blamed for acting selfishly and immaturely in OOP. It had been said that his behaviour could cost WW the war, so in that context I was asking - why should Harry care, when they treat him that badly AND force him to be their weapon? I mean, I know why he will, because besides Dumbledore who condemned him to "ten dark and difficult years' with Dursleys, besides sadistic teacher, who hurts and humiliates him every possibility he has, Harry has friends in WW, who love him dearly, who are ready to give their lifes for him,etc. I understand Harry making a conscious choice to fight for Ron, for Hermione, for Ginny, for Neville, etc. What I DO disagree with is the argument that Harry has ANY obligation to WW in general and therefore he had no right to be angry in OOP, especially when Harry did not even know that he is the Order most precious weapon. It should be Harry's CHOICE, not something that is forced upon him. Just my opinion, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 06:10:01 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:10:01 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123171 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla earlier: > Same question. Why does Harry have a duty to save WW? > Patrick saidth: > If this were the 1940s and you found out you were the only person who could defeat Hitler, would you? > Alla again: > My main argument was that Harry was NOT given the possibility to > exercise the conscious choice of whether to be a Hero or not ( and frankly, I would perfectly understand him if he would not want > to. (snip)> > What I DO disagree with is the argument that Harry has ANY > obligation to WW in general and therefore he had no right to be > angry in OOP, especially when Harry did not even know that he is the Order most precious weapon. It should be Harry's CHOICE, not something that is forced upon him. Nicky Joe said: Interesting question. It made me ask another: What's in it for Harry? (snip) If the defeat of LV lies solely on his shoulders, he should be asking the WW just what he'd be getting for risking his neck. Frankly, I think Harry could go disappear into the Muggle world. Maybe LV could find him. Maybe not. Tonks responds to all the above: First I think that Harry will be given a choice. He is the special weapon as you say and as such does have a moral obligation to do the right thing. But he doesn't *have* to any more than any of us do. He will also have the choice to follow his destiny or not. I am sure of that. Choice is a big issue in the writing of JKR and I am sure Harry will be given a choice. Second, I think that Harry is mature beyond his years. Even though he is young he does display a type of wisdom that is usually seen it those much older. And because of this he is not selfish. He is not looking for *what is in it for me..me..me* Harry is above that. We can see it from the first book. It is his *saving people thing* that is part of his personality. Third. I think that most of us were raised to understand the concepts of duty, honor and sacrifice of the highest order. And even if we would be tortured in the most horrible way, if we knew that we were the only one that could save the world from Hitler by our death most of us would do it. Not because we would get any personal gain, not even to save our friends, but because it was the right thing to do. So in the end I think that Harry will be given a choice, a hard choice. DD has already laid the foundation for us to understand that in his *remember Cedric* speech. Harry will know the cost to himself and perhaps to those that he loves. He will make that choice and the sacrifice of his life, because he is who he is. He is a caring, compassionate, forgiving human being, fully human flaws and all, yet with a goodness that goes deep within him. Just like us. And by his death Harry will show us how to truly live. Tonks_op From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 06:23:59 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:23:59 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123172 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > Tonks_op observed: > > >Trevor as the HBP. Well now it would be just like JKR to do that! > *snip* >Who gave Neville that frog, (snip.) Janet said: > It was his Uncle Algie, who was so relieved when Neville showed signs of magic. The same Uncle Algie that gave him the rare plant from Assyria. Tonks again: Thanks Janet. It was his Great Uncle Algie. That means he is Neville's grandmother's brother, right? So Trevor could be really old, maybe. Now in rereading Book 2. I see that "Mandrake or Mandragora is a powerful restorative" said Hermione..."It is used to return people who have been transfigured or cursed to their original state" Why would we be told that? And Uncle Algie has been to Assyria. Did he get Trevor there too? Maybe it all ties in with Ancient magic in Egypt. I an not good at these things, but I think Assyria is at least in the same part of the world. Any thought?? Tonks_op From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 27 07:46:19 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:46:19 -0000 Subject: Ginny comes out of nowhere, but how about Ron? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123173 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Carol: > The "mate" business surprised me, too. It sounds more like the twins > than Ron. (IIRC, one of them addresses Sirius as "mate.") I didn't > think of Steve Irwin--it sounded British, not Australian, to me--but > it did strike me as "not Ron," if you understand my meaning. Is he > trying to sound more grown up, or at least more like a teenager and > less like a child? Or is it a means of stating his affection and > empathy for angry!Harry is a way that will be acceptable to another > teenage boy? Did Ron talk this way in the British editions of the > other four books, or is it indeed something new? If so, has JKR just > forgotten how Ron talks or does it mean something that we Americans > (who think of "mate" as the sexual partner of an animal) are > missing? Geoff: In origin, "mate" is very much a Cockney expression (London accent); it may well be present in other urban UK accents. It's used, usually between males, indicating pal, chum, friend. You'll often hear a guy talking about his "best mate" for instance. I think that people's speech patterns do change as they go through their teenage years; I tended to use different words because they were "in" - rather as "cool" has become standard streetspeak in recent years. From jhnbwmn at hotmail.com Thu Jan 27 08:01:18 2005 From: jhnbwmn at hotmail.com (johnbowman19) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:01:18 -0000 Subject: Love again, but this time as a truth (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123174 Sorry this isn't a direct reply to any particular post on this subject, just my feelings There has been a lot of speculation in posts on what is behind the lock door in the MOM, and I would like to add my two cents. I have never thought that love is contained behind the locked door, simply because love is not something that can be contained. It has no matter, no substance, and I have yet to see magic disembody emotions or feelings from person and lock them away into another space. Even magic has its limits. Also love is far too sappy a destruction for the vilest "person" alive. Killing with kindness is not a fitting death for someone who has murdered countless people as well as Harry's parents. Love does not seem to fit with Harry's personality either. Remember he may not have killed Sirius when he had the chance, but he still wanted to. A fitting end for Voldemort in my eyes would be reciprocity, but you cannot kill anyone he loves because he has never loved anyone according to JK Rowling. I however believe he has loved someone, and that someone is himself. His self love has made him afraid of death which in turn made him undergo numerous transformations to become what he is. So the ultimate justice for Voldemort would be to kill him because he has spent his whole life trying not to die. What's worse than death? Why never really living of course, and this is what Voldemort has done. He has never really lived, because he was so intent on not dying and living by lies. This brings me to what I think is behind the door: Truth, or a Truth. The Truth can be a substance as in an object or as the abstract like an idea on paper. I base this off of two quotes. The first of which comes from the chapter called "The Lost Prophecy". It is the quote in which DD introduces the locked door: "There is a room in the department of Mysteries that is kept locked at all times. It contains a force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature." When I first read this i immediately recalled the last chapter of SS when Harry asked DD why Voldemort went after his parents in the first place. In DD's reply is this nugget: "The truth is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution." Great caution as in being locked up every hour of everyday? Great caution as in being so secure that a knife (that can open doors Alohamora won't) can't open it? What initially made me remember the second quote was the word terrible. It is repeated in both passages, and is given the same kind of dualistic qualities that DD gives to the power in the first passage. Harry also has this power in such qualities that Voldemort could not dwell in a body so full of it. Voldemort is a creature of lies and deceit. He has essentially built his life on lies: half bloods are not as good as pure bloods, power is the most important thing, love means nothing, and death is the end. Basically trying to possess a person so filled with the Truth his lies have been denying would be unbearable to Voldemort. To show undeniably that his life has been a waste, that his whole reason for existing was for naught, would be utter and total justice. To show the mighty Lord what a fool he is would be wonderful. It would be a fate worse than death and fitting final moments for someone who must be killed. John, who hopes he is making sense at 3 am. From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jan 27 08:36:13 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:36:13 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > This is a perfect illustration of why I take all interview "canon" > with a grain of salt. Was JKR seriously trying to say that > Dumbledore is supposed to represent an almost God-like goodness? >Yes, Dumbledore is a white hat. Yes, he's Harry's ultimate mentor in > the whole "Hero's Journey" story line breakdown (can't remember the > term for this - sorry). But from reading the books, Dumbledore is > immediately shown as human and fallible. > > Dumbledore was doing the best he could under circumstances he >could not control. > > So I've never bought into the whole, Omniscient!Dumbledore, and I'm > confused by people who have. Especially as their anger at his > failings turn them into Puppetmaster!Dumbledore advocates and poor > Dumbledore suddenly becomes the epitome of the heartless >strategist. I agree with the way you see DD's character, but I don't quite understand why you equate "epitome of goodness" with "omniscient", infallible and god-like. I don't see it that way at all. Being moral isn't about the real outcome of your decisions and actions - it means that you base your decisions and actions on correct moral considerations. Of course, as a limited creature (and DD - powerful and wise as he is - is limited) you don't know everything, so you may make mistakes - but that makes you wrong on a practical level, not on the moral level. Naama From slgazit at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 27 08:56:47 2005 From: slgazit at sbcglobal.net (slgazit) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:56:47 -0000 Subject: Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123176 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > I agree with you, Salit, that the Dursleys do not provide a loving > home for Harry. And I want to clarify that I'm in no way condoning > the behavior of the Dursleys. What I *was* trying to point out was > that Harry's treatment *would* go unnoticed by his school teachers > and neighbors. So there would be no legal interference. In Britain perhaps. I doubt that the Dursleys' attitude would go unnoticed in the schools I've seen here in the U.S. - there are teacher/parent conferences, Dr. visits, etc. > However, I also want to point out that Harry doesn't act much like a > victim of emotional (or physical for that matter) abuse. In PS/SS he > actually climbs all over Vernon to get to his Hogwarts' letter. He > screams at Vernon (yes, there is an all-caps moment) for his letter > and makes snarky comments when Vernon doesn't give it to him. I agree that Harry seems to have a lot of inner strength and spunk from the get-go, but then he is supposed to be the super-hero of the series and super-heros are not like the rest of us! (as for why I argue he is one, well, after all, he is destined to confront and defeat - hopefully - the most powerfull evil wizard of all times while still working on his high school finals...). Still, I would argue that his actions wrt Hogwarts letter are the exception rather than the rule. Other than that he shows a lot of fear of the Dursleys reactions (snake in SS, pudding in CoS), obeys without arguments, etc. As he matures and gains confidence because of Hogwarts experience, he stands up to them more and more, but initially he is scared and obedient. > There's no love lost between the Dursley's and Harry, but Harry > doesn't seem to actually *fear* the Dursley's or to be very hurt that > they don't love him. He does fear them - witness his behaviour after the snake incident and the pudding. But he also knows he is much smarter than they are and is therefore able to manipulate or control their reactions to some extent. > But, if Dumbledore was monitoring Harry in someway, I don't know if > he'd see Harry hurting in a way that would demand interference. I > mean, yeah, the cupboard sucks, but Aunt Petunia's blood is the best > protection against Voldemort and cronies that Dumbledore can think > of. That's not something to be given up lightly. Especially when > Harry seems to be handling life at the Dursleys. I was not saying that his situation was reason enough to endanger his life by removing him from the Dursleys. Only that I believe their behaviour to Harry is indeed abusive. Salit From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 27 09:02:55 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:02:55 -0000 Subject: Love again...The Lord of the Rings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123177 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > Pippin wrote: > It seems to me it's only a cop-out if you think there's an answer > to the problem of evil that's not a cop-out. I mean, what kind of > answer is throwing a magic ring into a fiery mountain? > What made it not cheesy was that it was so difficult. I am sure > whatever Harry is asked to do in the name of that power will not > be easy for him. > > Renee responded: > What made it not cheesy was that it was impossible and eventually > took an evil character and either Providence or Coincidence to be > accomplished. I wonder if we'll get any parallel to this in the HP > books. > > vmonte now: > I'm guessing your talking about The Lord of the Rings? I don't really > remember the books because I read them when I was 12-years-old, but I > did see the movies last year. What I loved was how Frodo gave Gollum > a second chance, even though Sam kept warning him about Gollum's > loyalty. And even though Sam did turn out to be right about Gollum, > if it wasn't for Frodo, Gollum wouldn't have been around to leap for > the ring and save them all in the end. So, even though Gollum could > not escape his past or the hold the ring had over him, he still saved > Frodo. It really sounds awfully familiar to me... > Renee: You're right; I'll add "Frodo's pity" to Providence (or coincidence, but I believe the former applies). So, basically, what we're having here is Choice and Fate working together. Is that what you meant by familiar? From pfsch at gmx.de Thu Jan 27 09:04:13 2005 From: pfsch at gmx.de (Peter Felix Schuster) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:04:13 +0100 Subject: Magical weddings? Message-ID: <41F8AE8D.7020403@gmx.de> No: HPFGUIDX 123178 Hi there! With my own weddings being scheduled for end of next month, 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? Thanks for listening! :) Good bite, setrok (http://www.mondratte.de) From vmonte at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 10:32:11 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:32:11 -0000 Subject: Love again...The Lord of the Rings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123179 >I vmonte wrote: I'm guessing your talking about The Lord of the Rings? I don't really remember the books because I read them when I was 12-years-old, but I did see the movies last year. What I loved was how Frodo gave Gollum a second chance, even though Sam kept warning him about Gollum's loyalty. And even though Sam did turn out to be right about Gollum, if it wasn't for Frodo, Gollum wouldn't have been around to leap for the ring and save them all in the end. So, even though Gollum could not escape his past or the hold the ring had over him, he still saved Frodo. It really sounds awfully familiar to me... >Renee responded: You're right; I'll add "Frodo's pity" to Providence (or coincidence, but I believe the former applies). So, basically, what we're having here is Choice and Fate working together. Is that what you meant by familiar? vmonte again: Snape reminds me of Gollum. Vivian From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jan 27 10:35:38 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:35:38 -0000 Subject: Love again, but this time as a truth (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123180 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "johnbowman19" wrote: > > Sorry this isn't a direct reply to any particular post on this > subject, just my feelings > There has been a lot of speculation in posts on what is behind the > lock door in the MOM, and I would like to add my two cents. I have > never thought that love is contained behind the locked door, simply > because love is not something that can be contained. It has no matter, > no substance, and I have yet to see magic disembody emotions or > feelings from person and lock them away into another space. But the other rooms contain abstract things - time, thoughts, death. If time can be put in a room, why not love? >Also love is far too sappy a destruction for the > vilest "person" alive. Killing with kindness is not a fitting death > for someone who has murdered countless people as well as Harry's > parents. Love does not seem to fit with Harry's personality either. > Remember he may not have killed Sirius when he had the chance, but >he > still wanted to. Well, we don't know what will happen, of course, but we can carefuly extrapolate from what has already happened. And what has already happened is that Harry expelled Voldemort because of the love he felt for Sirius. This isn't speculation - we are told this explicitly. So, we *know* that, sappy or not, Voldemort - on some level or other - can be fought/resisted via love. Regarding Harry wanting to kill Sirius. The fact that Harry is human (and therefore prone to the whole spectrum of human emotions) doesn't mean that his love is flawed. Think of Lily - she was a good person, but she wasn't perfect. Harry and we see this in the pensieve scene. But still, her love for Harry saved him. On the deepest level, I think of Harry as Everyman. Through him JKR is trying to say that love, *human* love, is redemptive. Naama From altered.earth at ntlworld.com Thu Jan 27 11:08:52 2005 From: altered.earth at ntlworld.com (digger) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:08:52 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: WW Cultural bias re clothes and cupboard? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41F8CBC4.2090701@ntlworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123181 > Tonks here: > > Many health children in loving homes have live without a window in > their small bedrooms. > > Tonks_op digger: Ahem. In Britain it is illegal (ie contravenes building regulations) for a windowless room to be used as a bedroom. Rooms without a window are classified as 'non-habitable', and can only be used as a toilet, bathroom, or for storage, etc. So on this point alone, the Dursleys are in trouble regarding their treatment of Harry. Especially as there are TWO unoccupied bedrooms in the house. digger -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 21/01/2005 From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 27 14:23:26 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:23:26 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123182 Jim Ferer: > Now what for LV? What has he learned that he may not have known > before? > > Harry has friends who are vital to him. > Harry is a leader of some of his main enemies. > Harry will expose himself for his friends' sakes. > > Harry, then, is vulnerable to the same tactic as LV tried with > Sirius -- only *this time it'll be real.* > > I expect the DE's to lash out at Harry's friends and loved ones. If > LV can get at one or more of Harry's friends - Ron, Hermione, Ginny, > Neville, Luna, take your pick - it will either force Harry out into > the open (LV's best case scenario) or damage Harry by hurting him > and depriving him of the support of the friend taken.... > Does LV understand how important Harry is? He doesn't know the > Prophecy, but I bet that by now he's got a sense of Harry's > importance. The Good Side knows it for sure, and that preserving > Harry Potter is an absolute strategic necessity. That makes > protecting those closest to Harry a necessity too. SSSusan: Any thoughts on HOW they might accomplish this? There's quite a list, actually, of people for whom Harry would be willing to sacrifice himself, I suspect. Ron & Hermione, of course. Hagrid & DD. Any and all Weasleys [including Percy?]. Probably Lupin as the last remaining Marauder and the one who taught him the Patronus. Neville, as well. I wonder what means The Order/Hogwarts staff/parents have of protecting this many people? Siriusly Snapey Susan From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 27 14:27:03 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:27:03 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? (Was: McG / DD / ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123183 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > Thank you for your input, I appreciate it, but let me state it > again - my question and argument was mainly not about whether Harry should exercise the choice and be a Hero ( do we all have any doubt that he will be?) > > My main argument was that Harry was NOT given the possibility to exercise the conscious choice of whether to be a Hero or not ( and frankly, I would perfectly understand him if he would not want to. :))) while at the same time Harry is being blamed for acting selfishly and immaturely in OOP. It had been said that his behaviour could cost WW the war, so in that context I was asking - why should Harry care, when they treat him that badly AND force him to be their weapon? > Pippin: I think you are leaving Voldemort's choices out of the equation here. True prophecy, Firenze tells us, does not foretell trivial events, therefore there is no way that Harry can be a trivial person. Even if Harry slips away to Sidney AU and becomes a used broomstick peddler. As prophecy is not a branch of magic Voldemort has neglected, he must know this. Having set his sights on immortality, Voldemort must eliminate all who stand between him and his goal, and his potential vanquisher is first on the list. Is that reasonable? No, but reasonable people do not have "Evil Overlord" on their resume. Regardless of whether Harry chooses to be a weapon or not, he will remain Voldemort's chosen target. Whatever Harry has been put through, the necessity was not to make Harry a better weapon. The necessity was to make him a harder target. As for the theme of choice, it is true that if Harry takes what he has been told seriously he has no choice but to fight or die. But he does have the choice of not taking it seriously, just as Fudge did. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Jan 27 14:35:59 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:35:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Love again, but this time as a truth (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003701c5047d$857be6c0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 123184 Sorry this isn't a direct reply to any particular post on this subject, just my feelings There has been a lot of speculation in posts on what is behind the lock door in the MOM, and I would like to add my two cents. I have never thought that love is contained behind the locked door, simply because love is not something that can be contained. It has no matter, no substance, and I have yet to see magic disembody emotions or feelings from person and lock them away into another space. Even magic has its limits. Also love is far too sappy a destruction for the vilest "person" alive. Killing with kindness is not a fitting death for someone who has murdered countless people as well as Harry's parents. Love does not seem to fit with Harry's personality either. Remember he may not have killed Sirius when he had the chance, but he still wanted to. A fitting end for Voldemort in my eyes would be reciprocity, but you cannot kill anyone he loves because he has never loved anyone according to JK Rowling. I however believe he has loved someone, and that someone is himself. His self love has made him afraid of death which in turn made him undergo numerous transformations to become what he is. So the ultimate justice for Voldemort would be to kill him because he has spent his whole life trying not to die. What's worse than death? Why never really living of course, and this is what Voldemort has done. He has never really lived, because he was so intent on not dying and living by lies. This brings me to what I think is behind the door: Truth, or a Truth. The Truth can be a substance as in an object or as the abstract like an idea on paper. I base this off of two quotes. The first of which comes from the chapter called "The Lost Prophecy". It is the quote in which DD introduces the locked door: "There is a room in the department of Mysteries that is kept locked at all times. It contains a force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature." When I first read this i immediately recalled the last chapter of SS when Harry asked DD why Voldemort went after his parents in the first place. In DD's reply is this nugget: "The truth is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution." Great caution as in being locked up every hour of everyday? Great caution as in being so secure that a knife (that can open doors Alohamora won't) can't open it? What initially made me remember the second quote was the word terrible. It is repeated in both passages, and is given the same kind of dualistic qualities that DD gives to the power in the first passage. Harry also has this power in such qualities that Voldemort could not dwell in a body so full of it. Sherry now: Excellent post, John, even if I do disagree with it. I for one, have not heard truth mentioned as the thing behind the locked door before. However, is the truth something that should be locked away? I think not. Truth should be open, proclaimed from the rooftops, available to examine to find out if it is indeed the truth. And we are told specifically in OOTP, that it is Harry's love for Sirius that drove Voldemort out. One thing about which I do agree with you is the idea that Harry will not kill Voldemort with kindness toward him or by loving him, Voldemort. If love is the thing that will vanquish the dark lord, the thing Harry has in such great supply that Voldemort does not know, I doubt that it will be Harry loving him. But it may be Harry's love for the people in his life. His love for Sirius has already protected him. What about his love for his friends? His love for his friends is well documented; we are shown it over and over. At the beginning of OOTP, it was thinking of his friends that helped him create the patronus, even though he was upset with his friends at the time and not particularly happy. I agree with those who speculate that if love is the solution, it will be in some kind of sacrificial way, or something that is far beyond the sappy Valentine's Day type of fluff. Not like, I love cheese cake or I love movies. it will be something deeper. that kind of love has changed the world in the past, and I don't have any problem believing it can change the WW, too. Sherry G From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 27 14:40:50 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:40:50 -0000 Subject: Going off on a tangent from Re: Dumbledore and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123185 Alex Boyd: > [DD] says, "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. > They're the only family he has left now." and then, after > McGongall protests, "It's the best place for him. HIs aunt and > uncle will be able to explain everything to him when he's older." > (page 13 of the Scholastic paperback). SSSusan: I don't know why this line stuck out to me so upon this reading, after all the other times, but it did. There is often speculation here about just how much DD knew about the goings-on at the Dursleys' home after Harry was left there. Some assume he knew pretty much everything but chose to leave Harry there, *either* because it was the safest place for him *or* because DD didn't want Harry to grow up to be a pampered little prince and felt that this environment was better for preventing that than a WW home would be. OTOH, some assume that DD really hasn't had much of a clue about the specifics of Harry's upbringing with the Dursleys. I think this statement above, from SS/PS, gives credence to the second view -- well, either that or DD lies. When Hagrid first appears, he is stunned that Harry does not know he's a wizard and, especially, that he doesn't know the true story of his parents' death. Surely if DD was aware of the specifics of Harry's upbringing, he'd have known whether Petunia & Vernon had told Harry the truth. In fact, though, DD says, "They will be able to explain everything when he is older." To me this implies that DD *expected* them to tell him -- perhaps because of a directive in the note tucked in with Harry? Yet they did not, so it would seem DD truly was in the dark about the specifics of Harry's life with the Dursleys. Does this get DD off the hook with some readers? Or does it beg the question, "How could he have left Harry somewhere where he couldn't be monitored?" Siriusly Snapey Susan From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 14:56:23 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:56:23 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123186 Susan:"> Any thoughts on HOW they might accomplish this? [protecting those closet to Harry] There's quite a list, actually, of people for whom Harry would be willing to sacrifice himself, I suspect. Ron & Hermione, of course. Hagrid & DD. Any and all Weasleys [including Percy?]. Probably Lupin as the last remaining Marauder and the one who taught him the Patronus. Neville, as well." That's the problem. There's no way to protect them all. Death in a fight is one thing, though, and kidnap and torture at Bellatrix's hands another. First priority, of course, would be Ron, Hermione, and the others closest to Harry. Keeping Hogwarts secure is the primary strategy for accomplishing this. Hogwarts is now both the strategic and operational center of gravity of the wizard world in this war, not the Ministry. The parents of the students will, I think, pin the hopes of protecting their children on Dumbledore and Hogwarts rather than bringing their sons and daughters home. The adults will face danger for themselves if they believe their children are being cared for. Jim Ferer From quigonginger at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 15:22:56 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:22:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's Power (was: A few random thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123187 Eggplant wrote a good list of Harry's powers/accomplishments. I don't argue with any of the intent, only one small part of the content: > 3) In all of recorded history only 3 wizards have been able to speak > Parseltong. Harry is one of them. Actually, there are only 3 in the main series. If you have a copy of FB, look under runespoor, and it tells that wizards know so much about them due to the writings of Parseltongued wizards who conversed with them. Not that this takes anything away from the points Eggplant presented, just adding it for the sake of completeness. Ginger, who hates that page as it has a picture of a snake on it. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 15:42:58 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:42:58 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123188 Sandra wrote: (lots of snippage) I can't get past the original loop hole, ie that > Harry can't save himself in the way JKR described. His first time line reaches > a bad conclusion with the Dementors so there's just no way he can be in a > position to stop it from happening because he doesn't survive to get there. Ginger: Sandra, I don't know if this will help or not, but when trying to keep all that happened that night straight in my mind, it helps to think of the second Harry and Hermione as different people. Imagine them as Harvey and Helen who appeared on the scene at 6:00 with the knowledge of what Harry and Hermione would think, say and do in the next 3 hours. In other words, don't think of going back in time at all. Just take the events in chronological order; not as the book happened, but as time happened. Harvey and Helen appear and wait outside Hagrid's house. Harry and Hermione and Ron go to Hagrid's. They see Beaky and leave. Harvey and Helen rescue Beaky. Harry, Hermione and Ron go into the Shreiking Shack. Harvey and Helen hang out and wait. Harry and Hermione head to the lake, face the dementors, and Harvey saves Harry. Harvey and Helen save Sirius. Harry and Hermione wake up in the infirmery, and all is well. Harvey and Helen dissappear. It makes complete sense that way. It is when you throw in the time- turning thing that it all boggles up. To make it easier, think of yourself walking down the street. You cross, and a car comes barrelling at you. A stranger grabs you and knocks you out of harm's way. A good ending, right? Now, if the stranger is you, then you know you will have to time turn. There is no other option as it has already happened. If you don't time-turn, things would have happened differently. And you'd be dead. Since you're not dead, you must time-turn. The question is how, not if. That's where the headaches come in. Some people argue that there is no freedom of will or choice in this scenerio, but it is a choice that you will make in the future. You are just already aware of what you will choose. I hope this makes things easier for you, although I have a feeling I may have muddied things by adding the last two paragraphs. Feel free to ignore them should you feel a headache coming on. Cheers, and the painkiller of your choice, Ginger From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Thu Jan 27 16:07:09 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:07:09 -0000 Subject: Realism or Fairytale(was: Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123189 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: Renee: > it's when the more realistic interpretation invited by > OotP is projected back onto the earlier, less realistic books, that > you get this transition problem. Which is why a more symbolic > interpretation seems so promising to me: it has a better chance to > keep the whole series together.< > > Betsy: > This is where we differ a bit. Because I think JKR set out > some "tells" in the first books that hinted that the story was not > quite "fairy-tale" and setup the more "realistic" books to come. (I > went into those "tells" in my last response, so I won't bore everyone > by repeating myself. :)) Renee: There are hints of realism, especially in GoF, that even I can see, especially if I take realism to refer to an unpleasant reality, the way it's often used in everyday speech. ("Be realistic" seldom means "get your hopes up".) Betsy: > But I think the big question is really (as > Alla pointed out), how well is JKR handling the transition? Did she > drop enough hints for readers to follow along or is everything > suddenly different? I don't know if these questions can be fully > debated until the end of the series, but it is interesting. Renee: Agreed. So far, most of the realism, especially of the unpleasant kind, is found in OotP. So we'll have to wait and see what the last two books are going to look like. Also, I've realised that again, much of the problem is caused by JKR's own comments - and by my own unspoken assumptions that 1) it's obvious what JKR means when she uses phrases like "epitome of goodness", and 2) that her definitions are identical with mine or anyone else's. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 16:31:11 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:31:11 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency, was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: <7CA36D80-7000-11D9-9F71-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123190 Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > It's a pretty powerful plea Dumbledore > makes to Harry to learn Occlumency! Yes, Dumbledore says please please please learn Occlumency, but he doesn't explain exactly why it's so damn important, nor does he explain then or anywhere in the book why Snape's lessons make him weak and sick. It would take more than a pretty powerful plea to get me to do something that seemed pointless was unpleasant and not only didn't work but was actually counterproductive; I'd want some big time explanations but Harry was just told "do it". And if Dumbledore had just told Harry about the prophecy, where it was and Voldemort's desire to see the entire thing he wouldn't even need Occlumency because he it would be obvious the dream was just a trick to get him to the ministry. As Dumbledore himself admitted the blame is almost entirely his fault. There is something else, I know Dumbledore is basically a good person and he has genuine affection for Harry, but there may come a time when Dumbledore's wishes and Harry's long term well being are not identical, in fact it may have already happened. Eggplant From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Jan 27 16:33:40 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:33:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123191 > > You're right that this is the weak point in my interpretation of the > scene. However, are we absolutely sure that it *was* his call? Did > he have the option of making other arrangements? DD states at the end of OOTP it was his decision and he could have made others: "My priority was to keep you alive." "I made my decision..." "Could I not have found some wizarding family..." Lupinlore From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jan 27 17:06:12 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:06:12 -0000 Subject: WW Cultural bias re clothes and cupboard? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123192 > Alla: > It is an interesting argument, BUT it seems that Dumbledore himself clearly recognised at the end of OOP that Harry WAS wronged and Dumbledore acknowledges that he watched him closer than Harry could ever imagine. > > So, whether all wizards recognise it as mistreatment or not, > Dumbledore clearly does. > Pippin: Harry's years might have been "dark and difficult" with any Muggle family. Harry is not just a Cinderella, he is an ugly duckling, too, like all Muggleborns. Ever notice that none of them have much to say about their life before Hogwarts? We don't know what form the watching took -- but clearly Dumbledore was not personally watching over Harry before he came to Hogwarts, because he didn't develop the personal feeling that he has toward the boy until then. I am wondering about ghosts--we know that James and Lily are not ghosts, but we also don't know what happened to Harry's paternal grandparents except that they're dead. They could be watching over Privet Drive. It's hinted in the first book that ghosts can be invisible, and in the second that they are not all bound to one particular place. Wouldn't the Dursleys flip if they knew their house was haunted! I just think it's odd that the Dursleys' mistreatment takes forms that the wizard in the street would find hard to recognize. Maybe Dumbledore *has* intervened, but only in situations where he could make his fellow wizards understand if he were called on it. Wizarding culture also doesn't seem to expect much from parents in the way of emotional support. The Weasleys are an exception from what we've seen, and even Molly gets criticized on the list for ignoring her childrens' needs. Pippin From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 17:07:18 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:07:18 -0000 Subject: Harry's Power (was: A few random thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123193 >>Me: >> In all of recorded history only 3 wizards have been able to speak >> Parseltong. Harry is one of them. "quigonginger" wrote: > Actually, there are only 3 in the main series. > If you have a copy of FB, look under runespoor, > and it tells that wizards know so much about > them due to the writings of Parseltongued > wizards who conversed > with them. I'd forgotten FB said that, but this is what Voldemort says to Harry on that subject in Chamber Of Secrets: "There are strange likenesses between us, after all. Even you must have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great Slytherin himself We even look something alike" Sounds to me like the ability to talk to snakes has been pretty rare in the last thousand years, even Dumbledore can't do it. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 17:28:47 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:28:47 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123194 "Jim Ferer" wrote: > I expect the DE's to lash out at > Harry's friends and loved ones. I think that's likely too, and I have a hunch how he will go about it. Voldemort will order Percy to reconcile with his family and friends and then when they trust him again he will lure a family member or Harry himself into a trap. In return Percy will get a promotion from his new employer Voldemort, as the possibility of advancement in his old job at the ministry is zero after all the blunders Percy made in book 5. Eggplant > From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 17:35:04 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:35:04 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123195 Jim Ferer writes: >Do you suppose that JKR is trying to draw a parallel to an old >theological argument about God, being the conflict between an >omnipotent God and an all-loving God? I don't want to cross the line >into religious discussion here, but this argument crosses many >philosophical boundaries. Some here have seen theological parallels >in HP before now. I know others have brought up the omnipotence (or omniscience in DD's case) issue before and I never gave it much thought, but I suppose it is entirely possible that DD knew what Harry was going through at the Dursleys and decided to have him tough it out. After all, he knew Voldemort was still out there somewhere, he knew Harry would have to face him eventually, and if he couldn't even handle living with the Dursleys, how would he have the fortitude to deal with Voldemort? I suppose if Harry had been as loved and pampered as Dudley, he wouldn't have any desire to fight Voldemort, or even to join the WW. He also wouldn't have the strength to fight Voldemort, as he would probably weigh about the same as Dudley, but that's another story... Hmmm, maybe Harry did grow up happy and pampered because DD "made" the Dursleys be nice to him, then Harry freaked out when he found out he was a wizard, and got fried the minute he met Voldemort, and DD used to time-turner to go back and make sure Harry grew up miserable, but strong. >To bring it back to the series, I find myself running into a conflict >between a loving Dumbledore (he certainly seems that way) and a >Dumbledore that knows everything, can do anything, and fix anything. I have this same exact conflict, because half the time DD seems to know everything and half the time he seems completely clueless. I've finally come to the conclusion that he's good, but he's not "that" good - not omniscient, but trying really hard. Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 17:35:55 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:35:55 -0000 Subject: Abusive Crouch!Moody (was: In Defense of Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123196 Betsy writes: >Alla, are you seriously condoning Crouch!Moody publically humiliating >and physically assaulting Draco? Does it matter if he did it out of >anger or not? I wondered about this scene when I re-read it because Crouch!Moody shouldn't have any reason to torment Malfoy - the REAL Moody, yes, but Crouch!Moody, no. Until I remembered that Crouch!Moody has major contempt for the DEs that were not as loyal to LV, so assaulting Draco was probably Crouch!Moody getting a slam a Lucius, although no one would know it at the time. I think the reason no one is crying "child abuse" in this scene is because we all know Crouch! Moody is as evil as Voldemort and Draco probably got off easy. And because Draco is a nasty little sucker and most of us would like to see him snapped in half as much as Harry would. That doesn't justify it or make it right, but it is human nature to seek revenge. Nicky Joe From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Jan 27 18:09:21 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:09:21 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123197 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "xcpublishing" wrote: > I know others have brought up the omnipotence (or omniscience in DD's > case) issue before and I never gave it much thought, but I suppose it > is entirely possible that DD knew what Harry was going through at the > Dursleys and decided to have him tough it out. And yet, then again we run into that "epitome of goodness" thing. Sorry, but nothing justifies child abuse. If Dumbledore did take this option, he is no better than Voldemort. And no, the fact that the whole Wizarding World is at stake DOES NOT let him off the hook. > Hmmm, maybe Harry did grow up happy and pampered because DD "made" > the Dursleys be nice to him, then Harry freaked out when he found out > he was a wizard, and got fried the minute he met Voldemort, and DD > used to time-turner to go back and make sure Harry grew up miserable, but strong. Hmmm. Interesting theory. I don't think for one split second it's true, but interesting, nevertheless. From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Jan 27 18:27:45 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:27:45 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123198 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > > SSSusan: > Any thoughts on HOW they might accomplish this? There's quite a > list, actually, of people for whom Harry would be willing to > sacrifice himself, I suspect. Ron & Hermione, of course. Hagrid & > DD. Any and all Weasleys [including Percy?]. Probably Lupin as the > last remaining Marauder and the one who taught him the Patronus. > Neville, as well. > > I wonder what means The Order/Hogwarts staff/parents have of > protecting this many people? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Agreed Susan, with the caveat of I'm not so sure about DD. We don't know exactly how their relationship will begin to develop after OOTP. I think it is highly likely (and would certainly be realistic) for there to be an awkward period of sulleness and further explanation/healing. Don't get me wrong. I don't think Harry would stand aside and let Albus be attacked or anything of that sort. But I wonder if it is appropriate to group DD and Hagrid together right at this moment? Would Harry rush out to save DD with the same fervor he would try and rescue Hagrid or Molly (and I don't deny he WOULD go out to save Albus)? Anyway, just a quibble. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Thu Jan 27 18:30:07 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:30:07 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123199 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > So in the end I think that Harry will be given a choice, a hard > choice. DD has already laid the foundation for us to understand that > in his *remember Cedric* speech. Harry will know the cost to himself > and perhaps to those that he loves. He will make that choice and > the sacrifice of his life, because he is who he is. He is a caring, > compassionate, forgiving human being, fully human flaws and all, yet > with a goodness that goes deep within him. Just like us. And by his > death Harry will show us how to truly live. > > Tonks_op Perfectly possible. It would be an ending that I would find -- and it IS just my opinion -- utterly insipid. But it is perfectly possible. Lupinlore From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 18:43:33 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:43:33 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123200 "lupinlore" wrote: > Don't get me wrong. I don't think Harry would > stand aside and let Albus be attacked or anything > of that sort. But I wonder if it is appropriate > to group DD and Hagrid together right at this moment? > Would Harry rush out to save DD with the same fervor > he would try and rescue Hagrid or Molly (and I don't > deny he WOULD go out to save Albus)? I agree, after Dumbledore's blunders in book 5 I don't think Harry will ever feel quite the same about him again. He would certainly put his life on the line to save any of the Weasleys, except Percy of course. I think, or at least I hope, Harry wouldn't lift a finger to save him. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 18:51:32 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:51:32 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123201 m, "lupinlore" > It would be an ending that I would find >- and it IS just my opinion - utterly insipid. You would find an ending where everyone lives happily ever after at Santa's workshop or some such place less insipid? I wouldn't, I think the Shakespeare and the ancient Greeks were right, killing the hero elevates the story to the level of an epic. Eggplant From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 17:47:30 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:47:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050127174730.34397.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123202 --- festuco wrote: > No, if anybody failed Harry against DU it was Harry himself. Again, > he had all the necessary information. He knew about the rigged > trial. He knew about the attempt to make him miss it and so be > unable to speak out in his own defense. He knew Fudge did > everything he could to get > him expelled and how the only reason he did not succeed was because > there was a witness. How Fudge did his utmost to discredit that > witness. He knew about how te Daily Prophet blackened him because > of the MoM's wishes. He knew, because Hermione had it spelled out to > him, that the MoM was interfering at Hogwarts. And what does he do? > He challenges DU, who he remembers from his trial as a Fudge toady. > As McGonnagal said to him 'Where's your common sense?'. > > Gerry Harry's biggest problem in OOTP is that he doesn't spend any time connecting the dots. He doesn't stop and reflect on things that happpened in the recent past, and wonder if they're having an impact on the present. He does pretty much the same thing during occlumency: his scar is hurting more, but he doesn't remember - if he really took it in in the first place - that Voldemort is now aware of the mental connection with Harry. He never stops to ask if that might not be cause-and-effect. He just blames Snape. Hermione, on the other hand, like McGonagall, DOES connect the dots. She knows the MOM is not acting at random, that there is a plot and that Fudge is too dumb to come up with it. Fudge is a tool - but whose tool? Magda __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 26 21:22:55 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:22:55 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and Harry (was McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123203 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > All things considered, I think that you missed an important point in > Alla's remarks - that using the quill was /in itself/ correct. Are > you suggesting that the action, which was improper and sadistic, was > correctly started by this woman to bring home to Harry the need to > conform? No, I did not. But I refuse to spell out for people what I mean for a third time. If they don't get it, too bad. > Dolores Umbridge has the right as a teacher at Hogwarts to seek to > improve the educational achievement and social interaction skills of > her pupils but I think the use of water torture, meat axes and even > magic quills falls outside the parameters of what would be considered > to be good teaching techniques. Are you actually suggesting Umbridge is there to teach a subject? Please cite me some canon on which you base that. Umbridge does not want to teach a subject. Is not there to teach a subject. She is there to install fear and make the rules of the MoM obeyed. And she will use anything to make sure she gets her way. She is not interested in nice little moralities. She is the strongest, so she has the right. She has the full cooperation of the MoM behind her, and they don't really care about fair play, justice or angry parents. For her good teaching technicques are those that do the job: making her students do as they are told. And that is what her boss wants of her. From their points of view their method works. And that is all they are interested in. Now we as readers can analyze all we want. Say how evil a person she is, and how immoral her behaviour. But inside the story, the Hogwart students had better not do the same where she or her squad members can hear it, because she will make them pay for it. They had better learn that in a dictatorship the rules are what the dictator says they are. They can scream about morality and justice all they want, but sometimes it is not available. And then people had better adapt and choose their actions wisely, especially if they are going to resist her. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Wed Jan 26 22:13:06 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:13:06 -0000 Subject: Harry's irresponsible behaviour / Does he have a choice? (was McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123204 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > So, Harry does have a huge sense of responsibility? because my > previous reply was in response to your argument that Harry's > irresponsible behaviour may have delivered WW to Voldemort. I was > not asking you whether Harry has a choice or not, he probably does > not, although I do believe that we almost always have a choice. OK, let me explain this to you. Harry throughout OoP often behaves irresponsibly. One of the occasions is refusing to learn Occlumency. Because of his irresponsibility in this he is tricked. LV plays on his feelings of responsibility to get him to the DoM. He knows how Harry will react and it works just fine. Harry is not a black and white character. He has flaws. . > I was asking you more along the lines why do you think that Harry > OWES WW anything. I'm sorry but I never said such a thing. You are the one who interpreted my words that way, and then started asking why I think so. > Person making a conscious choice to fight and sacrifice himself in > the fight is one thing, so far Harry has not been given a > possibility to make the conscious choice to fight, because so much > information was kept from him, but at the same time he is being held > to the same standards as someone who is making such conscious choice. He made the choice. At the beginning of OoP, when he wants to be in the Order, when he explicitely tells the members he wants to fight LV. Gerry From leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com Wed Jan 26 22:14:27 2005 From: leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com (moondance241) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 22:14:27 -0000 Subject: Trelawney / Re: Who's on the LV hit list? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123205 Molley wrote: > I was a little frustrated in OoP by LV pouring the whole of his > energy into the pursuit of a prophecy. But it did make > me wonder since the recorded prophecy is now lost to him, if he > won't try to uncover what it said from its original source - > Professor Trelawney. > > I believe this is a real point of vulnerability and as ST is out > of the loop as far as the struggle against LV is concerned, it > probably hasn't occurred to any of the order members to consider > that LV still needs to know what the prophecy actually said. As > far as my frustration goes, I think it just may be a plot set-up > for HBP. Thoughts anyone? I think DD does believe LV will continue to seek the wording of the prophecy. That is why when Umbridge sacked Trelawney and tried to remove her from the castle, DD stepped in and insisted she remain at the castle to live. I would agree that LV will try to get to Trelawney. I think an attempt by LV and the DE to gain access to if not outright take over Hogwarts will be part of the second War. JKR has indicated that books 6 and 7 could be one large book (huge paraphrase!). I'm wondering if that doesn't mean that the climax the whole septology starts at the end of book 6 and continues into book 7. moondance, new here and enjoying it, but having a hard time keeping up! From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Wed Jan 26 23:46:04 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:46:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: Snape vs Quirrell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050126234604.74037.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123206 > > Juli earlier: > > > So, my question is if Snape faced Quirrell 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 Quirrell's body > > > and soul, so he must have known and heard all their > > > conversations, right? So how come Voldemort does not > > > know that Snape has changed sides? That he is actually > > > working for the Order and Dumbledore? < < Carol replied: ...Snip... > > At that point, Snape would have had to use all his Slytherin > > cunning to convince either Malfoy or Voldemort or both that > > he was still loyal. As I said earlier, he could cover his > > graveyard absence by explaining that you can't apparate from > > Hogwarts and cover the Quirrell incident, if it came up, by > > saying that he'd had no idea that Voldemort was back, much > > less inside Quirrell's head, and that he thought Quirrell was > > trying to get the stone for himself. Arynn replies (in a different message, same thread): > We never heard the whole conversation. Maybe Snape was making > it seem as though he was after the stone for himself. I'm sure > Quirrell wouldn't have advertised the fact that he was "attached" > to Voldie. And Voldie would think nothing of Snape being after the > stone Juli, answering to both Carol and Arynn: You both seem to have similar points, if Quirrell believed that Snape was after the Stone himself, why would LV see any bad in that? It seems very Slytherin-like to me: Wealth and Inmortalily. So the whole loyalty conversation could be about loyalty to Snape, not DD. Carol again: > Remember that Dumbledore says to Snape, near the end of GoF, "If > you are ready, if you are prepared" (quoting from memory). They > must have anticipated such a moment, and Snape must have prepared > his stories, complete, possibly, with false memories for Voldemort > to see. Juli: Wow, you have really good memory. Here's the quote anyway: "Severus," said Dumbledore, turning to Snape, "you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready . . .if you are prepared ..." "I am," said Snape. I never considered the full meaning of "prepared"; Snape, of course, must have some sort of cover story for the Quirrell conversations, rumors about him changing sides, and absence in the graveyard. I always thought that DD just mean "if you are willing", not is everything ready for your return to the DE... Interesting From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 20:02:15 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:02:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123207 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Alex Boyd: > > [DD] says, "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. > > They're the only family he has left now." and then, after > > McGongall protests, "It's the best place for him. HIs aunt and > > uncle will be able to explain everything to him when he's older." > > (page 13 of the Scholastic paperback). > > > SSSusan: > I don't know why this line stuck out to me so upon this reading, > after all the other times, but it did. > > ... speculation here about just how much DD knew about ... the > Dursleys' home [and] ... Harry .... Some assume he knew pretty much > everything but chose to leave Harry there, *either* because it was > the safest place for him *or* because DD didn't want Harry ... to > be a pampered little prince .... OTOH, some assume that DD really > hasn't had much of a clue about the specifics.... > > I think this statement above, from SS/PS, gives credence to the > second view -- well, either that or DD lies. > > When Hagrid first appears, he is stunned that Harry does not know > he's a wizard ... Surely if DD was aware ...., he'd have known > whether Petunia & Vernon had told Harry the truth. ...edited... > > Does this get DD off the hook with some readers? Or does it beg the > question, "How could he have left Harry somewhere where he couldn't > be monitored?" > > Siriusly Snapey Susan bboyminn: Why did Dumbledore chose to leave Harry at the Dursley? First, it was Dumbledore who took on the task of arranging Harry's care, even Voldemort knows that; witness his speech in the GOF graveyard. Second, leaving Harry with the Dursleys sealed/activated Dumbledore's Blood Protection Charm that further protected Harry; protection building on but going far above and beyond Lily's /sacrifice/ Love protection. By accepting Harry into their home Petunia sealed a Charm that protects Harry from anyone wishing to do him serious bodily harm; again, Voldie's speech in the graveyard. So, at the Dursley's Harry had the ultimate protection. He probably had the highest protection possible short of Dumbledore personally raising Harry himself. Knowing that Voldemort and his deranged Death Eaters would be very likely to seek Harry out and do him harm, Dumbledore had to chose the option of greatest protection. Since the Blood Protection Charm is tied to a place, Harry is protected even when he is alone. In addition, Dumbledore had Mrs. Figg in the neighborhood to keep an eye on things, and she could keep him up-to-date on Harry progress and notify him quickly in case of emergency. That should be sufficient to explain to anyone why Harry was at the Dursley's. What did Dumbledore know? Well, he knew the Dursleys were not too fond of the wizard world (slight understatement). I'm sure he also knew they were oddly unpleasant people. By his own words, he knew Harry's life there would be unpleasant; unpleasant but safe. But I seriously doubt that Dumbledore knew every little detail and every little event. I'm sure his knowledge consisted of general status reports from Mrs. Figg, and perhaps an occassional covert observation of his own. But when Dumbledore weighed Harry's unpleasant existance in which he as fed, clothed, and housed, against his increased vulnerability at any other location, he reasonably chose the safer option. Knowing the dangerous magnitude of the people who were out to get Harry, certainly Dumbledore would always choose safer over more pleasant. I also think that Dumbledore thought it best to keep Harry out of the wizard world; witness his 'pampered prince' statement. Given Harry's fame and recognition, I don't think he could have been raised in the wizard world without it being common knowledge regarding where and who he was. That common knowledge would make it very easy for people who wanted to do him harm, to find him and do that harm. Since Harry would likely be seen in the wizard world in Diagon Alley (etc...) and frequently be found among wizard, it would have been easy for someone to covertly harm Harry; as in, sniper-wizard on the roof of the Leaky Cauldron. At least with the Dursleys, he was away from all that. To some extent, Harry was hidden in the muggle world, away from prying and potentially dangerous eyes. Although, it's clear from the books that a few people in the Wiz-World knew who and where Harry was, I don't think the details were common knowledge. No, it was logically much better and safer to keep Harry out of the wizard world and under the protection of the Blood Charm. So, I agree Dumbledore knew what was going on at the Dursley's, but only in a general way (not ever little detail), and that general knowledge did not go against his expectation, nor was it ever bad enough to his knowledge to out weigh the level of protection Harry had there. Sometimes in life, the best choice isn't always the most pleasant choice. Sometimes you must accept small misery and sacrifice in order to avoid a much greater misery and sacrifice; it's called life. Final note; in addition to the general situation being monitored by Mrs. Figg, it's crystal clear that the Ministry of Magic is closely monitoring Harry's location for any magical activity. I really don't think they are monitoring it for magical activity by Harry. That just turned out to be something the could use to their advantage at a later date. I think the Ministry has a general knowledge of the Prophecy, and they know that Harry has an important role in the future of wizarding-kind. So, I think there monitoring was set up to give them the fastest possible alert should someone magically attack Harry. So, Dumbledore knows enough to know that safety still out weighs comfort. And the situation at Privet Drive is being monitored, but monitored for safety and security as a primary concern, and Harry general comfort, via Mrs. Figg, as a secondary concern. But then... that's just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From beth_bousquet at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 02:26:46 2005 From: beth_bousquet at yahoo.com (beth_bousquet) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:26:46 -0000 Subject: Just a few things I am not too clear on: Magic outside of Howgwarts, hidden clues Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123208 I am a little confused on a few things that have happened in the books the first of which is: why does Harry get in trouble for doing spells outside of Hogwarts when we see Hermione doing spells at least a couple of times away from school, as well a Ron at least once. The first time I notice was in SS/PS on the train, Ron tries to turn Scabbers yellow, and then Hermione fixes Harry's glasses. She also mentions that she has tried simple spells that have all worked for her before. Do these instances not count because they have not started at Hogwarts yet? In COS Hermione fixes Harry's glasses again at Diagon Alley. Is this not seen as breaking the law of the resriction of underaged magic? The second question I have is: how important to the story is all of the hidden stuff that I have heard is in the books? Am I missing out on a whole lot of clues to what is happening? "beth_bousquet" From beth_bousquet at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 03:08:47 2005 From: beth_bousquet at yahoo.com (beth_bousquet) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:08:47 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123209 When do you think JKR will reveal to us why DD trusts Snape? I hope it is before the very end of the book. I don't think I could or would trust him unless I had a very strong and undoubted reason for it. I don't know if it would be more shocking to find out that maybe Hagrid took Harry to hide out with Snape during the time that is not accounted for (before Harry was brought to the Dursleys') or that maybe he saved DD's life in some way. "beth_bousquet" From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 20:21:51 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:21:51 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...Harry2 Arrived at 6pm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123210 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" wrote: > > Sandra wrote: (lots of snippage) > I can't get past the original loop hole, ie that Harry can't save > himself in the way JKR described. His first time line reaches > > a bad conclusion with the Dementors so there's just no way he can > > be in a position to stop it from happening because he doesn't > > survive to get there. > > Ginger: > Sandra, I don't know if this will help or not, but when trying to > keep all that happened that night straight in my mind, it helps to > think of the second Harry and Hermione as different people. Imagine > them as Harvey and Helen who appeared on the scene at 6:00 with the > knowledge of what Harry and Hermione would think, say and do in the > next 3 hours. > > In other words, don't think of going back in time at all. Just take > the events in chronological order; not as the book happened, but as > time happened. > > ...edited out examples.... > > I hope this makes things easier for you, although I have a feeling I > may have muddied things by adding the last two paragraphs. Feel > free to ignore them should you feel a headache coming on. > > Cheers, and the painkiller of your choice, Ginger bboyminn: It's well known that I am with Ginger on this issue. If you want to get rid of your headache or at least, reduce it to a managable level then you have to drop the idea that time happened twice. Let's examine that. 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. The second time through the loop, we don't find out WHAT, because we already have an account of what happened, instead we find out HOW. And the HOW is that Harry#2 arrived into the timeline at 6pm. He save himself, not because he left at midnight, but because he arrived at 6pm. As I said in my other response to this post, it's not time that happens twice, it's Harry that happens twice. Date: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:11 pm Subject: Re: That Time Turner...3x1=3 and 3x1=3 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122933 Also remember, that the brightest minds in the world still get a headache when they try to resolve time travel, and that is because, no matter how smart you are, time travel still creates unresolvable paradoxes. So, don't focus on when Harry left the timeline; focus on when Harry#2 arrived in the Universal Timeline. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From casil30 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 03:32:55 2005 From: casil30 at yahoo.com (Lisa C.) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 03:32:55 -0000 Subject: How did everyone know? (OOP pages 610-625 -- American Hard Cover) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123211 Toni wrote: > After the altercation between DD, Fudge, etc. in DD's office, we're > told that notices of Umbridge becoming Headmistress have gone up > all over the school overnight, but that > > "they did not explain how every single person within the > castle seemed to know that Dumbledore had overcome two Aurors, the > High Inquisitor, the Minister of Magic, AND HIS JUNIOR ASSISTANT to > escape." (My emphasis, sorry about the caps, I couldn't figure out > how to italize.) > > I would argue that the information spread is classic Percy. > We know that Percy was not present in DD's office during the > altercation, as he had been sent by Fudge to copy his notes of > DD's "confession" and send them on the Daily Prophet for the morning > addition. Let me add that I believe that Percy is working for the > Order as a spy at the Ministry, and has not betrayed his family. > My first thought when I read it was that the portraits had spread the information. I'm glad to know that's what mostly everyone else thinks too. As for Percy, as much as I wish it to be true that he's working for the Order without anyone else's knowledge, I just don't see it that way. We were given a clue in GoF about Percy and the Ministry. I'm sorry that I can't quote verbatim but I don't have the book on hand right now. Hermione says something to the effect of Percy not handing over any of his family to the dementors and Ron replies something about Percy being very ambitious. I also hope that if and when Percy realizes he was wrong and starts coming back around, he is not inducted into the Order because then he would be the cert for the traitor and that is just a little too obvious. My favorite for the traitor from almost the start has been Ernie Macmillian ...a little far-fetched but something about the way his character is written just rubs me the wrong way and no, I don't really expect to be right about that either...just wishful thinking that it won't be any of the good characters. Casil ---who is seriously needs to quit rambling From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 20:26:15 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:26:15 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123212 Lupinlore, responding to Nicky Joe:" And yet, then again we run into that "epitome of goodness" thing. Sorry, but nothing justifies child abuse. If Dumbledore did take this option, he is no better than Voldemort. And no, the fact that the whole Wizarding World is at stake DOES NOT let him off the hook." Well, DD's definitely better than Voldemort. Suppose the choice DD made is not trying to "toughen up" Harry - no one could ever know that allowing Harry to be abused that way would serve to make Harry resilient. Suppose the choice is, "Letting Harry stay with the Muggles is the only way to guarantee Harry will stay alive." DD knew things would be "dark and difficult" for Harry, but I doubt he knew just how bad things were. How much and how well did Arabella Figg report back? You could argue DD should have done more to check up on Harry. That makes him negligent, perhaps, but nowhere near evil. In the end, Dumbledore put his trust in ancient magic and Harry's destiny, and the knowledge that Harry would have powers the Dark Lord knows not. Jim Ferer From ladymlb777 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 05:03:24 2005 From: ladymlb777 at yahoo.com (Michele) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:03:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Controlling anger -- Crouch!Moody and Snape (was Re: Abusive Crouch!Moody) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050127050324.38354.qmail@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123213 Alla: > I actually think that he [Crouch!Moody] did a remarkable job of > controlling his temper. I don't think he was angry at all at this > moment. I believe that the action was well thought out and very > well executed. > > > > Carol COMPARED Snape's ability to control his anger to Crouch!Moody > and I responded that IMO Crouch!Moody controlled his anger MUCH > better than Snape does. 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. Michele From juli17 at aol.com Thu Jan 27 20:38:09 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:38:09 -0500 Subject: FYI: Assyria Message-ID: <4C807D5C.3963E54D.0004E520@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123214 FYI, Assyria was an ancient kingdom in Mesopotamia. It existed from the the 12th c BC through the 7th c BC, when its capital city, Nineveh, was destroyed by the Babylonians and their allies. It was located in the northern valley between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (now in Iraq), and extended into present day Iran and Turkey. Interestingly there are still Assyrians in that area today, descendants of the original Assyrians. They are now Christians, many of whom speak Aramaic. Julie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 20:39:14 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:39:14 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123215 Michelle wrote: > The thing I don't understand is why James has become a paragon of > virtue to some, and yet Sirius is reviled by the same people? > > Casey responded: > Well, first of all James saved Snape's life, even though he didn't > like him. Perhaps it was more for Remus' sake but I'll give him the > benefit of the doubt. I also think that many believe that since > Lilly, a girl that showed she would put up with none of James' > nonsense, ended up marrying him, it proved that James had changed > greatly. Carol adds: I think that James's admirers are generally the same people who like (I won't say admire) Sirius. They praise James for his "values" or "principles" because he would never call Lily a "mudblood." (He didn't say that he wouldn't use the term to insult a Muggleborn he didn't like, but I suppose it's fair to say that he wouldn't do so, just as some people would never call a girl a b***ch even if they hated her. It's just a word that he's been taught not to use and so he doesn't.) That teeny exhibition of principle is, however, about the only good thing that can be said of James in the Pensieve incident. Even his most fervent admirers admit that he was at best "an arrogant little berk" in that scene. Most of us would use the word "bully." And certainly that's how Harry saw him. Young James is a show off who wants to be admired, but hexing people he doesn't like "just because he can" probably earns him more fear than respect. And of course he's admired (at least by the Gryffindors) for his athletic skills but they don't make him admirable in a moral sense. Neither he nor Sirius seems to respect Remus's feelings about being a werewolf (joking about the werewolf question and later Sirius complains that it's not a full moon). Essentially Sirius is a spoiled, handsome rich boy who wants to be entertained and has no consideration for other people's feelings. James is a possibly indulged rich boy/athlete who thinks he's better than anyone else. Neither of them has any legitimate reason for their unprovoked attack on Severus Snape, who is absorbed in studying the test questions he has just answered at great length in the DADA exam, which he clearly takes more seriously than they do. (And Sirius states that he doesn't need to study for the Transfiguration exam, either. Thinks highly of himself, that one.) James bases his dislike of the studious Severus on the mere fact that he exists. No doubt being a Slytherin and greasy-haired has something to do with it, too, as do all the hexes Severus knows. No fun to attack an opponent who can't fight back, but it's okay to do it when he's unprepared and to go two against one. *This* is the only James that we actually see, the "arrogant little berk" who shatters Harry's cherished illusions by proving Snape right. We know that James stopped hexing people (except Severus) to earn Lily's respect and affection. We know that he somehow saved Severus from werewolf!Remus, which makes him at that point a better person than Sirius, but we don't know whether he was originally involved in the so-called and got cold feet (Snape's view) or whether he found out about it (through Peter??) and stopped it when it was already in progress. (Having saved Severus didn't keep him from hexing him in the corridors, apparently, nor did it keep Severus from hexing him. I imagine that Severus was humiliated at least as much by owing his enemy a life debt as by being publicly turned upside down and James, being James, probably reveled in Severus's agony. But I'm only speculating here.) Once James was married and a father, away from Severus Snape and no longer running around with a werewolf on full moon nights, he did something that none of the other marauders (except, to some extent, Remus Lupin) ever did. He grew up. Paragon of virtue? No way in this universe. But as an adult, he served in the Order of the Phoenix and died fighting to protect his family. Not being Snape, who hates him for dying without giving him a chance to repay the life debt (IMO), we can forgive James for his youthful arrogance and misbehavior. And I suppose we can forgive Sirius, too, since he passed through the Veil fighting for the Order and Harry. But we don't have to like them if their personalities and actions don't appeal to us, any more than the Snape haters have to like Snape. BTW, I'm using "Severus" for young Snape to match the names of the Marauders and "Snape" for the adult Snape. I do the same for Remus Lupin, and I try to do the same with Sirius Black and Peter Pettigrew when I remember. It won't work for James, though, because there's another Potter. ("Oh, him!" to quote Harry.) Carol, who's rather fond of Lupin but doesn't really like any other Marauder From cortana.costume at free.fr Thu Jan 27 08:49:23 2005 From: cortana.costume at free.fr (Cortana) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:49:23 +0100 Subject: Half Blood Prince Theory -- Trevor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c5044d$1a588950$0a03a8c0@fontcombe> No: HPFGUIDX 123216 > Tonks_op observed: > >Who gave Neville that frog, (snip.) Janet said: > The same Uncle Algie that gave him the rare plant from Assyria. Tonks again: > Now in rereading Book 2. I see that "Mandrake or Mandragora is a > powerful restorative" said Hermione..." It is used to return people > who have been transfigured or cursed to their original state" > > Why would we be told that? And Uncle Algie has been to Assyria. Did > he get Trevor there too? Maybe it all ties in with Ancient magic in > Egypt. I an not good at these things, but I think Assyria is at > least in the same part of the world. Any thoughts?? Hi ! That?s my first ever post in here. Hope I won?t make too many mistakes. Assyria is ancient Persia, so it takes place around Turkey, Irak, Iran, but during the high times of this civilisation (about 700 Bc) they colonized actual Liban, Israel & Egypt ! They ruled from Babylone to the far bottom of High Egypt. And according to mythology, there was a very powerful Assyrian wizard king (and half god, I believe) named Gilgamesh. They were great warriors, and wonderful artist (beautiful collection in London museum). "Cortana" From sro35 at webtv.net Thu Jan 27 09:05:09 2005 From: sro35 at webtv.net (sro35 at webtv.net) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 04:05:09 -0500 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? In-Reply-To: HPforGrownups@yahoogroups.com's message of 26 Jan 2005 22:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <10788-41F8AEC5-1774@storefull-3113.bay.webtv.net> No: HPFGUIDX 123217 For what it is worth, here are my two cents on the subject. Killing V is Harry's personal and self imposed mission, taken on in order to revenge the murder of his parents. The WW is the beneficiary of his personal act. Having said that, I am aware that Harry is not happy with the prospect of being cast into the role of murderer (OOTP). I believe that the uneasiness is the result of the shock of hearing the prophecy, but ultimately, Harry will attempt to complete his quest without reservation. Will Harry actually murder V? Who knows? Well, one person knows. ...............Stan _________________________________________ They have cradled you in custom, they have primed you with their preaching, They have soaked you in convention through and through; They have put you in a showcase; you're a credit to their teaching -- But can't you hear the Wild? -- it's calling you. Let us probe the silent places, let us seek what luck betide us; Let us journey to a lonely land I know. There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling. . .let us go........Robert Service From leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com Thu Jan 27 16:54:02 2005 From: leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com (moondance241) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:54:02 -0000 Subject: Magical weddings? In-Reply-To: <41F8AE8D.7020403@gmx.de> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123218 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Peter Felix Schuster wrote: > With my own weddings being scheduled for end of next month, 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? 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? Though religous themes abound, there are no direct references to church or God or clergy. Does a ceremony use traditional symbols of muggles (i.e., white wedding gown, rings, flowers, cake, honeymoon, etc.)? From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 27 20:47:47 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:47:47 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123219 SSSusan: > > Any thoughts on HOW they might accomplish this? There's quite a > > list, actually, of people for whom Harry would be willing to > > sacrifice himself, I suspect. Ron & Hermione, of course. Hagrid > > & DD. Any and all Weasleys [including Percy?]. Probably Lupin > > as the last remaining Marauder and the one who taught him the > > Patronus. Neville, as well. > > > > I wonder what means The Order/Hogwarts staff/parents have of > > protecting this many people? Lupinlore: > Agreed Susan, with the caveat of I'm not so sure about DD. We don't > know exactly how their relationship will begin to develop after > OOTP. I think it is highly likely (and would certainly be > realistic) for there to be an awkward period of sulleness and > further explanation/healing. > > Don't get me wrong. I don't think Harry would stand aside and let > Albus be attacked or anything of that sort. But I wonder if it is > appropriate to group DD and Hagrid together right at this moment? > Would Harry rush out to save DD with the same fervor he would try > and rescue Hagrid or Molly (and I don't deny he WOULD go out to > save Albus)? SSSusan: You know, I actually paused as I typed "DD" in that first post. :-) Yes, I think you're right that putting DD right next to Hagrid's name AT THIS TIME is questionable. Like you, I think it would make perfect sense to see some awkwardness, even a rift, between Harry & DD for a time. However, unlike Eggplant's view in 123200, I don't think it'll be a lasting rift. Things may not ever be *exactly* the same between them [few relationships are after something Big happens within them], but I do think Harry will trust DD again, will -- eventually -- listen to him & seek his counsel. On the other issue I raised in the last post, I agree with Jim F. that keeping Hogwarts secure is likely the chief method that will be used for protecting those in Harry's circle. OTOH, with what happened at the end of the TWT in GoF, surely it's been shown that that's not going to be sufficient. So I wonder what else might be done? As well as what might be done for those who're not at Hogwarts -- M/M Weasley, Lupin, etc. Siriusly Snapey Susan, who restarted piano lessons today after a 27- year hiatus. From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 20:49:19 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:49:19 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123220 > Eggplant: > Voldemort will order Percy to reconcile with his family and friends > and then when they trust him again he will lure a family member or > Harry himself into a trap. In return Percy will get a promotion from > his new employer Voldemort, as the possibility of advancement in his > old job at the ministry is zero after all the blunders Percy made in > book 5. That's a big leap, from self-interested insecure sycophant to apprentice Death Eater willing to betray his family to torture and death. Besides, how do we know he hasn't been under deep cover for Dumbledore all year, cover so deep that he alienates his family to maintain it? It's perfectly possible. Everything Percy's done this year would look just the same if he was secretly spying on Fudge. OTOH, I wouldn't bet anything I couldn't lose on that idea. From leslie41 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 16:58:19 2005 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41 at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:58:19 -0000 Subject: Magical weddings? In-Reply-To: <41F8AE8D.7020403@gmx.de> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123221 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Peter Felix Schuster wrote: > With my own weddings being scheduled for end of next month, 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. Congrats on your wedding! 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. Leslie From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 21:06:05 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:06:05 -0000 Subject: Snape and DD as a team Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123222 Rereading the second book I came across a scene where Snape and DD are working as a team and using Legilmency. CS. p. 143-144. The handwriting on the wall and Mrs. Norris have been discovered. DD takes Filch, the cat, Harry, Ron, Hermione to Lockhart's office. Lockhart comes along with McGonagall and Snape. After DD determines that Mrs. Norris has been petrified, Snape questions Harry. After the questioning Snape's say "I suggest, Headmaster, that Potter is not being entirely truthful" and then goes on to suggest taking Quidditch away from him as punishment until he is ready to be honest. There is an exchange about Quidditch between Snape and McGonagall while we hardly notice that what DD does. "DD was giving Harry a searching look. His twinkling light-blue gaze made Harry feel as thought he were being X- rayed." "Innocent until proven guilty, Severus", he said firmly. And then we all move on to Snape and Filch both looking furious. Snape probably because he wanted to take Quidditch from Harry, and Filch because he wanted someone punished for his cat. What are we really seeing here? I suggest that we see Legilmenes at work in both SS and DD. And the communication between them is very subtle. SS tells DD I have looked in the boy and he in not telling the truth, there is something he is not telling us. DD understands and takes a look into Harry too. He looks and sees that Harry is innocent of the charges, and maybe he sees more but doesn't say. His comment to Snape really says "Yes SS I see that he is telling us a story, but he is not guilty himself, and that is all we can say here in front of Filch and Lockhart. I think that there are other times as well when Snape and DD work together and Snape for DD. They don't jump out at us and we do not realize what we are seeing because it is very subtle. Just like an old married couple or 2 friends that have been together for years can know what the other is implying by just a word or two. Tonks_op From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 21:11:06 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:11:06 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123223 Susan:"On the other issue I raised in the last post, I agree with Jim F. that keeping Hogwarts secure is likely the chief method that will be used for protecting those in Harry's circle. OTOH, with what happened at the end of the TWT in GoF, surely it's been shown that that's not going to be sufficient. So I wonder what else might be done? As well as what might be done for those who're not at Hogwarts -- M/M Weasley, Lupin, etc." Thank you . History has shown you can't just wait behind the walls and hope for safety. The WW has to take the war to Voldemort; harass, chase, chivvy, capture, neutralize, whatever it takes to keep DE's on the run and prevent them planning and carrying out attacks. No rest, no peace, no chances for the Dark Side. I suspect DD and the Order know that very well. Good intelligence is vital. It's all the more reason to keep the Slytherins in school if it can be done. Some will have loose lips, some will have attacks of conscience, and some will play both sides of the street just to hedge their bets. It won't be foolproof. Sooner or later the DE's will break through and we'll have a crisis. That may be when we find out who will no longer be with us. Jim Ferer From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 20:34:03 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:34:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who would Harry save? / Re: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050127203403.98829.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123224 "lupinlore wrote: > > Don't get me wrong. I don't think Harry would stand > > aside and let Albus be attacked or anything of that > > sort. Would Harry rush out to save DD with the same > > fervor he would try and rescue Hagrid or Molly (and > > I don't deny he WOULD go out to save Albus)? Eggplant replied: > I agree, after Dumbledore's blunders in book 5 I > don't think Harry will ever feel quite the same about > him again. He would certainly put his life on the line > to save any of the Weasleys, except Percy of course. I > think, or at least I hope, Harry wouldn't lift a finger > to save him. Juli now: But we are forgetting something quite important: Harry is a good guy, he's got morals. It surprised me in PS/SS when he was at the Dark forest with Draco that Harry warned him about something (I can get the quote). If he would try to save Draco, who he hates from day one, why wouldn't he try to save Dumbledore? This is a man who has protected him and taken care of him over the years, almost a fatherly figure (specially now Sirius is dead). Sure he may have made a few mistakes, but he's only human. If you are perfect you just aren't real, DD is real and he's got flaws. I also believe that he would try to save Percy, or any other Hogwarts student, including the Slytherin gang, why? Because he just doesn't want to carry another death, he's got enough with Sirius'. Juli, Believing Percy is secretly spying for DD in the MoM From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 27 21:13:55 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:13:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123225 Alex Boyd: > > > [DD] says, "His aunt and uncle will be able to explain > > > everything to him when he's older." (p. 13, Scholastic pbk). SSSusan [edited by Steve]: > > ... speculation here about just how much DD knew about ... the > > Dursleys' home [and] ... Harry .... Some assume he knew pretty > > much everything but chose to leave Harry there, *either* because > > it was the safest place for him *or* because DD didn't want > > Harry ... to be a pampered little prince .... OTOH, some assume > > that DD really hasn't had much of a clue about the specifics.... > > > > I think this statement above, from SS/PS, gives credence to the > > second view -- well, either that or DD lies. > > > > When Hagrid first appears, he is stunned that Harry does not know > > he's a wizard ... Surely if DD was aware ...., he'd have known > > whether Petunia & Vernon had told Harry the truth. ...edited... > > > > Does this get DD off the hook with some readers? Or does it beg > > the question, "How could he have left Harry somewhere where he > > couldn't be monitored?" bboyminn: > Why did Dumbledore chose to leave Harry at the Dursley? > > First, it was Dumbledore who took on the task of arranging Harry's > care.... > > Second, leaving Harry with the Dursleys sealed/activated > Dumbledore's Blood Protection Charm that further protected Harry > > In addition, Dumbledore had Mrs. Figg in the neighborhood to keep an > eye on things.... > > That should be sufficient to explain to anyone why Harry was at the > Dursley's. SSSusan: You're actually preaching to the choir here, Steve, as I [don't shoot me, Lupinlore or Alla] do think DD made the right choice to leave Harry there. I was wondering what the fact (if it's accepted as fact) that DD *didn't* know everything that happened there would do to those who've argued that DD should have stepped in. I wondered if they would then argue that DD never should have left Harry there if he couldn't be monitored. Steve [majorly snipped by Susan]: > What did Dumbledore know? > Well, he knew the Dursleys were not too fond of the wizard world > slight understatement).... > > I seriously doubt that Dumbledore knew every little detail and > every little event. I'm sure his knowledge consisted of general > status reports from Mrs. Figg, and perhaps an occassional covert > observation of his own.... > > So, Dumbledore knows enough to know that safety still out weighs > comfort.... SSSusan: What I'm curious about, still, is, do we BELIEVE that DD truly thought the Dursleys would tell Harry the truth about what happened to his parents, as he stated to McG when he left Harry there? And WAS he surprised to discover that the Dursleys had not told him? What does it mean that DD thought the Dursleys would do this but they didn't? Why didn't he find out somewhere along the way? Did he ask about it, and the Dursleys lied? It seems not, since "Remember my last, Petunia" referred to the letter left when Harry was a baby. Was it really not as important to DD as it at first seemed to be that Harry would know the truth? It puzzles me. Siriusly Snapey Susan From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 21:21:08 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:21:08 -0000 Subject: Snape and DD as a team In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123226 >>Tonks: >Rereading the second book I came across a scene where Snape and DD are working as a team and using Legilmency. >What are we really seeing here? I suggest that we see Legilmenes at work in both SS and DD. And the communication between them is very subtle. SS tells DD I have looked in the boy and he in not telling the truth, there is something he is not telling us. DD understands and takes a look into Harry too. He looks and sees that Harry is innocent of the charges, and maybe he sees more but doesn't say. His comment to Snape really says "Yes SS I see that he is telling us a story, but he is not guilty himself, and that is all we can say here in front of Filch and Lockhart. >I think that there are other times as well when Snape and DD work together and Snape for DD. They don't jump out at us and we do not realize what we are seeing because it is very subtle. Just like an old married couple or 2 friends that have been together for years can know what the other is implying by just a word or two.< Betsy: Fascinating idea, Tonks! And I agree that there are times that Dumbledore, Snape (and I'll include McGonagall too) work together like a well oiled machine. I do have a question about the Legilmenes because taking a peek into someone's mind without their knowledge or consent seems very unethical to me. And I can't see Dumbledore allowing that kind of violation. However, if it's more of a surface scan (for want of a better phrase) to work out if Harry's telling the truth, or holding something back, I can live with that. And I can see Dumbledore allowing that sort of action. Betsy From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 21:23:01 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:23:01 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123227 >So in the end I think that Harry will be given a choice, a hard > choice. DD has already laid the foundation for us to understand hat > in his *remember Cedric* speech. Harry will know the cost to imself > and perhaps to those that he loves. He will make that choice and > the sacrifice of his life, because he is who he is. He is a caring, > compassionate, forgiving human being, fully human flaws and all, et > with a goodness that goes deep within him. Just like us. And by his > death Harry will show us how to truly live. > > Tonks_op >>Perfectly possible. It would be an ending that I would find -- and >>itIS just my opinion -- utterly insipid. But it is perfectly >>possible. >>Lupinlore I agree, and it would so suck if Harry dies. I would really like to see JKR come up with something plausible that doesn't involve the epic but overdone sacrifice routine. Nicky Joe From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 21:24:26 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:24:26 -0000 Subject: Half Blood Prince Theory -- Trevor In-Reply-To: <000001c5044d$1a588950$0a03a8c0@fontcombe> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123228 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cortana" wrote: > Hi ! That's my first ever post in here. Hope I won't make too many mistakes. Assyria is ancient Persia, (Snip)during the high times of this civilisation (about 700 Bc) they colonized actual Liban, Israel & Egypt ! They ruled from Babylone to the far bottom of High Egypt. > And according to mythology, there was a very powerful Assyrian wizard king (and half god, I believe) named Gilgamesh. Tonks now: Welcome to the group Cortana! I think that we are on to something here. I forgot who it was that first suggested Trevor as the HPB, but a tip of the hat to them. This has got to be it!! Great Uncle Algie gave Neville Trevor. And Trevor is the prince. Wizard, half blood. It all fits. Lets break out the butterbeer!! A round for everyone!! And a bit of Mandrake for Trevor. Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 21:34:23 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:34:23 -0000 Subject: Innocent Alby? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123229 >>Betsy: >This is a perfect illustration of why I take all interview "canon" with a grain of salt. Was JKR seriously trying to say that Dumbledore is supposed to represent an almost God-like goodness? >>Naama: >I agree with the way you see DD's character, but I don't quite understand why you equate "epitome of goodness" with "omniscient", infallible and god-like. I don't see it that way at all. Being moral isn't about the real outcome of your decisions and actions - it means that you base your decisions and actions on correct moral considerations. Of course, as a limited creature (and DD - powerful and wise as he is - is limited) you don't know everything, so you may make mistakes - but that makes you wrong on a practical level, not on the moral level.< Betsy: I agree with you completely, Naama, including the bit about "epitome of goodness." I was responding to a post or two that seemed to be saying that we had been told by JKR that we could not find fault with any of Dumbledore's actions, because JKR has stated that he's the "epitome of goodness." I was trying to say that for one, I didn't think JKR meant for her statement to be taken that way, and that two, though Dumbledore has made mistakes, thereby proving himself human, he is still a good person. Actually - I think you put it better than me, so yay you! :) Betsy From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 20:47:31 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:47:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Just a few things I am not too clear on: Magic outside of Howgwarts, hidden clues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050127204731.45239.qmail@web53105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123230 --- beth_bousquet wrote: > I am a little confused on a few things that have happened > in the books the first of which is: why does Harry get in > trouble for doing spells outside of Hogwarts when we see > Hermione doing spells at least a couple of times away from > school, as well a Ron at least once. The first time I notice > was in SS/PS on the train, Ron tries to turn Scabbers yellow, > and then Hermione fixes Harry's glasses. She also mentions > that she has tried simple spells that have all worked for > her before. Do these instances not count because they have > not started at Hogwarts yet? Juli replies: I think you may be confusing the movie and the books, only books are considered canon, the movies sometimes include inaccurate facts. Students are actually able to do magic on the Hogwarts express. It is HOGWARTS express so it's considered a part of school, IMO. Here's the quote from CoS: "Too soon, it was time for the journey home on the Hogwarts Express. Harry, Ron, Hermione, Fred, George, and Ginny got a compartment to themselves. They made the most of the last few hours in which they were allowed to do magic before the holidays. They played Exploding Snap, set off the very last of Fred and George's Filibuster fireworks, and practiced disarming each other by magic. Harry was getting very good at it." > The second question I have is: how important to the story is > all of the hidden stuff that I have heard is in the books? > Am I missing out on a whole lot of clues to what is happening? Juli: Little details may be either extremely important or not. In PS/SS we first hear of Sirius Black, who thought of him as important? Not me. Then he becomes this very important character. The same happens with Mrs Figg and not until OoP we learn that she's actually an Order Member. Many other things just aren't important. Like Mark Evans, just a random name (JKR website). It's hard to figure out which details will turn out to be important, but after reading the books many times you may start to read between the line. Juli From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jan 27 21:35:52 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:35:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Sirius (1) Message-ID: <20050127213552.70116.qmail@web25109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123231 Sirius is probably the most difficult character to explain. He may also be the most controversial as traditional Christians may very well baulk at my explanation. Let me first give some background information. We'll have to go right back to the beginning of creation. I've explained that the deepest spiritual core of the human being as a microcosm is a thought-spark of the original spirit. My post on Lily explains how difficult it is to describe it in concrete terms. Is it a seed? Is it a flower bud? Is it an egg? Is it a mother? It's none of those but it has the potential to produce a human being who can develop into a god. Many millions of years ago this divine principle developed into a divine human being in many microcosms. But some of these human beings deviated from the divine plan and they descended into a universe where they were not supposed to dwell. That universe was meant to be a laboratory where work had to be done. However these human beings saw their form "reflected in the water" and they fell in love with it. This is the legend of Narcissus. Please keep that in mind for a later post. When they fell in love with their own image they made the mistake of associating themselves with something that is constantly changing. The characteristic of this universe, the Seventh Cosmic Plane, is change. The spirit is unchanging, so when these human beings immersed themselves in matter, their situation became impossible. The spirit withdrew from their microcosm, and so they were left without a guide. The soul died and all that was left was the personality, which was originally intended to be the vehicle in which the soul, united with the spirit, could express itself. However the original thought-spark of the Spirit also remained, as it is indestructible. It is possible for the mortal personality to dedicate himself to the rebirth of the original soul, and so bring it back to life. And there, deep in the heart of every seeker, is the original thought-spark of the Divine Spirit. If we consider a seed, we know it has some properties. It has a tiny germ, it has energy for the germ to grow, and it has a plan for the future plant. If we now look at Harry Potter we know that Lily gave birth to Harry. Harry personifies the original soul that emanates from the divine thought-spark. But there is also energy, and a plan that is to be followed. In a physical seed the plan is in the chromosomes. In a divine thought spark there are no chromosomes, but there definitely is a mental plan which is silently resting in one of the planes of existence until it is vivified. If we consider a microcosm just before the new soul is born, we can imagine the following. There is the divine thought-spark in the heart, about to burst into flames again. That's Lily, pregnant with Harry. Then there's James, the seeker, who has at last found the meaning of life, and is longing for the inner God to be born. And there's Voldemort, who knows what's going on. It has been prophesied that Lily will give birth to a son who will vanquish Voldemort. But there is something else that's difficult to explain. The microcosm has seven planes of existence, just like the universe. The original human being was active in the SIXTH plane of the microcosm. Both the higher self and the lower self originally vibrated with an intense life in the Sixth Cosmic Plane of the microcosm. This means the sixth ring or shell of the microcosm was active, and the rays of sustaining energy entered the microcosm through this shell. To understand this, imagine that you're in a glass sphere. By means of an electronic instrument you are able to change the colour of the glass to one of seven colours. You can imagine that if you change the colour of the glass to red, the glass will only permit red light rays to enter the sphere. As soon as you change the colour to green, only green rays enter, and so on. When the human being manifested himself in the Sixth Cosmic Plane, the sixth shell was open to the rays of energy of that plane. This plane we call the Kingdom of Heaven, Nirvana, etc. The human being existed in great glory and happiness. However, a large group of the human entities started to make their abode in the Seventh Cosmic Plane, which was not intended for that purpose. This meant that the seventh shell of the microcosm started to open itself to the energy of the Seventh Cosmic Plane, while the sixth ring started closing up. That was the birth of Voldemort and the death of the previous higher self. All this is highly simplified (as all my explanations are), for this process took heaven knows how many millions of years of our time reckoning. The position today is that our microcosm still has those seven rings, but the sixth one (and Nos. 1-5) is totally dormant, while the seventh one vibrates and allows energy from the fallen universe to enter it. The higher self absorbs this energy and keeps the lower self going. Now let's make the picture a little more detailed and we'll be able to explain Sirius soon. Imagine that the seven glass spheres are not transparent throughout their surface, but look like a night sky, with transparent foci which look like stars. You'll remember from previous posts that the stars in the microcosmic firmament are arranged into twelve groups. These transparent concentrations of light shine inwards into the microcosm. Once again, these points of light allow only the light-energy (of an astral nature) of the Seventh Cosmic Plane to enter the microcosm, because the other rings are not vibrating. There comes a time in the life of every potential seeker, though, that he begins to realise he is imprisoned. And as soon as this feeling of imprisonment begins to manifest itself, a longing for liberation is born. That's when James unites with Lily and Harry is born. Now pay attention, this is an extremely important moment in the story of Harry Potter: a tiny ray of light from the SIXTH COSMIC PLANE, i.e. from Heaven, from God, suddenly enters the microcosm for the first time in aeons, and falls on the Lily in the heart. But how can a ray of light from the Sixth Cosmic Plane enter the microcosm when the sixth shell is dormant? Right! The moment Harry is born a hole is breached in the prison wall, so to speak. A star appears in the heaven of the sixth microcosmic ring! THIS IS THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM!! This is why a star is seen in the east when Jesus is born. The east is the symbol of new life, while the west is the symbol of the end of the old life. When Harry is born, Sirius shines in Harry's sky. Sirius was the star of the resurrection to the ancient Egyptians. When for the first time Sirius came up in the morning just before the sun, this was declared the first day of the Egyptian calendar. It was the harbinger of the flooding of the Nile and so meant renewed life for the Egyptians. But most importantly: according to the Egyptian religion, Sirius announced the birth of Horus. We know that when Harry is born, Sirius is made his God-Father. Sirius becomes Harry's example, his mentor and his guide. As I have said, Harry personifies the new soul that is born out of the eternal principle in the heart. Harry is the germ in the seed, so to speak. But as I mentioned a seed needs a plan for growth, and energy. It is Sirius who personifies the plan for the growth of the new soul, which is the fist step in the re-creation of the original divine human being. When the new energy enters the microcosm for the first time in aeons, it begins to project into the microcosm a mental image of the Coming New Human Being as he was planned by God in the beginning. This mental image is projected into the aura of the seeker and silently inspires and motivates the seeker. As the soul grows in grace, so does the mental image, the mental projection of God's plan. We know that when Harry is born, the higher self or microcosmic self tries to kill the new soul, but the new soul actually weakens the higher self. Voldemort tries to kill Harry but ends up being weakened. Harry radiates a light that is totally disharmonious to the life in the microcosm. In the next exciting episode of Sirius' life we'll discuss his imprisonment. ===== 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 jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 20:51:11 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:51:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: DD and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050127205111.58117.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123232 --- beth_bousquet wrote: > When do you think JKR will reveal to us why DD trusts > Snape? I don't think I could or would trust him unless > I had a very strong and undoubted reason for it. I don't > know if it would be more shocking to find out that maybe > Hagrid took Harry to hide out with Snape during the time > that is not accounted for (before Harry was brought to > the Dursleys') or that maybe he saved DD's life in some > way. Juli replies: JKR has said (on her website?) that we'll learn more about Snape's history, so probably it includes whatever he may have done to gain DD's trust. The thing is I DO trust him, and perhaps so will Harry, I'd like it to be BEFORE we learn the whole story, I dream of an honest civil conversation between the two. I think they could become friends, not best friends, but close enough to trust each other and support each other (even in secret). Juli From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 21:39:50 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:39:50 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123233 SSSusan wrote: > But how would you explain what he [Snape] did > in insulting Neville in front of Lupin & the whole class, in telling > Lupin he wasn't trustworthy before his DADA class? Still a > carryover of frustration? It *felt* more flat-out nasty to me. Carol responds: I know you don't agree and I'm not trying to convince you, but 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. But notice that Lupin *asks* Neville what he's most afraid of, as he surely would not have done had not Snape specifically mentioned Neville. Had it really been a DE (maybe specifically Bellatrix Lestrange), it would have been wise for him to teach Neville separately from the rest of the class. Snape is only a sarcastic teacher, a child's boggart. Bellatrix Lestrange is purely evil and responsible, with her male followers, for Crucioing Neville's parents into insanity. It would be hard to make someone like that ridiculous. And more important, Neville has not revealed to anyone what happened to his parents and seeing a DE boggart would be excruciatingly painful for him. If Neville's boggart had been Bellatrix, Lupin would almost certainly have left him till last and ended the class before his turn. Instead, thanks perhaps to Snape, he uses this strategy on Harry. And he turns the warning on its head by having Neville ridicule Snape, but under the circumstances, I don't know what else he could have done. One more small point. Snape doesn't exactly say that Neville is untrustworthy. He says not to trust him with anything difficult, meaning that he's likely to botch the job and cause devastation (as when his cauldron melts in Snape's class). But it's his first words, "Possibly no one's warned you, Lupin, but this class contains Neville Longbottom," that I think are important. a warning. The name Longbottom. Neville's greatest fear, which Snape surely doesn't realize is himself, and which logically ought to be Bellatrix. To me it fits together. (And, yes, Snape would know that there was a boggart in the wardrobe and deduce that that's what the lesson would be about.) Carol From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 21:40:32 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:40:32 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123234 Tonks_op:"So in the end I think that Harry will be given a choice, a hard choice. DD has already laid the foundation for us to understand hat in his *remember Cedric* speech. Harry will know the cost to imself and perhaps to those that he loves. He will make that choice and the sacrifice of his life, because he is who he is. He is a caring, compassionate, forgiving human being, fully human flaws and all, et with a goodness that goes deep within him. Just like us. And by his death Harry will show us how to truly live." Lupinlore: "Perfectly possible. It would be an ending that I would find -- and it IS just my opinion -- utterly insipid. But it is perfectly possible." Nicky Joe:"I agree, and it would so suck if Harry dies. I would really like to see JKR come up with something plausible that doesn't involve the epic but overdone sacrifice routine." I've proposed this before, so here goes: what if Harry had to give up his magical abilities in order to take away Voldemort's? Voldemort would instantly cease to exist, because he hasn't been naturally alive for many years. We have no idea how it would be done, but it's plausible because of the links between the two of them. It seems certain that Harry will pay a high price for defeating Voldemort. Giving up his magic would be a huge sacrifice for him, arguably more than his life, the thing that made him special, the thing that identified him and rescued from the Dursleys. OTOH, the power that Voldemort knows not - the power to love - will remain, and in the end, it was this power that defeated Voldemort. Harry will keep that. Jim Ferer From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 21:59:50 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:59:50 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123235 Alla wrote: > > I don't have a problem with Snape hiding his > memories in the Pensieve, IF that was done in good faithy, because > indeed who knows what kind of secrets he hides including Order's > secrets, which Harry is not supposed to know. Suppose, I agree with > that. > > But yes, I do think that Harry should have been allowed the option to hide some of his potentially embarrasing moments in the Pensieve. If > nothing else, it would made him trust Snape more... maybe. He would > have seen that Snape is not "out to get him" (as I pretty much feel > he was), but "out to teach him" and that they are indeed on the same > side. Carol responds: But I don't think Harry *can* put his memories in a Pensieve. Both Dumbledore and Snape can stick their wands in their hair and pull out silvery strands of thought--exactly the memory they want to remove and, in Dumbledore's case, examine--but they are both skilled Occlumens (whatever the plural may be). Harry, even after months of lessons, is a rank beginner. How could he possibly remove any memory, much less a particular memory that he doesn't want Snape to see? (That would probably be *most* of his memories!) Carol From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Jan 27 22:11:42 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:11:42 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Just a few things I am not too clear on: Magic outside of Howgwarts, hidden clues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006901c504bd$2f280890$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 123236 I am a little confused on a few things that have happened in the books the first of which is: why does Harry get in trouble for doing spells outside of Hogwarts when we see Hermione doing spells at least a couple of times away from school, as well a Ron at least once. The first time I notice was in SS/PS on the train, Ron tries to turn Scabbers yellow, and then Hermione fixes Harry's glasses. She also mentions that she has tried simple spells that have all worked for her before. Do these instances not count because they have not started at Hogwarts yet? In COS Hermione fixes Harry's glasses again at Diagon Alley. Is this not seen as breaking the law of the resriction of underaged magic? The second question I have is: how important to the story is all of the hidden stuff that I have heard is in the books? Am I missing out on a whole lot of clues to what is happening? "beth_bousquet" Sherry now: I think you've got a little bit of what we lovingly call movie contamination going on. In COS, the book, it is Mr. Weasley who fixes Harry's glasses, not Hermione. Since JKR is writing the books, I'd say that the little hints in the books are very important indeed. She is a master at hiding very important things in seemingly inconsequential details. If you haven't read them, I strongly recommend that you give them a try. They will open the world of Harry Potter to you as the medium-that-must-not-be-named never can. Sherry G From gbannister10 at aol.com Thu Jan 27 22:12:08 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:12:08 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and Harry (was McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123237 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "festuco" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > wrote: > > > All things considered, I think that you missed an important > > point in Alla's remarks - that using the quill was /in itself/ > > correct. Are you suggesting that the action, which was improper > > and sadistic, was correctly started by this woman to bring home > > to Harry the need to conform? Gerry: > No, I did not. Geoff: Well, you gave a good impression of doing just that.... Gerry: > But I refuse to spell out for people what I mean for a > third time. If they don't get it, too bad. Geoff: Ah. A case of being rotten to be beneficial. :-) Geoff (earlier): > > Dolores Umbridge has the right as a teacher at Hogwarts to seek to > > improve the educational achievement and social interaction skills of > > her pupils but I think the use of water torture, meat axes and even > > magic quills falls outside the parameters of what would be considered > > to be good teaching techniques. Gerry: > Are you actually suggesting Umbridge is there to teach a subject? > Please cite me some canon on which you base that. Umbridge does not > want to teach a subject. Is not there to teach a subject. Geoff: '"We have had two changes in staffing this year. We are very pleased to welcome back Professor Grubbly-Plank, who will be taking Care of Magical Creatures lessons; we are also delighted to introduce Professor Umbridge, our new Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher."' (OOTP "The Sorting Hat's New Song" p.190 UK edition) '"It says here that she's given you detention every evening this week, starting tomorrow," Professor McGonagall said, looking down at Umbridge's note again. "Every evening this week!" Harry repeated, horrified. "But, Professor, couldn't you - ?" "No, I couldn't," said Professor McGonagall flatly. "But -" "She is your teacher and has every right to give you detention. You will go to her room at five o'clock tomorrow for the first one."' (OOTP "Professor Umbridge" p.224 UK edition) '"That's how Dolores Umbridge came to be appointed to the teaching staff at Hogwarts," said Weasley last night. "Dumbledore couldn't find anyone so the Minister put in Umbridge and of course, she's been an immediate success -" (OOTP "The Hogwarts High Inquistor" p.275 UK edition) In hindsight, we know that there was a hidden agenda but, superficially, she has been appointed to the DADA position, an appointment which is given lip service at least by a number of people and she does give freely of her time in improving the skills of her pupils in understanding the Course Aims. Gerry: > She is there to install fear and make the rules of the MoM obeyed. > And she will use anything to make sure she gets her way. She is > not interested in nice little moralities. She is the strongest, so > she has the right. She has the full cooperation of the MoM behind > her, and they don't really care about fair play, justice or angry > parents. For her good teaching technicques are those that do the > job: making her students do as they are told. And that is what her > boss wants of her. From their points of view their method works. > And that is all they are interested in. > Now we as readers can analyze all we want. Say how evil a person she > is, and how immoral her behaviour. But inside the story, the Hogwart > students had better not do the same where she or her squad members > can hear it, because she will make them pay for it. They had better > learn that in a dictatorship the rules are what the dictator says > they are. They can scream about morality and justice all they want, > but sometimes it is not available. And then people had better adapt > and choose their actions wisely, especially if they are going to > resist her. Geoff: Which I think proves my point that being rotten is not being beneficial. I would not classify any of the outcomes in your final paragraph as being beneficial. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 22:13:10 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:13:10 -0000 Subject: Abusive Dursleys (was Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123238 >>Betsy >What I *was* trying to point out was that Harry's treatment *would* go unnoticed by his school teachers and neighbors. So there would be no legal interference.< >>Salit: >In Britain perhaps. I doubt that the Dursleys' attitude would go unnoticed in the schools I've seen here in the U.S. - there are teacher/parent conferences, Dr. visits, etc.< Betsy: I was actually talking about the States as I have no idea what the British system is like. But what would a doctor notice about Harry? No pattern of physical abuse to observe, he's not medically starving (I doubt the Dursleys would do a food slow down when Harry was up for a doctor's visit), he's clean, he's not clinically depressed. As to a teacher's conference - again no physical or emotional signs of abuse. Plus, Harry has stood out as a trouble maker (climbing school property, etc.) so I imagine the teachers might think the Dursleys had their hands full with him. >>Betsy: >However, I also want to point out that Harry doesn't act much like a victim of emotional (or physical for that matter) abuse. >>Salit: >Still, I would argue that his actions wrt Hogwarts letter are the exception rather than the rule. Other than that he shows a lot of fear of the Dursleys reactions (snake in SS, pudding in CoS), obeys without arguments, etc. As he matures and gains confidence because of Hogwarts experience, he stands up to them more and more, but initially he is scared and obedient.< Betsy: I'm going to have disagree with you here. I don't see Harry *ever* fearing the Dursleys - not the way an abuse victim fears his aggressor. I didn't see any fear from Harry regarding the snake incident - more of a matter-of-fact, "something weird happens, I get grounded," attitude from Harry. And he's rarely "scared and obedient." He's sullen and obedient, and sometimes snarky and obedient, and sometimes even loudly protesting his innocence (the school climbing in PS/SS). As far as the CoS pudding - *I* would have been terrified as a child if someone dumped a cake my mom had made for guests on the floor and I knew it was going to look like I'd done it. My parents were in no way abusive - I would have been grounded as Harry was, though I know my folks wouldn't have locked me in. I think Harry's reaction was pretty universal there. >>Salit: >I was not saying that his situation was reason enough to endanger his life by removing him from the Dursleys. Only that I believe their behaviour to Harry is indeed abusive.< Betsy: I think we may be coming at the same conclusion from two different directions. :) I was also trying to make the point that Harry's situation at the Dursleys was not bad enough to endanger his life by pulling him out (or calling the attention of the WW to his whereabouts by confronting the Dursleys). I agree that his situation was far from ideal and the Dursleys were horrible to Harry. They were also, in a different way, horrible to Dudley. I do have a personal tic when it comes to the word "abuse". I think it gets thrown around too loosely. I have the same tic with the word "rape". But I recognize that it's my own personal bugaboo, so I'm not going to go tilting at windmills on this. Which is my very long, roundabout way of saying, if you want to call what the Dursleys did to Harry "abuse", by all means, do so. (I'm sure you're thrilled to have my permission! ) Betsy From nrenka at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 22:14:14 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:14:14 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123239 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: This is, of course, round 1984765903 on this argument, but what the heck? > Carol adds: > I think that James's admirers are generally the same people who like > (I won't say admire) Sirius. They praise James for his "values" or > "principles" because he would never call Lily a "mudblood." (He > didn't say that he wouldn't use the term to insult a Muggleborn he > didn't like, but I suppose it's fair to say that he wouldn't do so, > just as some people would never call a girl a b***ch even if they > hated her. It's just a word that he's been taught not to use and so > he doesn't.) Yes, but...from the perspective of literary economy (and there is a bunny sitting next to me at the present, a soft, fluffy bunny), there's something very significant about that whole scene. To be direct: JKR likes to use little shorthand things and descriptions that, when we think about them, tell us a whole lot more about a person. "Mudblood" seems to certainly be one of them. It is not a word that travels alone; it immediately labels someone who uses it as of a certain ideological bent. And as I've argued before, *everyone* has ideology whether they are conscious or not of it--and this was an era where ideology seems to have mattered, greatly. It *is* a strong insight into how James has been raised that he reacts so categorically to the word, just as it's an insight into Draco, Young!Snape, and Voldemort--the three people (I think...) we've heard use it. It's been so reserved in actual use in the series that it really hits you when you hear it--and it tells you something fundamental about the user. > Neither of them has any legitimate reason for their unprovoked > attack on Severus Snape, who is absorbed in studying the test > questions he has just answered at great length in the DADA exam, > which he clearly takes more seriously than they do. (And Sirius > states that he doesn't need to study for the Transfiguration exam, > either. Thinks highly of himself, that one.) 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)] > James bases his dislike of the studious Severus on the mere fact > that he exists. I have to repeat the "schoolboy visceral reaction that can be parsed ontologically" line here, because it just says it so well. That is to say, ontology is frequently not a 'mere' reason, but a very profound one. > No doubt being a Slytherin and greasy-haired has something to do > with it, too, as do all the hexes Severus knows. No fun to attack > an opponent who can't fight back, but it's okay to do it when he's > unprepared and to go two against one. See, I don't want to dispute the account given--and I'm not going to, on a certain factual level. But I want to throw a very particular wrench into the works, and it's a comparative one. We always go, in the evaluation of Snape's various actions, "But we don't KNOW, there could be so much more going on", etc., ad nauseam. Is it too much to suspect that we have a moderate case of that situation going on here as well? For one thing, we don't have the ability to seriate here while we do with PresentDay!Snape, and that argues even more strongly for a suspension of evaluation. 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.] Second, it feels (IMO) like a literary setup very smartly done from a phenomenological point of view; we the readers, riding on Harry's shoulder, react much as he does. It's arguable that this will ultimately be revealed as an incomplete reaction. (And I enjoy turning the 'limitations of Harry's POV' argument to completely different uses than it is usually set!) So many things unaccounted for but hinted at. If we get nothing else, I am happy to revert back to this presented analysis as a kind of base-level most obvious reading of reality, but I don't think we're going to get nothing else. For analysis, however, it is methodologically incumbent upon us to extend to all characters the grace that we extend to one. And, from a large-scale view, it's still rather telling on the virtue scale (if we wish to think that way) that some of these obnoxious kids went on to become Death Eaters and thus AT MINIMUM commit sins of omission worse than not stopping your friends from hexing people in the hallways, and some of them chose to actively fight that. That's not to mention the sins of commission, really. The point seems to be that the ultimate White Hats can have their profound failings, and that a Black Hat (before conversion) is not made any better by being the object of abuse. "No one deserves to be subjected to the appalling instruments of cruelty. Nevertheless, even at the cost of misanthropy, one cannot afford to pretend that victimhood improves anyone in any way. If we do not remember that anyone can be a victim, and if we allow hatred for torture, or pity for pain, to blind us, we will unwittingly aid the torturers of tomorrow by overrating the victims of today. One may be too easily tempted to think of all victims as equally innocent because there cannot, by definition, be a voluntary victim. That may have the consquence of promoting an endless exchange of cruelties between alternating tormentors and victims." (Ordinary Vices, p. 19) We certainly don't have to like or dislike any character by objective criteria. But it's really much more fun here, I think, to play in analytical realms. The cage match can wait for when the canon is done, no? :) -Nora gets ready to put the harm back in harmony From noesumeragi at yahoo.es Thu Jan 27 21:58:14 2005 From: noesumeragi at yahoo.es (noesumeragi) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:58:14 -0000 Subject: Petunia *will* do magic (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123240 Hi, my name is Noe and this is my first post after lurking for ages, so please, be gentle with me! I know Petunia's magical status, or its lack thereof, had been discussed in many threads, some of them quite recent. All possibilities had been explored: if she is a simple muggle, a squib or a repressed witch. I want to argue that Petunia is a muggle, but only *for now*. She cannot be a squib because her parents are muggles (so Lily is muggleborn), and she cannot be considered a witch because she never, never has made any kind of magic, from the day she was born until now, present day. But she *will* do magic, in a near future. (My guess is seventh book) I'd like to quote Rowling's words as a justification. At the Edinburgh Book Festival, when she was asked if Petunia was a Squib, she said: "Good question. No, she is not, but [Laughter]. No, she is not a Squib. She is a Muggle, but [Laughter]. You will have to read the other books. You might have got the impression that there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very good guess." And then, in the Barnes and Noble chat from 1999: "Will there be, or have there been, any "late blooming" students in the school who come into their magic potential as adults, rather than as children? No, is the answer. In my books, magic almost always shows itself in a person before age 11; however, there is a character who does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite late in life, but that is very rare in the world I am writing about." I'm almost sure this `character' is going to be Petunia. The only muggles important enough in the series are the Dursleys, and then, referred to Dudley, she said at the Edinburgh Book Festival: "Is there more to Dudley than meets the eye? No. [Laughter]. What you see is what you get. I am happy to say that he is definitely a character without much back story. He is just Dudley." I think `what you see is what you get' pretty much sums up Dudley is a muggle and he is going to be that way forever. Vernon is the most `muggle-ish' character, if he hadn't got married with Petunia, he wouldn't have any kind of connection or knowledge about magic. But Petunia... Petunia is not a stranger to magic. After all, her sister Lily was a witch, the first one in her family (as far as we know) *and* Lily did a spell which needed Petunia ?as a blood relative- to work. Rowling said this character ?Petunia, IMHO- would manage to do magic "in desperate circumstances". Usually, when the first time magic shows itself, there is a *very* emotional situation going around. What could be Petunia's trigger? Maybe an attack on Privet Drive ?and on her family? Rowling said, also at the Edinburgh Book Festival: "The next book, HBP, is the least that you see of the Dursleys. You see them quite briefly. You see them a bit more in the final book." An Death Eater's attack on Privet Drive could justify seeing the Dursleys a bit more. On the other hand, it could be something related to Lily's spell. Maybe Lily's magic could trigger Petunia's own? I think the last letter from Dumbledore to Petunia (yes, the one he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old) could have said just the following: >>>> You see, Petunia, Lily performed a spell before dying, and from now on, you -as her last blood relative, must house Harry because it's the only way to keep him safe. And if Harry is not safe enough that someone tries to AK him someday, you could suffer some nasty **magical** side effects. <<<< After all, the famous "Remember my last, Petunia" (Ootp, page 41) happened when Vernon was trying to throw Harry out, and after the opportune DD's remark, she stated firmly "The boy ?the boy will have to stay" (Ootp, page 41). No room for arguments. So, what do you think about this? Noe I got the quotes from: www.hpandthehalfbloodprince.org Note to the elves: English is not my first language. I'm truly sorry for any grammatical mistakes. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 22:46:39 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:46:39 -0000 Subject: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123241 Dungrollin wrote: > > I've found some canon to suggest that fear is actually a good motivator, and particularly for Neville: > > SSSusan responded: > Motivated by fear or by revenge, do you think? > > > Dungrollin replied: > To be honest, I think that one could argue for both interpretations, but since I proposed that his DADA improvement was motivated by fear, I'll argue against revenge. > > Is Neville a vengeful character? Does vengeance occupy a large part > of his psyche? Lets look at some examples. > > I can't think of any other examples except for one, which, to my > mind, clearly shows Neville not to be vengeful. In the DoM, faced > with his parent's torturer: "STUBEFY!" Neville shouted again, > pointing his wand at each Death Eater in turn. "STUBEFY! STUBE-" > > Stupefy??? > > Then Bella (apparently) kills Sirius, "SHE KILLED SIRIUS!" bellowed > Harry. "SHE KILLED HIM ? I'LL KILL HER!" and Harry chases > after her and tries to crucio her. That's more like it. > *That's* wanting revenge. > > I've certainly never interpreted Neville's character as > vengeful. Courageous and loyal, yes (see above, the fight at the > Quidditch match), vengeful, no. The others in the DA were also > motivated to work harder by the DE's escape, - even Zacharias > Smith - and I doubt that revenge was uppermost in their minds. > Neville just had a better understanding than the others of what DEs > running around loose meant, as he should. He was afraid. Nothing > shameful in that, I'd be terrified. > So why doesn't it work in potions lessons? Why doesn't the fear > he feels for Snape motivate him to try harder in potions. Why does > someone with the courage to shout stupefy through a broken nose and > point a wand that isn't going to work at a group of adult DEs > (including one or more that tortured his parents mad) have a boggart > in the shape of the potions master? > > Aye, there's the rub. > Carol responds: I agree with you. It's not revenge that motivates Neville. I think it's determination and courage, the kind of courage that involves overcoming real and valid fear. Neville has finally realized that his real enemy is not and never has been Snape. It's Bellatrix and her followers (the Lestrange brothers and Barty Jr.). One down (his sould removed by Dementors) and three to go. I don't want to see Neville become vengeful, maniacally bent on murder like sirius Black in PoA. I don't want him to cast a Crucio or an AK and become *like them.* But I do want to see him find his courage and his competence and fight manfully (not PC, sorry) in the cause of right against the woman whose cruelty has caused him lasting harm--and who Crucioed *him* in MoM. I do think he's motivated in the DADA lessons by fear, or rather the determination to overcome fear. And after his face-to-face encounter with Bellatrix in the Mom, I very much doubt that his boggart is still Professor Snape. Carol From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 22:51:09 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:51:09 -0000 Subject: Abusive Crouch!Moody (was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123242 >>Betsy: >Alla, are you seriously condoning Crouch!Moody publically humiliating and physically assaulting Draco? Does it matter if he did it out of anger or not?< >>Alla: >Nope, I don't condone what he did to Draco at all, even though I WAS amused by the incident, but I most certainly don't condone it. >No matter how much I dislike Draco, he did not deserve it. >But you misunderstood me completely. My comment had nothing to do with Draco. Carol COMPARED Snape's ability to control his anger to crouch!Moody and I responded that IMO Crouch!Moody controlled his anger MUCH better than Snape does.< Betsy: Whew! I should have known better, Alla, but I was worried for a moment! :) But I do wonder about Crouch!Moody being under control. I always read him (once I knew who he was of course!) as a big seething ball of barely suppressed rage. Much more rage that my beloved Snape (hee!) is caring around. I got the impression that he was *dying* to do some damage to an escaped Death Eater. That's why he picked on Snape as much as he did, and that's why when he saw the chance to give Lucius a little pay back through his son - he took it. Snape, though he has similar anger issues with the Marauders, behaved *so* much better than Crouch!Moody. Snape never treated Harry like Crouch!Moody treated Draco - physical assult combined with public humiliation. (I shudder to imagine the Slytherin DADA class on the three Unforgivables - what did Crouch!Moody make Draco do, I wonder?) Cold words in the classroom and a close watch for illegal activity do not compare in my book. Also, I think Snape behaved a bit better with Lupin. He didn't trust Lupin, was quite sure Lupin was helping Black, but I don't recall Snape verbally toying with Lupin like what Crouch!Moody does with Snape IIRC. Michele mentioned Sirius in her post (message #123213) - and yes Snape does loose it with him. I'm not trying to argue that Snape is a master of control or that he doesn't have anger issues. I *do* think however, that Crouch!Moody's issues are bigger, uglier, and more violently displayed. >>Nicky Joe: >I think the reason no one is crying "child abuse" in this scene is because we all know Crouch!Moody is as evil as Voldemort and Draco probably got off easy. And because Draco is a nasty little sucker and most of us would like to see him snapped in half as much as Harry would.< Betsy: Oh, I don't think getting dropped from 10 feet in the air is really "getting off easy." I felt a lot of sympathy towards Draco in this instance, especially after realizing that he was targeted with such violent anger because of something his father did. Betsy From leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com Thu Jan 27 22:20:12 2005 From: leslie.s.bennett at lmco.com (moondance241) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:20:12 -0000 Subject: Who would Harry save? / Re: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: <20050127203403.98829.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123243 > Juli wrote: > But we are forgetting something quite important: Harry > is a good guy, he's got morals. It surprised me in > PS/SS when he was at the Dark forest with Draco that > Harry warned him about something (I can get the > quote). If he would try to save Draco, who he hates > from day one, why wouldn't he try to save Dumbledore? > This is a man who has protected him and taken care of > him over the years, almost a fatherly figure > (specially now Sirius is dead). Sure he may have made > a few mistakes, but he's only human. If you are > perfect you just aren't real, DD is real and he's got > flaws. I also believe that he would try to save Percy, > or any other Hogwarts student, including the Slytherin > gang, why? Because he just doesn't want to carry > another death, he's got enough with Sirius'. Moondance: Harry does have morals and values, though where he learned them is a mystery! I believe it's the same inherent character that gives Harry these morals which enabled him to survive the Dursleys with an ability to sympathize and care for others. It's this inherent characater that drives him to want to help/save others. In PS/SS, though Harry hates Draco, he still wouldn't wish him fatal harm. Now, after 4 more years AND that fact that his father is a DE, his choice to save/help Draco may change. So, though he may be angry at DD (for good reason), I don't think that would change his desire to keep DD from harm and help/save him if possible. Besides, could he stand to lose another father figure in his life? I think this holds true for anyone Harry perceives as being on the "good" side...Slytherin, MOM official, OotP member, etc. (perception being the key). --Moondance From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 22:25:52 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:25:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050127222552.18405.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123244 SSSusan wrote: >> But how would you explain what he [Snape] did >> in insulting Neville in front of Lupin & the whole >> class, in telling Lupin he wasn't trustworthy before >> his DADA class? Still a carryover of frustration? >> It *felt* more flat-out nasty to me. Carol: ...huge snippage... >> Snape doesn't exactly say that Neville is untrustworthy. >> He says not to trust him with anything difficult, meaning >> that he's likely to botch the job and cause devastation >> (as when his cauldron melts in Snape's class). But it's >> his first words, "Possibly no one's warned you, Lupin, but >> this class contains Neville Longbottom," that I think are >> important. A warning. The name Longbottom. Neville's >> greatest fear, which Snape surely doesn't realize is himself, >> and which logically ought to be Bellatrix. To me it fits >> together. (And, yes, Snape would know that there was a >> boggart in the wardrobe and deduce that that's what the >> lesson would be about.) Juli now: I love your idea Carol, Snape has always been extremely subtle, he tells whatever he wants or has to in a way that only the person concerned gets the message. I just read a post about DD and Snape working as a team many moments, but the one described is when Mrs Norris is petrified by the heir of Slytherin and Snape accuses Harry, the poster (oops forgot the name) implies that DD and Snape communicated using legimency then. Another example comes to my mind: during OoP when after the vision Harry breaks into Umbridge's office to talk to Sirius and he and his friends are caught, Umbridge calls Snape and asks him for some Veritaserum, then tells Crabbe "loosen your hold a little. If Longbottom suffocates it will mean a lot of tedious paperwork and I am afraid I shall have to mention it on your reference if ever you apply for a job." Snape wanted to save Neville's life, but still he didn't want to compromise his position both as an Umbridge supporter and as a DE. Back to my original point, I agree with you Carol, Snape just wanted to make sure that Lupin knew who Neville was (Frank and Alice Longbottom, Aurors, child) and that since his parents were in St Mungo's because of too much Crucioing, he sure must fear Bella and Co a lot more than a simple teacher, and I guess he does, but that moment when Snape *insults* him in front of the entire class, he fears him more than anything. Juli From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 23:08:55 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:08:55 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? (Was: McG / DD / ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123245 Pippin: I think you are leaving Voldemort's choices out of the equation here. True prophecy, Firenze tells us, does not foretell trivial events, therefore there is no way that Harry can be a trivial person. Even if Harry slips away to Sidney AU and becomes a used broomstick peddler. As prophecy is not a branch of magic Voldemort has neglected, he must know this. Having set his sights on immortality, Voldemort must eliminate all who stand between him and his goal, and his potential vanquisher is first on the list. Is that reasonable? No, but reasonable people do not have "Evil Overlord" on their resume. Regardless of whether Harry chooses to be a weapon or not, he will remain Voldemort's chosen target. Whatever Harry has been put through, the necessity was not to make Harry a better weapon. The necessity was to make him a harder target. As for the theme of choice, it is true that if Harry takes what he has been told seriously he has no choice but to fight or die. But he does have the choice of not taking it seriously, just as Fudge did. Alla: Hey, Pippin! I agree with you - it is very likely that Harry will not be safe anywhere else and that alone may make him want to fight, althought I don't think that it is a 100%, because I think that it is a possibility that prophecy may have been misinterpreted. I so want to know WHY Dumbledore is so sure that he got the prophecy correctly, especially since Firenze says that humans are often wrongly interpret the predictions (I cannot find that quote) I also hope that that indeed was what it was - "to make him a harder target", not "better weapon". If Dumbledore INDEED concerned with helping Harry to survive that final battle . Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 23:24:50 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:24:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123246 SSSusan: You're actually preaching to the choir here, Steve, as I [don't shoot me, Lupinlore or Alla] do think DD made the right choice to leave Harry there. I was wondering what the fact (if it's accepted as fact) that DD *didn't* know everything that happened there would do to those who've argued that DD should have stepped in. I wondered if they would then argue that DD never should have left Harry there if he couldn't be monitored. Alla: Susan, Susan, Susan. You know I love you, right? Why would I want to shoot you? :) Now, whether I want to smack you or not, it is a different question entirely. :) ( just kidding of course) To answer your substantive question - sure if Dumbledore did not know what was happening it would get him off the hook with me, but sorry to going back to his OOP speech, but I think he pretty much shoots "I did not know" opportunity in the foot. I think Alby knew really well what Harry will go through. Besides, Minerva warned him right on the spot and she was only watching him for a day. So, the hook for Alby is still there, sorry. :) Just my opinion, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 23:35:03 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:35:03 -0000 Subject: Realism or Fairytale(was: Innocent Alby?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123247 >>Renee: >There are hints of realism, especially in GoF, that even I can see, especially if I take realism to refer to an unpleasant reality, the way it's often used in everyday speech. ("Be realistic" seldom means "get your hopes up".)< Betsy: Something I noticed was that PS/SS wasn't quite "fairytale" enough - if that makes sense. For example, the Dursleys weren't as over the top horrid as I would have expected of a "fairytale" story. So I don't know if JKR meant that to prime the pump, so to speak, for things not having the "fairytale" outcome as the books went along. For example, Sirius escaping but his name not being cleared, in spite of Dumbledore's involvement in PoA. However, I don't think JKR means for us to read these books as absolute reality - like say books by Judy Bloom. As you pointed out, there's too much mythic symbolism floating around, and too many archetypical characters (though JKR tries to round them out a bit) to be as real as all that. So I doubt we'll have a scene where Harry deals with wet dreams or Ron starts drinking too much butterbeer or something as grittily real as that. (Will there ever be a "Harry learns the wizard's way to shave" scene though?) [As an aside, I read a fascinating discussion once on how different the books might have been if told from say, Hermione's point of view. Would JKR have had to talk about menstruation, and training bras, etc.] Perhaps JKR is trying to do a blending of the two genres? At this point I'd say she's leaning more towards realistic fairytale than fairytale realism - if that makes any sense. >>Betsy: >But I think the big question is really (as Alla pointed out), how well is JKR handling the transition? Did she drop enough hints for readers to follow along or is everything suddenly different? I don't know if these questions can be fully debated until the end of the series, but it is interesting.< >>Renee: >Agreed. So far, most of the realism, especially of the unpleasant kind, is found in OotP. So we'll have to wait and see what the last two books are going to look like. Also, I've realised that again, much of the problem is caused by JKR's own comments - and by my own unspoken assumptions that 1) it's obvious what JKR means when she uses phrases like "epitome of goodness", and 2) that her definitions are identical with mine or anyone else's.< Betsy: I wonder if GoF and OotP are the "Empire Strikes Back" of the Harry Potter world? All the anguish and failure the hero must travel through occur within those two books, but good finally prevails and the hero comes into his own by the end of the story arch. We shall see. :) And of course, even in the "fairytale" stories, the hero must break with his mentor and stike out on his own, otherwise he'll never complete his journey. Sometimes this break occurs with the mentor's death. Sometimes the mentor willingly steps aside. I think the painful part of OotP is that for Harry "perfect, all-knowing Dumbledore" died. It will be interesting to see how this "death" affects his character. I'm sure Harry will come into his own eventually, but will this growth occur in HPB? I really do have a love/hate relationship with JKR's interviews. She seems like a lovely person and I love her wit, but she's also asked a lot of questions that she really can't answer fully without ruining the books - which, thank goodness, she's loath to do. So I don't put it past her to be cagey at times. In fact I hope that she is less than clear so that no spoilage occurs. I think it's also important to recognize that some of these interviews occur when she's tired, distracted, rushed, whatever, and she's speaking, not writing. So JKR doesn't edit or review what gets said - so she might not mean exactly what she says. My personal way of dealing with it is to put the books over the interviews and if she says something that appears to contradict what occurs in the books, I go with the books. Of course I love the little extra bits she gives us like Dean Thomas' background, but otherwise, I don't take the interviews too much to heart. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 23:39:54 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:39:54 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123248 Nora: This is, of course, round 1984765903 on this argument, but what the heck? Carol adds: I think that James's admirers are generally the same people who like (I won't say admire) Sirius. They praise James for his "values" or "principles" because he would never call Lily a "mudblood." (He didn't say that he wouldn't use the term to insult a Muggleborn he didn't like, but I suppose it's fair to say that he wouldn't do so, just as some people would never call a girl a b***ch even if they hated her. It's just a word that he's been taught not to use and so he doesn't.) Nora: Yes, but...from the perspective of literary economy (and there is a bunny sitting next to me at the present, a soft, fluffy bunny), there's something very significant about that whole scene. To be direct: JKR likes to use little shorthand things and descriptions that, when we think about them, tell us a whole lot more about a person. "Mudblood" seems to certainly be one of them. It is not a word that travels alone; it immediately labels someone who uses it as of a certain ideological bent. And as I've argued before, *everyone* has ideology whether they are conscious or not of it--and this was an era where ideology seems to have mattered, greatly. It *is* a strong insight into how James has been raised that he reacts so categorically to the word, just as it's an insight into Draco, Young!Snape, and Voldemort--the three people (I think...) we've heard use it. It's been so reserved in actual use in the series that it really hits you when you hear it--and it tells you something fundamental about the user. Alla: Absolutely, Nora. I actually think JKR uses those "shorthands" absolutely brilliantly. This "just a word" surely envokes a million of RL associations in my mind and ALL of them have ideological subtext. I cannot stop being suprised as how well it works as metaphor of hating people who have different blood in them. I mentioned it already, but I'll say it again . When character in "potterverse' says "mudblood", I almost always can easily substitute it for " zhid or zhidovka" ( derrogatory " common speak" name for jews in former soviet union), since we hear this name mostly from dear Draco, no wonder I don't like him much. :) And canon supports that people who say "mudblood" usually have in mind some evil things to do to them. Therefore, yes, the fact that James refuses to speak such word IS to his credit, IMO. Just as the fact that Snape chooses this name from all others to call Lily - not much to his credit. Carol: James bases his dislike of the studious Severus on the mere fact that he exists. Alla: Well, it is " because he exist, if you know what I mean" So, since it is not the first time in "potterverse" that we don't hear the full account of the events, I'd like to know what the second part of the sentence means. Nora: See, I don't want to dispute the account given--and I'm not going to, on a certain factual level. But I want to throw a very particular wrench into the works, and it's a comparative one. We always go, in the evaluation of Snape's various actions, "But we don't KNOW, there could be so much more going on", etc., ad nauseam. Is it too much to suspect that we have a moderate case of that situation going on here as well? Alla: NO, Nora, James and Sirius cannot have hidden reasons for his actions, only Severus can. (just kidding) Just my opinion, Alla From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Jan 27 23:40:41 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:40:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's bit of Voldy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123249 I've been trying to write a particular post for ages, and it's just getting longer and longer, and I'm getting more and more questions popping up that I can't satisfactorily resolve on my own. So I thought I'd ask for your opinions on a part of it. It's about what really happened at GH (again, again). When DD and Harry are talking at the end of CoS, after they've got rid of the Weasleys and Lockhart, and before Lucius Malfoy interrupts, DD says (I'll quote it again, for those without their books to hand) Chapter 18: Dobby's Reward, p245 UK: "You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbeldore calmly, "because Lord Voldemort ? who is the last remaining descendent [ancestor in my copy] of Salazar Slytherin ? can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..." "Voldemort put a bit of himself in *me*?" Harry said, thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so." Now, what's bothering me is that use of the word 'transferred'. That implies taking from one place and putting in another. But at the beginning of GoF, Voldemort can speak Parseltongue too. So he retained that ability, while giving it to Harry at the same time. Strictly speaking it should have read "copied", shouldn't it? It then occurred to me that perhaps a wizard's magical power isn't necessarily split up into discrete specialised portions ? this bit for using the unforgivables, that bit for summoning charms, the other bit for catching up on the gossip from the weekend with Nagini... and so on. Perhaps it is the overall nature of the magic specific to one person that determines for which magical skills they will have an aptitude ? including those which they may not need to learn at all (parseltongue, flying ? la Harry, metamorphmagic) ? and diminishing their aptitude for others (apparition, the animagus transformation, flying ? la Hermione, etc). With hard work you can get better at certain things, but if you don't have the aptitude, you'll never be as good as a 'natural'. This is (unless I've made a profound misunderstanding) analogous to the way the brain works ? it's fairly obvious from day-to-day life that some people have an aptitude for learning certain things, while others don't have a hope in hell (me and population genetics equations, for example). So perhaps what happened was that a bit of generalised Voldy-flavoured power got transferred to Harry (so Voldy lost some and Harry gained some) and because the general nature of Voldy's magic differs to the general nature of Harry's pre-GH magic, a part of Harry's post-GH magic now includes the power to talk to snakes. Argh... There was a reason why this didn't seem to be a satisfactory explanation... and I can't remember why, now... Ah yes, I remember: If this were the case, DD should have said "Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own *power* to you the night he gave you that scar..." rather than "powers". "Powers" in the plural suggests that magical powers are indeed split up into discrete specialised portions, whereas "power" in the singular implies my meaning. So I don't think that works. The other possibility I was thinking of was (I think) suggested by Carol, although I can't remember whether she suggested it recently, or whether I've been spending too long in the archives - or, indeed, whether it was suggested by someone else entirely. It went something along the lines of: Voldemort didn't transfer *some* of his powers to Harry, he transferred *all* of his powers to Harry. Now, whenever Voldy does magic, he has to access his powers *through* Harry, which is why Harry's scar hurts. Much as I like this idea, it doesn't seem (to me) to be a satisfactory explanation either. Harry's scar wasn't hurting while Voldy tortured Bertha Jorkins, for example, it only got around to hurting when he murdered Frank Bryce. I suppose you could make the excuse that Voldy was in Albania with Bertha, but in England with Frank, though I'd bear in mind Snape's words that although "Time and space matter in magic, Potter [...] The usual rules do not seem to apply with you..." (OotP, chapter 24: Occlumency, p469, UK) But I could very easily be wrong ? if this has been gone into in detail, could somebody please point me to a post number? It's interesting me very much, at the moment. And other thoughts, speculation or full-blown theories would be very, very welcome. Ta, Dungrollin Recovering from a rather painful accident with a cactus while trying to fix the recalcitrant central heating. From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Jan 28 00:06:12 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:06:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123251 > Susan, Susan, Susan. You know I love you, right? Why would I want to > shoot you? :) Now, whether I want to smack you or not, it is a > different question entirely. :) ( just kidding of course) > > To answer your substantive question - sure if Dumbledore did not > know what was happening it would get him off the hook with me, but > sorry to going back to his OOP speech, but I think he pretty much > shoots "I did not know" opportunity in the foot. I think Alby knew > really well what Harry will go through. Besides, Minerva warned him > right on the spot and she was only watching him for a day. > > So, the hook for Alby is still there, sorry. :) > > > Just my opinion, > > Alla Hook's still in for me, too. I don't think either I or Alla or most other people argue with DD's INITIAL decision. That is very well explained in OOTP. Harry was in danger, there was a traitor in the inner circle of the Potters', and DD had little time. The problem that arises is in his inaction in the FOLLOWING ten years. I perhaps can see how he might initially believe (especially considering his general disposition toward optimism) that things would work out. He might have said to himself "things will be difficult, but they ARE his family and he's just a child. Petunia will surely come to SOME kind of resolution of her issues when she realizes he's just a child..." Fine. I can buy that for the initial decision with no problem. However, he had plenty of time to check back up on Harry in the next ten years. And I can't imagine Mrs. Figg's reports were very encouraging. THAT is the hook Albus is wriggling on, and I'm afraid nothing JKR or anyone else has said is good enough yet to get him off. Lupinlore From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 00:16:34 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:16:34 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123252 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" Eggplant said: > I agree, after Dumbledore's blunders in book 5 I don't think Harry > will ever feel quite the same about him again. He would certainly put his life on the line to save any of the Weasleys, except Percy of course. I think, or at least I hope, Harry wouldn't lift a finger to save him. Tonks replies: I totally disagree! Harry will feel the same about DD. Just because you are angry with someone doesn't change your love for them. And Harry *would* save Percy. I think Harry even has it in him to have compassion on Tom Riddle. Not on LV, but on Tom. Harry is, as someone else has pointed out, a very moral person. Doing the right thing and even doing the right thing out of Love, does not require for you to like the person. You only have to do what you know is right. (I know that you will not agree with any of this. And that is OK. Your choice.) Tonks_op From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 00:24:26 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:24:26 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and Harry (was McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123254 Geoff: All things considered, I think that you missed an important point in Alla's remarks - that using the quill was /in itself/ correct. Are you suggesting that the action, which was improper and sadistic, was correctly started by this woman to bring home to Harry the need to conform? Festuco: No, I did not. But I refuse to spell out for people what I mean for a third time. If they don't get it, too bad. Alla: No need to spell it out anymore. I finally think that my opinion about your opinion is fully supported by the arguments. I appreciate your helpfullness. Festuco: Now we as readers can analyze all we want. Say how evil a person she is, and how immoral her behaviour. But inside the story, the Hogwart students had better not do the same where she or her squad members can hear it, because she will make them pay for it. They had better learn that in a dictatorship the rules are what the dictator says they are. They can scream about morality and justice all they want, but sometimes it is not available. And then people had better adapt and choose their actions wisely, especially if they are going to resist her. Alla: Rules in the dictatorship CAN be changed and often ARE changed if people decide to DO something about it ( For the latest of such RL developments let me refer you to events in my former home country - Ukraine) Hogwarts students and teachers eventually refused to let Umbridge have power over them. Result? She is not there anymore. Just my opinion of course, Alla From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 00:41:08 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:41:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Petunia *will* do magic (long) References: <012820050017.10632.41F984820008F49B0000298821587667200B070AADD2BBD20201AD@att.net> Message-ID: <005c01c504d2$0f666820$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 123255 > Hi, my name is Noe and this is my first post after lurking for ages, > so please, be gentle with me! > I know Petunia's magical status, or its lack thereof, had been > discussed in many threads, some of them quite recent. All > possibilities had been explored: if she is a simple muggle, a squib > or a repressed witch. > > Note to the elves: English is not my first language. I'm truly sorry > for any grammatical mistakes. Charme: Hi Noe, and welcome! :) I think Tonks gives us a clue in OoP where she says that Metamorphmagus' are born, not "made" or taught. I think such a condition applied to Petunia (I know, I know it's a stretch, but JKR is tricky that way) would allow JKR to say she's a Muggle but there's "more" to her. It may not be Metamorphmagus at all, however I can imagine if there's one magical trait you can be "born" with, there might be others we don't know about. Yet, that is :) Your English is wonderful: while I know Spanish by speaking it, I am certain I couldn't type a full length post of the sort you did! Charme From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 00:59:30 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:59:30 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123256 Naama wrote: > > > > I've said this before and haven't received a reply, so I really hope that this time someone will respond: > > > > Sirius (and James) suspected Lupin because they were forced to. DD told James that someone close to him was a traitor. James had to choose between his three best friends - not a lot of choice there. > > One he trusts as a brother (Sirius) and one he can't (tragically)> take seriously enough to see as a threat (Pettigrew). Lupin is the spy by default. In the same way, after James' and Lily's death, Lupin is forced into believing Sirius guilty (I'm assuming that Lupin wasn't in the know about the spy thing before). I don't think there is any evidence that the breakdown of trust between them had any other sources. > > > > Renee replied: > Well, I'll try, though I don't have much to come up with by way of > an answer, except that it does seem possible. Unfortunately, if this > were the case, it would make James and Sirius even more short- > sighted than I thought they were. If they had no particular reason > to distrust Lupin, the possibility that it *was* Peter ought to have > crossed their minds. Also, I hope you don't mind if I find this > scenario too undramatic to be appealing, though this doesn't > necessarily speak against it. Carol responds: I've suggested before that after Hogwarts, the Marauders became increasingly distanced from one another. No more running around with a werewolf when the moon was full--Remus probably hid himself away somewhere and suffered (or the terrible alternative, he ran around unsupervised and wreaked havoc). There was no Shrieking Shack to hide in so maybe he lived with his parents. James and Sirius would have roomed together for awhile but then James got married and his interests and behavior changed. Sirius was still the *best* friend--he best man at the wedding and the only one of the three present at Harry's baptism, not to mention being Harry's godfather. I can see a little jealousy on the part of the other two creeping in. Peter *might* have made the most of any developing tension between Sirius and Remus. It would have been in his interest to do so once he had become a spy. Whether Peter had to earn a living, I don't know, but Lupin must have tried, undergoing an exhausting and humiliating struggle to find and keep job after job, losing each one when his identity was discovered and being turned down for new jobs as his condition became known. Sirius could not possibly have understood or sympathized, and most likely Remus kept his mouth shut. The only remaining bond would be the Order, and we don't know how often it met or how active they were or whether they even worked together. IMO, the four-way friendship was bound to disintegrate after Hogwarts. By the time of Harry's birth, it appears to have been already strained. Just some random thoughts, but if I try to organize them I'll go into too much detail and no one will respond. At any rate, like Renee, I find Naama's scenario too simple though it may well prove to be all we get. Carol From vmonte at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 01:09:40 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:09:40 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and Harry (was McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123257 >Festuco wrote: Now we as readers can analyze all we want. Say how evil a person she is, and how immoral her behaviour. But inside the story, the Hogwart students had better not do the same where she or her squad members can hear it, because she will make them pay for it. They had better learn that in a dictatorship the rules are what the dictator says they are. They can scream about morality and justice all they want, but sometimes it is not available. And then people had better adapt and choose their actions wisely, especially if they are going to resist her. vmonte now: What a boring book it would have been if I had to read almost 800 pages of: 'Harry shut up and take it like a good oppressed person! Alla: Rules in the dictatorship CAN be changed and often ARE changed if people decide to DO something about it ( For the latest of such RL developments let me refer you to events in my former home country - Ukraine) Hogwarts students and teachers eventually refused to let Umbridge have power over them. Result? She is not there anymore. Just my opinion of course, Alla vmonte responds: ditto From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Jan 28 01:20:30 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:20:30 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123258 > This is, of course, round 1984765903 on this argument, but what the heck? > Valky (a 17569340th round veteran): Can't be said much better than that, Nora, I risk well and truly overdoing it by responding but what the heck. Instead of letting the chance pass me by..... :D > Carol: > I think that James's admirers are generally the same people who like (I won't say admire) Sirius. They praise James for his "values" or "principles" because he would never call Lily a "mudblood." Nora: > It *is* a strong insight into how James has been raised that he > reacts so categorically to the word, just as it's an insight into > Draco, Young!Snape, and Voldemort--the three people (I think...) > we've heard use it. It's been so reserved in actual use in the > series that it really hits you when you hear it--and it tells you > something fundamental about the user. > Valky: Ahh, yeah like Nora said.... (just kidding I do *really* have something to add, I think...) Actually I never really before veiwed mudblood as so reserved a shorthand, but now you mention it Nora. I think yeah, it is. Of course the comparison most able in this scenario is Draco's use of it, so quietly so as not to stir a DR convention, some of the measure of Severus' ideology hidden by the shorthand would be revealed in Draco's past and future actions and attitudes towards non pureblood wizards etc. Not all good for dear old Severus IMO. (oh oh now I''ve done it!) > Carol: > > Neither of them has any legitimate reason for their unprovoked > > attack on Severus Snape, who is absorbed in studying the test > > questions he has just answered at great length in the DADA exam, > > which he clearly takes more seriously than they do. (And Sirius > > states that he doesn't need to study for the Transfiguration exam, either. Thinks highly of himself, that one.) > Nora: > 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. Valky: I have definitely tried to make this point myself so often. I believe that Sirius was *already* an accomplished animagi when he said this... ??? why would it be anything less than true that fifth year transfiguration was BORING!!! As Nora said -- take THAT with a grain of salt, everyone! >Carol: > > James bases his dislike of the studious Severus on the mere fact > > that he exists. >Nora: > I have to repeat the "schoolboy visceral reaction that can be parsed ontologically" line here, because it just says it so well. That is to say, ontology is frequently not a 'mere' reason, but a very profound one. > Valky: I know I have said this before !! not nearly as well as Nora *blush* And for Alla's question.. the second half of the sentence was directed in a personal manner to Lily Evans, with some belief on James account that she would be impressed by it. ".. if you know what I mean" IMHO means that James is expecting his humiliation of Severus to appeal to Lily on *her* level... if he knows Lily as well as a teenage boy with a crush might, then he is most likely trying to appeal to an ideology he believes that she holds, or to something that means something to LILY. Dark Arts, bigotry, Voldemorts war... they are all Canon background in the marauders era.... draw your own conclusions, I am happy with mine. Nora: > See, I don't want to dispute the account given--and I'm not going to, on a certain factual level. But I want to throw a very particular wrench into the works, and it's a comparative one. > > We always go, in the evaluation of Snape's various actions, "But we don't KNOW, there could be so much more going on", etc., ad nauseam. > > Is it too much to suspect that we have a moderate case of that > situation going on here as well? > > For one thing, we don't have the ability to seriate here while we do with PresentDay!Snape, and that argues even more strongly for a > suspension of evaluation. You can't make good statements about a > hapax. Yes, Nora there was far more going on... Think about it people.... James and Sirius transformed themselves into animagi as children, and Severus knew more Dark Arts than most seventh graders BEFORE he even *got* to Hogwarts. If Adult!Snape can be using Occlumency/Legilimency at every convenient coil of the snake... why can't young Severus Snape be capable of hurting James Potter without any obvious action on his behalf in the scene? He could well be blowing James up with wandless magic while he sits there... well probably not actually ... but the chance that James was putting himself in danger by taking on Severus IS Canon stratospheric... James was *never* a coward.. Valky, who also didn't have to study in High School and remained very arrogant about that for a long time... and is very glad of the chance to get one more stand in for James before HBP, oh and BTW LOVES!! Sirius. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 01:25:25 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:25:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List References: Message-ID: <02c801c504d8$3f0004a0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 123259 > "Jim Ferer" wrote: > >> I expect the DE's to lash out at >> Harry's friends and loved ones. > Charme: How about adding the Centaurs to the Voldy hit list parade? While I concur that the most likely targets are ones Harry cares about, I think that in the first part of the book, LV will need to start building his forces as he began with the giants in OoP. I have this feeling if the centaurs are approached by LV's minions, they'll refuse to "get involved" as they professed (other than Firenze) they wouldn't in PS/SS and OoP. It's evident that the Voldy crowd do not like being rejected, and I think for the plot development it might be necessary to incorporate as many people or magical creatures as possible if for nothing more than to show how much a war of this nature affects everyone whether they're formally "involved" or not. Charme From peckham at cyberramp.net Fri Jan 28 01:37:39 2005 From: peckham at cyberramp.net (luna_loco) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:37:39 -0000 Subject: Magical weddings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123260 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, leslie41 at y... wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Peter Felix Schuster > wrote: > > With my own weddings being scheduled for end of next month, 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. > > Congrats on your wedding! > > 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. > > Leslie Another reference to a church is in the Quibbler article about Sirius (OotP, Ch 10, Page 191-192, US Hardback): The man people believe to be Sirius Black is actually Stubby Boardman, lead singer of the popular singing group The Hobgoblins, who retired from public life after being struck in the ear by a turnip at a concert in Little Norton Church Hall nearly fifteen years ago. While this does not prove that Little Norton Church has an active congregation, there is at the minimum a building bearing the name. As for clergy, there is the Fat Friar at Hogwarts along with the "group of gloomy nuns" that were present at the deathday party in CoS. As Professor Binns is able to teach classes there should be no reason the Fat Friar could not officiate at a wedding. These ghosts also open the clear possibility that living priests would be part of the magical community. Allen P.S. I have always believed that the Fat Friar would see that some type of religious services were held at Hogwarts. These would probably be similiar to the services held by military chaplains. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 28 01:53:25 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:53:25 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? (Was: McG / DD / ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123261 > Alla: > > Hey, Pippin! I agree with you - it is very likely that Harry will > not be safe anywhere else and that alone may make him want to fight, althought I don't think that it is a 100%, because I think that it is a possibility that prophecy may have been misinterpreted. > I so want to know WHY Dumbledore is so sure that he got the prophecy correctly, especially since Firenze says that humans are often wrongly interpret the predictions (I cannot find that quote) > Pippin: "..telling them that humans were hardly ever good at this," ch27 OOP. I agree that there is a good chance the prophecy doesn't mean what Dumbledore thinks it means. The part I don't understand is why you think this makes a difference--the problem isn't that Dumbledore believes the prophecy is about Harry, it's that Voldie does. Pippin From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Jan 28 01:55:18 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:55:18 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123262 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I've suggested before that after Hogwarts, the Marauders became > increasingly distanced from one another. > Peter *might* have made the most of any developing tension between Sirius and Remus. It would have been in his interest to do so once he had become a spy. Whether Peter had to earn a living, I don't know, but Lupin must have tried, undergoing an exhausting and humiliating struggle to find and keep job after job, losing each one when his identity was discovered and being turned down for new jobs as his condition became known. Sirius could not possibly have understood or sympathized, and most likely Remus kept his mouth shut. > Just some random thoughts, but if I try to organize them I'll go into too much detail Valky: I really like your suggestion here, Carol. It may, unfortunately, be too much detail to become fully canon, but it's very good anyway. I will be very surprised, however, if the posit that Remus became very *quiet* at the time when a spy was suspected *doesn't* become canon in book seven. It works for me to imagine that his personality introverted for the reasons Carol gives, but is mistranslated as suspiciously secretive behaviour, by Sirius and James. This would also account for the focus being drawn away from the activities of Peter, and explaining why it was possible for him to be overlooked. From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Jan 28 02:05:43 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:05:43 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123263 > Eggplant said: > > He would certainly put his life on the line to save any of the Weasleys, except Percy of course. I think, or at least I hope, Harry wouldn't lift a finger to save him. > > > Tonks replies: > > I totally disagree! Harry will feel the same about DD. Just because you are angry with someone doesn't change your love for them. And Harry *would* save Percy. I think Harry even has it in him to have compassion on Tom Riddle. Valky: Harry will save everyone he can.... he won't rest til every last life he can preserve is is safe. Including all of the above, and even so far as Crabbe, and Goyle and Pansy Parkinson... Harry doesn't discriminate about saving life. Full stop. He saves Dudley who tortures him for 15 years before it, he saves Gabrielle who he doesn't even know, he saves Dobby who broke his arm and forced him into some awful situations.... Sorry eggplant, if Percy falls helpless at Harry's feet there is no way Harry won't help him. ;D From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 28 02:23:46 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:23:46 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123264 SSSusan wrote: > > But how would you explain what he [Snape] did > > in insulting Neville in front of Lupin & the whole class, in > > telling Lupin he wasn't trustworthy before his DADA class? > > Still a carryover of frustration? It *felt* more flat-out nasty > > to me. Carol responds: > I know you don't agree and I'm not trying to convince you, but 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? SSSusan: Are you sitting down, Carol? I actually think you may be right about this. :-) If you or others have stated this possibility before, I confess that I've missed seeing it clearly before now. I think it *would* be very SeverusSnapelike to drop a clue to someone that's hidden by virtue of being couched in what seems to be pure nastiness. Despite my frequent protestations about Snape, I do always love to consider ways in which he might be doing something useful or helpful below the surface/behind the scenes/behind the sarcasm. Yet, you know I can't end this without *some* form of criticism, so I shall say: Why couldn't Snape have pulled Lupin aside and offered this suggestion, rather than humiliating Neville in front of the whole class? I know, I know -- he's Snape [whoops, sorry Potioncat, he's *Professor* Snape (the pr*ck)] and so he has to stay true to form. But, honestly, how hard would it have been to have said, "Lupin. A word, if you please?" [Shuffle off to the edge of the room.] "You are aware that Longbottom's boggart is likely to assume the shape of a Death Eater?" Lupin would've known, Neville would've been spared embarrassment, and Snape would've avoided looking like a nice guy. Darn the man! I just can't back him 100%. Even while I'm admitting that he might be doing something he thought would be helpful, I can't ignore the fact that he can't manage to do it in a way in which any *decent* person would. Siriusly Snapey Susan From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Jan 28 02:24:22 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:24:22 -0000 Subject: In Defense of Snape (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123265 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I know you don't agree and I'm not trying to convince you, but 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? > (And, yes, Snape would know that there was a boggart in the wardrobe and deduce that that's what the lesson would be about.) > Valky: Well well, Carol another very very good analysis, you're on a roll today. :D What I find most interesting, and likely to make it true, is that Lupin *does* react to it in the class. The possibility of it meaning anything else is both cleverly concealed and confirmed by Professor Lupin's singling out of Neville for a bit of compassionate encouragement. Remembering we are not revealed Neville's backstory until the next book, so the fact that we are being pulled slantways on Severus time after time becomes painfully obvious. I have a love/hate relationship with when we start piecing the books together like this. :D From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 28 02:36:39 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:36:39 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123266 SSSusan: > You're actually preaching to the choir here, Steve, as I [don't > shoot me, Lupinlore or Alla] do think DD made the right choice to > leave Harry there. I was wondering what the fact (if it's > accepted as fact) that DD *didn't* know everything that happened > there would do to those who've argued that DD should have stepped > in. I wondered if they would then argue that DD never should have > left Harry there if he couldn't be monitored. Alla: > Susan, Susan, Susan. You know I love you, right? Why would I want > to shoot you? :) Now, whether I want to smack you or not, it is a > different question entirely. :) ( just kidding of course) > > To answer your substantive question - sure if Dumbledore did not > know what was happening it would get him off the hook with me, but > sorry to going back to his OOP speech, but I think he pretty much > shoots "I did not know" opportunity in the foot. I think Alby knew > really well what Harry will go through. Besides, Minerva warned > him right on the spot and she was only watching him for a day. > > So, the hook for Alby is still there, sorry. :) SSSusan: Glad I'm safe from firearms being wielded by Alla. ;-) Actually, if you're arguing that DD *did* pretty much know what was going on all along, then WHY did he first believe that the Dursleys would tell Harry the truth about Godric's Hollow & his parents' death, about his being a wizard? Do you believe that he realized his mistake in having trusted them to do this? And if so, then why did he decide to let it go and allow Harry to go on knowing nothing of the truth 'til he was 11? Was DD just trying to make McGonagall feel better that night, and he DIDN'T really expect (or want?) the Dursleys to tell Harry about his powers & his parents' deaths? I know I'm beating this one to death, but I've not really seen anyone respond to why DD would have announced that he was sure the D's would tell Harry and yet the reality, 10 years later, is that they didn't. Siriusly Snapey Susan From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Jan 28 02:38:27 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 02:38:27 -0000 Subject: Umbridge and Harry (was McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry be expected...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123267 > >Festuco wrote: > They had better > learn that in a dictatorship the rules are what the dictator says > they are. They can scream about morality and justice all they want, but sometimes it is not available. And then people had better adapt and choose their actions wisely, especially if they are going to resist her. > > vmonte: > What a boring book it would have been if I had to read almost 800 > pages of: 'Harry shut up and take it like a good oppressed person! > > Alla: > Rules in the dictatorship CAN be changed and often ARE changed if > people decide to DO something about it ( For the latest of such RL > developments let me refer you to events in my former home country - > Ukraine) > > Hogwarts students and teachers eventually refused to let Umbridge > have power over them. Result? She is not there anymore. > Valky: Well there you have it, you have made your point extremely well Alla and vmonte. Now though I totally think that Gerry makes a good point about choosing actions wisely, I am beginning to see that Harry's actions were wise in themselves, though they may not have been wisely chosen per se. You see I don't imagine quite so much student and teacher revolution against DU could have ever been possible if *Harry* hadn't made the first move, broke the ice as it were and confronted her dictatorship face to face. As Alla says, someone has to *decide* to do something about it. That in itself is wisdom. There is a lot of history in RL that shows dictatorships can go on unchallenged for a long time before some reckless desperado, like in this case Harry, shows up to spit on the fire. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 28 03:10:31 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:10:31 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123268 Lupinlore: > Hook's still in for me, too. I don't think either I or Alla or > most other people argue with DD's INITIAL decision. That is very > well explained in OOTP. Harry was in danger, there was a traitor > in the inner circle of the Potters', and DD had little time. SSSusan: Yes, we're in agreement with this. Lupinlore: > The problem that arises is in his inaction in the FOLLOWING ten > years. I perhaps can see how he might initially believe > (especially considering his general disposition toward optimism) > that things would work out. He might have said to himself "things > will be difficult, but they ARE his family and he's just a child. > Petunia will surely come to SOME kind of resolution of her issues > when she realizes he's just a child..." Fine. I can buy that for > the initial decision with no problem. > > However, he had plenty of time to check back up on Harry in the > next ten years. And I can't imagine Mrs. Figg's reports were very > encouraging. THAT is the hook Albus is wriggling on, and I'm > afraid nothing JKR or anyone else has said is good enough yet to > get him off. SSSusan: The key phrase in what you say, for me, is "nothing JKR or anyone else has said is good enough yet to get him off." But I'm about 100% certain that the way I'm thinking of that phrase is mightily different than the way you are. I think I *can* still see DD choosing to leave Harry there, even if he knew how he was being treated, but what I'd need to know is, DID he check back? If he did and decided what was happening was still preferable to the risks Harry would face in the WW, I might be able to live with that. For me, I'm more distressed by the notion that he might not have checked back at all. And *that's* the part I'd really like to have JKR explain. Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 03:12:38 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:12:38 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123269 > Pippin: > Considering that remaining in DD's good graces at that point > means doing something at considerable risk, he must want to > remain in DD's good graces rather badly. > > > Alla: > > What do you mean, Pippin? I don't know about you but in that scene I > did not doubt for a second who was more powerful - Dumbledore or > Fudge. I frankly thought that Dumbledore can crush Cornelius very > easily, if he chooses to, so I think that Snape knew that too, but > that is just me. Carol notes: Since no one responded here, I'll take the risk of speaking for Pippin, who'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. I think Pippin is referring to the mysterious errand that Snape is sent on right after the handshake, the one that makes him turn pale and causes Dumbledore considerable anxiety even though it's clearly a moment they've planned and prepared for. "Severus," says Dumbledore, "you know what I must ask you to do. If you are ready. . . . if you are prepared. . . ." Snape says "I am." Dumbledore wishes him good luck and Snape sweeps wordlessly out the door. Dumbledore, knowing the risk Snape faces, remains silently apprehensive for "several minutes"(!) after Snape leaves (GoF Am. ed. 713). There can be no question that Snape is going into real peril, indicating that he places a *very* high value indeed on Dumbledore's trust. He may have other motives as well--the life debt, hatred of Voldemort--whatever they are, DD knows them and approves them. And whatever the errand is (I've speculated on it elsewhere), he accomplishes it successfully, remaining both alive and in Dumbledore's good graces. Carol, with apologies if this is not the scene that Pippin was referring to From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 28 03:21:39 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:21:39 -0000 Subject: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123270 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. Carol: > Whether Peter had to earn a living, I don't know, but Lupin must > have tried, undergoing an exhausting and humiliating struggle to > find and keep job after job, losing each one when his identity was > discovered and being turned down for new jobs as his condition > became known. Sirius could not possibly have understood or > sympathized.... SSSusan: Whoa! How do you come to the conclusion that Sirius could not **possibly** have understood or sympathized with Remus? That seems an awfully strong statement. Are you basing this upon the interaction we see between Sirius & Remus in the pensieve scene? Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 03:24:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:24:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123271 SSSusan: Glad I'm safe from firearms being wielded by Alla. ;-) Actually, if you're arguing that DD *did* pretty much know what was going on all along, then WHY did he first believe that the Dursleys would tell Harry the truth about Godric's Hollow & his parents' death, about his being a wizard? Do you believe that he realized his mistake in having trusted them to do this? And if so, then why did he decide to let it go and allow Harry to go on knowing nothing of the truth 'til he was 11? Was DD just trying to make McGonagall feel better that night, and he DIDN'T really expect (or want?) the Dursleys to tell Harry about his powers & his parents' deaths? I know I'm beating this one to death, but I've not really seen anyone respond to why DD would have announced that he was sure the D's would tell Harry and yet the reality, 10 years later, is that they didn't. Alla: "Beating point to death"? I am the one who loves doing so, so please, please don't apologise. :o) Honestly, I can go with several possibilities - Dumbledore indeed was trying to make Minerva feel better, while not really thinking that Dursleys will tell him everything . The fact that Dumbledore says that he wants Harry to grew up "away from all that" kind of supports all that. Another possibility - even if Dumbledore EXPECTED Dursleys to tell Harry everything does not mean that he otherwise expected civil treatment for Harry. Am I being clear? Maybe Dumbledore put some kind of threat in that letter,which he hoped would make Dursleys tell Harry everything. JMO, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 28 03:38:26 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:38:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123272 Alla: > Honestly, I can go with several possibilities - Dumbledore indeed > was trying to make Minerva feel better, while not really thinking > that Dursleys will tell him everything . The fact that Dumbledore > says that he wants Harry to grew up "away from all that" kind of > supports all that. > > Maybe Dumbledore put some kind of threat in that letter,which he > hoped would make Dursleys tell Harry everything. Right. So if it's the latter, then why not check BACK at some point during the 10 years and make sure it was done? Kind of like what Lupinlore was arguing. Or if he *did* check back, why did he decide it didn't matter that they didn't tell Harry the story? And if DD knew the Dursleys not filled Harry in, why was Hagrid so shocked to learn that? See? I'm back to the same question: DID Dumbledore check on Harry in those 10 years or not? I *want* to believe that he did and found that the risks there were still less than the risks of moving him to the WW, and that he must have decided it didn't matter if Harry didn't know the true story, but I'm not sure we know yet whether he did do much checking on Harry.... Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 03:45:36 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:45:36 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance and Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123273 > Betsy: > I'm not sure I understand this, are you saying that if Harry sees > someone murdered, his emotional reaction to that would somehow give > Voldemort power? Because Harry did see Cedric murdered and during > the battle at the MoM I don't think that memory was ever called up. > Carol responds: It does come up and it's one of the moments when Snape gets angry with Harry. "You are handing me weapons!" he says, indicating that Harry *should* be resisting and isn't. Sorry I don't remember which chapter it's in, but Snape is very definitely displeased that Harry has let him see such an important and powerful memory and is trying to get across to Harry that such a memory in the hands of Voldemort would be a very dangerous weapon. Carol From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 23:14:44 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:14:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Petunia *will* do magic (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050127231444.52923.qmail@web53102.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123274 Noe wrote: >> I know Petunia's magical status, or its lack thereof, had been discussed in many threads, some of them quite recent. All possibilities had been explored: if she is a simple> muggle, a squib or a repressed witch. >> I want to argue that Petunia is a muggle, but only for now*. She cannot be a squib because her parents are muggles (so Lily is muggleborn), and she cannot be considered a witch because she never, never has made any kind of magic, from the day she was born until now, present day. But she *will* do magic, in a near future. (My guess is seventh book) [Snip quotes from JKR] Juli: Welcome Noe! I really liked your post. We've discussed before this whole Petunia thing, whether she's muggle, squib or witch. I've always thought that she's a witch, a witch that refused her *witchness*, didn't go to Hogwarts and lives as a muggle. A witch without any training wouldn't have much power, maybe the power remains but the capability of using them isn't developed. But I like your idea even more, for now she's a muggle but soon she will show some magic. Interesting, very interesting. BTW, where did you get the quote that "Petunia could perform magic under certain circumstances" (paraphrasing from memory)? Juli From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 28 03:51:22 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:51:22 +0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123275 Betsy said: >I have problems with the word "starved" too. Harry was not overfed, >that is true. And I think he wasn't allowed seconds, because they >were given to Dudley (though I don't think that was any kind of favor >to Dudley in the end). But I don't recall him actually being faint >from hunger, and his growth rate hasn't been stunted. I'm not trying >to say the Dursley's were perfectly wonderful, but I think they trod >a very fine line without tipping into actual, actionable (and I mean >legally) abuse. After all, what would the neighbors think? I wonder if there is an echo here of the protagonist in C. S. Lewis's book *The Horse and his Boy.* The character is an orphan, treated like a slave by his foster father, and it's plain from clues dropped in the text that he does not get enough to eat. (For example, the talking horse suggests that he eat grass; he says he can't; the horse says "How do you know; did you ever try?" and the boy replies that yes, he has tried, and he couldn't ... as far as I know, Harry was never hungry enough to try to eat grass; he even shared the vegetables in his soup with Hedwig.) The fact that the character's foster father doesn't treat him as he should is not glossed over. BUT the fact that the character is tough, wiry, and able to endure hardships does help him in his adventures. The bad intentions of the callous foster father don't invalidate the long-run benefits the character received. Janet Anderson (who thinks that Dumbledore's first and foremost priority was to kee Harry *alive* and safe from Voldemort and his minions) From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 28 04:03:08 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:03:08 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123276 Lupinlore suggests: > > If he doesn't want to use money, its hard to imagine he could >not use magic to deliver material advantages to the Dursleys. >Yes, it is a violation of Wizarding Law. But it's impossible to >believe Dumbledore couldn't have pulled that bit of larceny off. I don't think magical advantages would be permanent; remember leprechaun gold? And the Dursleys might not want something that was produced by magic, because it was, well, magical. I think the main objection to bribing the Dursleys is that the money used would have to be Harry's inheritance -- and that, in my opinion, would be quite immoral. That money is Harry's, left to him by his parents, and to give it away to the Dursleys without Harry's knowledge or permission (not even knowledge that he *had* such money, before his eleventh birthday) is not something I think Dumbledore would do. Remember, he had the key to Harry's vault. (I'd like to know, by the way, the circumstances under which Dumbledore got possession of James's things such as the vault key and the Invisibility Cloak. Wouldn't Sirius have had such things? And if so, when and why did he pass them on to Dumbledore? Or were they at Godric's Hollow? More questions ...) Janet Anderson From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Fri Jan 28 04:18:08 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:18:08 -0000 Subject: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123277 Lupinlore suggests: If he doesn't want to use money, its hard to imagine he could not use magic to deliver material advantages to the Dursleys. Yes, it is a violation of Wizarding Law. But it's impossible to believe Dumbledore couldn't have pulled that bit of larceny off. Casey: When I gave it thought, I felt that it's because Harry has to live with blood relatives, not board there, as paying would make it. Same with the presents. As small and senseless as they are, a gift must be given to keep those family ties, well...tied. From dk59us at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 04:32:13 2005 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:32:13 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123278 SSSusan: > Any thoughts on HOW they might accomplish this? There's quite a > list, actually, of people for whom Harry would be willing to > sacrifice himself, I suspect. Ron & Hermione, of course. Hagrid & > DD. Any and all Weasleys [including Percy?]. Probably Lupin as the > last remaining Marauder and the one who taught him the Patronus. > Neville, as well. > > I wonder what means The Order/Hogwarts staff/parents have of > protecting this many people? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Eustace_Scrubb: Just one addition to the list of those for whom Harry would risk his life: Dobby. We don't know enough about house elfs' magic to know whether Dobby's likely to need Harry's help again. But when Dobby warned him Umbridge was about to raid the DA meeting, Harry took special care to make sure Dobby was not caught and ordered him not to admit he'd given the warning. I've no doubt Harry would take action if he thought Dobby was in danger. And I'm sure Malfoy Sr. would delight in a scenario that could result in both revenge for Dobby's emancipation _and_ the capture/death of Harry. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From easimm at yahoo.com Thu Jan 27 23:14:28 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 23:14:28 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? (Was: McG / DD / ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123279 reply to dumbledore11214, message 123160. First, thanks for your help! For the life of me, I just couldn't make out the start of this thread. I feel better now. > Alla wrote : > ...Yes, there is a definite possibility that > Harry will not be safe in "our world" till Voldemort is dead, but > theoretically he can at least try to escape, right? We don't even > know whether there are any Voldemort supporters in other countries > besides Englad and whenever Durmstrang is , so theoretically there > can be a safe haven for Harry in the muggle world, but all of this > of course just speculation. Snorky: I think fear of Voldemort has an international scope. During the disturbance after the Quidditch Cup game in GOF, the French students were hurrying away, not just the British. Also, IMO, Great Britain is just a little too small for holding Voldemort's ego. (Sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone!) > Alla: > > ...This is the angle that bugs me - not whether Harry > is heroic or not to save them, but why does he owe them (the WW) anything. Snorky: I don't think Harry owes them anything at all. When he is alone in DD's office after losing Sirius, he seems fed up with the whole lot. Perhaps Harry will try to distance himself from his burden by dropping out and abandoning his friends, hoping that Neville is "The One". Then Neville will be killed by Voldemort in Book 6 and Harry will reconsider how much he cares for his friends in the WW and in the greater world. Regarding why killing Voldemort falls on Harry, I can't help thinking of the Lord of the Rings Fellowship of the Ring movie, in which Gandalf tells Frodo that you don't get to pick the times you live in. In Harry's pre-WW life, nothing really indicates that a lot will be expected of Harry or that he will be particularly gifted at anything. > Alla: > Probably the post you are talking about was Pip's post about > developments in MD theory. I said many times that I wholeheartedly > agree with it. Snorky: Thanks for remembering! > Alla: I believe that WW will die and be reborn just like > Phoenix. I have no clue how it will happen, but I do think that it > will happen, because indeed it IS a deeply flawed society, IMO. Snorky: 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. (Unless they try to use their magical abilities around their computers, of course!) I know, how mundane! I wonder if Rowling will ever provide the purpose of the WW with regards to human evolution. If I were her I might write a story in which magical abilities are a genetic mutation that can be useful when the world is periodically invaded by beings from...outer space... HeeHee. -Snorky From dk59us at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 04:56:02 2005 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:56:02 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123280 Jim Ferer wrote: > > Keeping Hogwarts secure is the primary strategy for accomplishing > this. Hogwarts is now both the strategic and operational center of > gravity of the wizard world in this war, not the Ministry. The > parents of the students will, I think, pin the hopes of protecting > their children on Dumbledore and Hogwarts rather than bringing their > sons and daughters home. The adults will face danger for themselves > if they believe their children are being cared for. > > Jim Ferer Eustace_Scrubb: On the flip side, one of the best ways for LV to sow panic and doubt would be to show that Hogwarts is not as secure as the parents would like to think it is. How might that be accomplished? (Eustace pauses to remove one of his favorite dead horses from the paddock for another beating...) I still wonder whether the Hogwarts Express and/or Platform 9 3/4 might be vulnerable to an attack. Obviously they are protected from Muggles and undoubtedly there are other magical defenses for the train and the platform too. But we do have some evidence that these defenses are not considered foolproof. In POA, someone apparently felt Sirius Black could have slipped onto the train and hence authorized the Dementors to stop and board. I tend to think this was a genuine fear...the alternative would seem to be that Umbridge or someone else at MoM was trying to eliminate Harry much earlier than we are led to believe in OoP--not impossible, but I don't think we've been given much reason to believe that so far. Also, JKR has said that LV's supporters will do things that even Muggles will begin to notice. Again, some sort of incident in a location where the WW and Muggle world are cheek-to-jowl would be likely to fit the bill--perhaps the Muggle portion of the station suffering collateral damage in an attack, or at least something that reveals the existence of the platform to the Muggles. If LV can demonstrate that transportation to and from Hogwarts is not safe, he would do a great deal to damage to Dumbledore's image as the WW's potential savior. Cheers (ever so darkly), Eustace_Scrubb From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 05:02:40 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:02:40 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123281 >>Carol: >I think that James's admirers are generally the same people who like (I won't say admire) Sirius. They praise James for his "values" or "principles" because he would never call Lily a "mudblood." (He didn't say that he wouldn't use the term to insult a Muggleborn he didn't like, but I suppose it's fair to say that he wouldn't do so, just as some people would never call a girl a b***ch even if they hated her. It's just a word that he's been taught not to use and so he doesn't.)< >>Nora: >Yes, but...from the perspective of literary economy (and there is a bunny sitting next to me at the present, a soft, fluffy bunny), there's something very significant about that whole scene. >To be direct: JKR likes to use little shorthand things and descriptions that, when we think about them, tell us a whole lot more about a person. "Mudblood" seems to certainly be one of them. It is not a word that travels alone; it immediately labels someone who uses it as of a certain ideological bent. And as I've argued before, *everyone* has ideology whether they are conscious or not of it--and this was an era where ideology seems to have mattered, greatly. >It *is* a strong insight into how James has been raised that he reacts so categorically to the word, just as it's an insight into Draco, Young!Snape, and Voldemort--the three people (I think...) we've heard use it. It's been so reserved in actual use in the series that it really hits you when you hear it--and it tells you something fundamental about the user.< Betsy: *pets the bunny* I agree that the term "mudblood" is being used as shorthand. But I don't think we should overlook other shorthand images being used in this scene. The description of Sirius's perfect hair, and his easy manner, James studied casualness with the stolen snitch, and his own artfully mussed hair, even Peter's wrapt attention to James's every move all paint a picture of spoiled arrogance. Then compare that to Snape, hunched in the shadows, awkward and ugly and alone. JKR knew exactly what she was setting up here. To top off the discriptive difference between Snape and James/Sirius we have an unprovoked attack in which two boys ambush one. So it's fairly obvious (to me at least) that JKR meant for readers to be repulsed by the behavior of James and Sirius and she meant for readers to feel sympathy for Snape. But then JKR throws us a curve. First, when Snape hits back he actually draws blood rather than hexing away James' and Sirius' wands. It's a telling choice. 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. 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. That Snape's automatic response to danger is to lash out with magic that appears dark (I'm assuming it is because blood was drawn), and he so easily uses the term "mudblood" says something about how he was raised, true. And that James does not use dark magic (most of his spells are recognizable and taught at Hogwarts) and seems horrified by the "mudblood" word says something about how he was raised. And yet, James is not a good person in this scene. He's a classic bully and he takes his rage at Lily's rejection out on someone he's overpowered by force of numbers and surprise. Neither of these actions speaks to James's way being right. In fact, it seems to say the opposite. After seeing this scene, Harry actually thinks his father might be capable of rape. That's a pretty horrifying thought for JKR to have her protagonist think about his father. So I think she's telling us more here - maybe about the possiblity of change, maybe about the ability of folks to raise above their upbringing, maybe something about motive being as or more important than method. I don't know what exactly, but I do think there's more to this scene than simply who used what word. >>Carol: >Neither of them has any legitimate reason for their unprovoked attack on Severus Snape, who is absorbed in studying the test questions he has just answered at great length in the DADA exam, which he clearly takes more seriously than they do. (And Sirius states that he doesn't need to study for the Transfiguration exam, either. Thinks highly of himself, that one.)< >>Nora: >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)]< Betsy: Yes, but how does JKR show us Sirius' confidence in his Transfiguration? By having Siruis refuse to help Remus study! Sweet Remus, whose painful werewolf transformations Sirius sees as a wonderful lark. Again, not very friendly to Sirius is this scene. And JKR uses every trick she can to make that clear. [Canon suggests that James and Sirius were more gifted in school than Severus, yes. Severus seemed pretty intense in his studying though - so who knows what their actual OWL and NEWT scores were like. :P] >>Nora: >See, I don't want to dispute the account given--and I'm not going to, on a certain factual level. But I want to throw a very particular wrench into the works, and it's a comparative one. >For one thing, we don't have the ability to seriate here while we do with PresentDay!Snape, and that argues even more strongly for a suspension of evaluation. 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.] >Second, it feels (IMO) like a literary setup very smartly done from a phenomenological point of view; we the readers, riding on Harry's shoulder, react much as he does. It's arguable that this will ultimately be revealed as an incomplete reaction. (And I enjoy turning the 'limitations of Harry's POV' argument to completely different uses than it is usually set!) >We certainly don't have to like or dislike any character by objective criteria. But it's really much more fun here, I think, to play in analytical realms. The cage match can wait for when the canon is done, no? :) < Betsy: You're absolutely correct of course. We the readers *know* that James doesn't rape Lily to conceive Harry. We know that James *does* change enough to be chosen as Headboy and also enough to eventually give his life trying to protect his family. So while we're horrified by this scene, we know that this is not the end of the story. (Frankly, I think the "let's feed Snape to the werewolf" scene will be a big turning point for James, and I *really* hope JKR will flesh that scene out.) We also know that Snape becomes a Death Eater. And I think JKR was careful to make Snape sympathetic but not pathetic. He is no Neville Longbottom (circa PS/SS I should clairfy!). He's immediately on the defense and he *never* gives up trying to get free and fight back. (I think the reason James and Sirius gang up on him is that Snape is dangerous enough to be a bit much one on one.) I believe that JKR has shown us some nobility in Presentday!Snape - some good qualities like courage and loyalty (though I know that's contested) that at least hint that Snape is now on the side of the angels. But there was something that started him down the wrong path, and this scene certainly shows us a desperate, angry boy who could very easily be lead astray and might have already started wandering. I personally think that JKR gave us and Harry this scene to reinforce the premise that there is no perfect good or perfect evil when it comes to people. And maybe to forshadow that those who seem hopelessly bad may have a chance at redemption. And perhaps to suggest that there's more to person than good upbringing? >-Nora gets ready to put the harm back in harmony Betsy, adding in the ony. (Like in Sesame Street!) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 05:16:30 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:16:30 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123282 Nora: Yes, but...from the perspective of literary economy (and there is a bunny sitting next to me at the present, a soft, fluffy bunny), there's something very significant about that whole scene. To be direct: JKR likes to use little shorthand things and descriptions that, when we think about them, tell us a whole lot more about a person. "Mudblood" seems to certainly be one of them. It is not a word that travels alone; it immediately labels someone who uses it as of a certain ideological bent. And as I've argued before, *everyone* has ideology whether they are conscious or not of it--and this was an era where ideology seems to have mattered, greatly. It *is* a strong insight into how James has been raised that he reacts so categorically to the word, just as it's an insight into Draco, Young!Snape, and Voldemort--the three people (I think...) we've heard use it. It's been so reserved in actual use in the series that it really hits you when you hear it--and it tells you something fundamental about the user.< Betsy: To top off the discriptive difference between Snape and James/Sirius we have an unprovoked attack in which two boys ambush one. So it's fairly obvious (to me at least) that JKR meant for readers to be repulsed by the behavior of James and Sirius and she meant for readers to feel sympathy for Snape. But then JKR throws us a curve. First, when Snape hits back he actually draws blood rather than hexing away James' and Sirius' wands. It's a telling choice. 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. 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. Alla: Ummm, I will be speaking for myself, but I will be bold enough to predict that Nora has similar POV on it, since indeed that was done many many times. :o) Betsy, there is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that scene by itself is very bad and James and Sirius are set up as bullies . It is even hard to read so ugly it looks. All that we are saying ( sorry, Nora if you are not) that we don't know the whole backstory yet and there is also a possibility that one of the reason behind James bullying was the fact that Snape was connected to DA and James hated dark Arts. Don't forget that according to Lexicon Voldemort already rose at that time and it is quite possible that ideological stakes were quite clear. Does it excuse what they did? NO, of course not. May it help to explain some things? Yes, of course, IMO. And yes, set up of the scene is VERY clever. Up to Snape screaming "Mudblood" he had my complete sympathy and then - here we go - hint that Snape may not have been as innocent as it looks. There is more to person indeed than their family background as Sirius clearly demonstrates by rejecting his family Dark heritage. Let me say again, Snape is not the only character who may have unknown facts hidden in his past, IMO. Just my opinion, Alla From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 28 05:35:14 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:35:14 -0000 Subject: Why distrus Lupin? was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123283 --- 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. > Alshain muses: I wonder if this may be related to how James, Sirius and Peter found out how Remus was a werewolf and what he had to do to keep it from them. He kept inventing stories about a sick mother whom he had to see once a month, and for one year, perhaps even two, he managed to fool them. How do people react after they've known someone for that long and found out that he's been deceiving them from the moment they met him? If he's a good friend, they may forgive him without a second thought, but they wouldn't be likely to just forget about it. Was that the thing that undermined Remus' trustworthiness? "He's pulled the wool over our eyes once, he can do it again. He was our friend, and he lied to us." Peter, OTOH, was a toady and a fairly dim one at that, but his loyalty was unquestionable. Remus seems to have been the better liar, the better actor, the one with more to gain from betraying his friends than Peter (Voldemort was courting the outcasts like the giants), and he *is* a werewolf. James and Sirius at least, Peter too if he had any wizard blood, would have been steeped in horror stories, which gave a foothold to any anti-Dark creatures propaganda. Finally, with the way people were treating werewolves, I don't blame J & S for thinking that even Remus Lupin could get enough and give in to self-fulfilling prophecies. Alshain From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 05:37:44 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:37:44 -0000 Subject: DD knew Moody=Barty Crouch before Polyjuice expired In-Reply-To: <608BB9F3-6D05-11D9-AD1F-000A95C61C7C@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123284 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, caesian wrote: > Why does Dumbledore request that Professor Snape retrieve Winky from > the kitchens BEFORE the polyjuice potion had worn off? I cannot think of a good reason for her to be present except that the imposter was Barty Crouch Jr. > > How much of Barty Jr's story did DD already know? And why? > > If he involved Winky, it seems likely that DD already knew most of the saga of Mr. Crouch Sr., Winky and Master Barty. Perhaps he only discovered this recently, or perhaps he has known for many years. He tells Harry earlier that he does not know whether Barty Jr. was innocent or guilty. > > So, it seems as if at the time of the third task Dumbledore already > knew that an imposter was at Hogwarts, and the true identity of the > imposter (Barty Crouch Jr.), but apparently not who was being > impersonated. (He mentions to Harry that he knew Imposter!Moody was > not the real Moody only when Imposter!Moody removed Harry after the > third task.) > > It may also be significant that it was Professor Snape who was asked to retrieve Winky. Perhaps Dumbledore knew Barty Jr. was on campus > because Snape had provided this information covertly - in his function as a spy. Thus Snape was asked to retrieve Winky because someone else might have wondered why later. Carol responds: Here's my take on this. I agree that Dumbledore knew that Crouch!Moody was the imposter before the polyjuice wore off and that's why he sent Snape to bring Winky. I think DD suspected C!M as an imposter and as the person who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire long before that but until he disobeyed Dumbledore's direct order by taking Harry from the field, he could not confirm it. The hard part was not determining that Crouch!Moody was a bad guy and probably a DE but figuring out exactly who he was. Here's what I'm talking about. The first pieces of the puzzle seem to have nothing to do with Crouch!Moody at all--the disappearance of Bertha Jorkins, the Dark Mark cast at the QWC, the wand found in Winky's hand, the apparent illness of Mr. Crouch. Dumbledore stores all this in his mind for future reference but probably does not connect it with the appearance of Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire or with the teacher he has hired to keep Harry and the other students safe. Crouch!Moody states his "suspicion" that a powerful Dark witch or wizard has enchanted the cup to trick it into accepting a fourth students' name. This is in fact a boast, a confession of what he's actually done, but it's also intended to make the judges suspicious of one another. Is it Snape? Is it Karkaroff? But the others, possibly including Dumbledore, pass it off as merely Moody's paranoia. 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. Either way, something is out of kilter and Dumbledore's suspicions are raised a notch. Then Snape undoubtedly reports his late-night encounter with Crouch!Moody, along with his suspicion that Harry was walking the halls in his invisibility cloak and the fact that potion ingredients are missing from his office. DD knows that the magical eye can see under invisibility cloaks. "Moody" could see Harry but he let him go unpunished. Why? And he also knows, as Snape does, that the stolen ingredients are those used in a polyjuice potion. Harry survives the Second Task and there is still no real evidence that whoever is masquerading as Moody is out to kill him, and DD doesn't yet know who the imposter is. But Mr. Crouch's absence is suspicious. And when Dumbledore follows Harry to the place where the demented Mr. Crouch approached him in the forest, they find only the stupefied Viktor Krum. Mr. Crouch is missing. Crouch!Moody shows up unasked, telling Dumbledore that Snape sent him. Since Snape is suspicious of Crouch!Moody and dislikes him, DD almost certainly suspects that this is a lie. Quite possibly he confirms it by talking to Snape later. Still, however, there is no solid evidence against the imposter, and Dumbledore consults with both "Moody" and Fudge about Mr. Crouch's disappearance. "Innocent until proven guilty." Trying to tie everything from the events at the QWC to Mr. Crouch's disappearance together, Dumbledore puts a number of memories into the Pensieve to be sifted and sorted so he can see them individually and in relation to one another. Except for the specter of the dead Bertha Jorkins, who was indirectly connected with Mr. Crouch through her employment at the Mom, all of these memories relate to people present when "Moody" made his "powerful Dark witch or wizard" speech: Crouch himself, Snape, Karkaroff, Ludo Bagman, and the real Moody. Barty Jr. also comes into the picture at this point but DD does not yet make the connection. He tells Harry that he doesn't know whether young Barty was guilty or not, and he has no reason to suspect that the boy didn't die in Azkaban. But when Harry disappears after the Third Task, DD realizes that the Tri-Wizard Cup has been turned into a portkey by the same person who put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire. That person has to be the imposter who has been using polyjuice potion made from ingredients stolen from Snape's office to impersonate Alastor Moody. He must also be a Dark wizard with a violent grudge against Mr. Crouch. Crouch!Moody's action in hurrying Harry away from the field against DD's orders confirms his guilt but not his true identity. Yet at that moment, everything DD has been studying in the Pensieve comes together. Impossible though it seems, the imposter must be Barty Crouch Jr., convicted by his own father of being a Death Eater. DD's action in sending Snape for Winky as well as for the veritaserum shows how confident he is that he has arrived at the correct conclusion. (Imagine how embarrassing it would be if he had brought Winky to see Walden Macnair or Antonin Dolohov.) Snape himself, though he dislikes "Moody" and may have reported some of his suspicious behavior to DD, is as surprised as MacGonagall to see Barty Crouch Jr. lying on the floor of "Moody's" office. As good as Snape usually is at putting two and two together, it's Dumbledore who solves this mystery thanks to the ever-useful Pensieve. Maybe Scotland Yard should invest in one. Carol, who had forgotten that Harry was already seeing visions in GoF From nrenka at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 05:39:29 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:39:29 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123285 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > But then JKR throws us a curve. First, when Snape hits back he > actually draws blood rather than hexing away James' and Sirius' > wands. It's a telling choice. 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. Ideology is something you're brought up with, but it is a choice as well, especially by that age--see below, methinks. > 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. Umm, I note you snipped the part of my post where I made noises in that direction--the complication of the White Hats, yet the dangers pointed out of exonerating any character based on a perceived victim status. There is more to a person than family background--it is also a matter of personal choice what you choose to follow. [And choices show what we really are, in the Potterverse. Essentialist, but unavoidable.] Sirius is the grand example of not following in the family footsteps, and I think that's one of the Big Thematic Issues he's meant to represent. It's an important one, as we've seen fairly little deviation from the family line...and his situation and Percy's are pretty incommensurate, so I won't make that comparison. > So I think she's telling us more here - maybe about the possiblity > of change, maybe about the ability of folks to raise above their > upbringing, maybe something about motive being as or more important > than method. I don't know what exactly, but I do think there's > more to this scene than simply who used what word. Motive more important than method...I'm not sure about that, being as we've been highly critical of Slytherin philosophy, and their "any means to achieve their ends". Not that I want to completely equate ends and motive--n'est pas la meme chose, exactly. In fact, I'd say that this scene might point towards the opposite: James generally has fairly good motives, but his methods suck rocks. I think the problem of doing things that are not only right, but doing them the right WAY is a big one through the series. There is more to this scene than who used what word, and we DO get character insights that are decidedly gray on all sides. My main contention is that it's methodologically sloppy and discriminatory to not leave open the possibility that more things were feeding into this than we think, or know. That's the point of pulling seriation into the discussion as well--you can't have a pattern from one instant. > Betsy: > Yes, but how does JKR show us Sirius' confidence in his > Transfiguration? By having Sirius refuse to help Remus study! > Sweet Remus, whose painful werewolf transformations Sirius sees as > a wonderful lark. Again, not very friendly to Sirius is this > scene. And JKR uses every trick she can to make that clear. Shh, or you'll attract Pippin with words like those. A true charge, but for me at least, a personally understandable one; it's the noble thing yet the mind-numbingly boring to help those who are not as quick as you at something, particularly in the midst of a barrage of exams. But again, I'm loathe to extrapolate that into "The Model of Sirius and Remus' Relationships At School". It tells us something, but the other rule of seriation is that when you have new information, you have to alter the pattern to accomodate it. > (Frankly, I think the "let's feed Snape to the werewolf" scene will > be a big turning point for James, and I *really* hope JKR will > flesh that scene out.) Personally, I'm betting with sick amusement that that scene is actually a lot less important to anything than we think it is. That's my personal perversity, however. > We also know that Snape becomes a Death Eater. And I think JKR was > careful to make Snape sympathetic but not pathetic. *pets the bunny again* Snape is currently at least somewhat sympathetic--which means he could become more sympathetic, but we could just as easily be set up for a reversal in his disfavor. That is to say, we got the dirt on James this book--it's time to air all of Snape's bloody laundry next book (and oh do those interviews hint that it's there). That's a prediction that's testable, of course, and will be abandoned happily if proven wrong. > I believe that JKR has shown us some nobility in Presentday!Snape - > some good qualities like courage and loyalty (though I know that's > contested) that at least hint that Snape is now on the side of the > angels. But there was something that started him down the wrong > path, and this scene certainly shows us a desperate, angry boy who > could very easily be led astray and might have already started > wandering. I don't believe in ESE!Snape by any means, although I think his function in the series is presently deliberately ambiguous. That means, by the way, that I'm professionally agnostic. I would *like* to be able to like Snape (to pull in more subjective criteria) more than I do at present. However, I'm also going to put my money firmly in the 'personal choice' basket, which means (paradoxically) I'm esteeming Snape higher than you might think. I surmise that it was his own actions that got him into DEdom, but consequently that it was his own actions that got him out. What makes me wonder is that there is such strong textual and interview evidence that he retains a good number of decidedly negative qualities (Dumbledore won't let him have DADA for a good reason, as we've mentioned in the past), which makes one wonder about his sincerity. I think it would, from my view, lessen the impact of his character arc if we end up with poor Snape, nowhere to turn but the DEs, rather than a willed choice--but that is also just speculation, and I adapt with no qualms to new canon. > I personally think that JKR gave us and Harry this scene to > reinforce the premise that there is no perfect good or perfect evil > when it comes to people. And maybe to forshadow that those who > seem hopelessly bad may have a chance at redemption. And perhaps > to suggest that there's more to person than good upbringing? Sirius has that thematic aspect; maybe Snape is another side of it, but I'm not sure. Maybe he's the failure of the will to make the proper choices, paying for it until he can, but always in a struggle with what he really *wants* to do and what he knows that he should? That does explain some of the tendencies to a mild sadism (the enjoyment of the emotional pain of others--and yes, I stick by my interview guns there; really, if she says it in an interview, there's not much reason to expect contradictory information and all the reason in the world to expect confirmation, right?) and the complex of behaviors that can be summed up as "Dude, do you HAVE to?". Talk about possibly good motives and generally poor methods... -Nora notes that folding a hakama properly is a real pain in the &*^$##$ From alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jan 28 06:06:44 2005 From: alshainofthenorth at yahoo.co.uk (alshainofthenorth) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 06:06:44 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123286 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > But then JKR throws us a curve. First, when Snape hits back he > actually draws blood rather than hexing away James' and Sirius' > wands. It's a telling choice. 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. > > 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. > Certainly. And JKR is definitely *not* suggesting anything as simple as "Snape=Bad" and "James=Good" or vice versa. She set up the scene to throw James, Sirius and Remus down from their pedestals with an almighty bang and succeeded very well; I haven't seen half as many fanfics treating the Marauders' school days as a lighthearted series of Blytonian romps as before OOTP. She's very carefully sketched in shades of grey in her Good characters instead of making them into moral absolutes, and that's what makes characters like Voldemort and the Malfoys stick out like sore thumbs. And she doesn't give nice, simple answers, in any case, not until the last book is out. If I had to suggest a moral for the Pensieve scene, I'd pick a quote from H?vam?l: None is found so good, but some fault attends him, or so ill but he serves for somewhat. Alshain From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Fri Jan 28 06:15:29 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 06:15:29 -0000 Subject: Love again...The Lord of the Rings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123287 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > >vmonte wrote: > Sam did turn out to be right about Gollum, if it wasn't for Frodo, Gollum wouldn't have been around to leap for the ring and save them all in the end. So, even though Gollum could not escape his past or the hold the ring had over him, he still saved Frodo. It really sounds awfully familiar to me... > > >Renee responded: > You're right; I'll add "Frodo's pity" to Providence (or coincidence, but I believe the former applies). So, basically, what we're having here is Choice and Fate working together. Is that what you meant by familiar? > > vmonte again: > Snape reminds me of Gollum. > Valky: LOL Vivian! in that case Ron reminds you of Sam, right? Oh you *do* have me wondering about that now.. Voldemorts method of recruiting as DD says, in GOF I think about Dementors, is still offering them much more scope for their powers and their pleasures. I wonder if perhaps you are on to something there, as much as I DO like Snape... but JKR alludes to Snape not having fully broken free of the power of temptation, like Gollum and the ring. Ok, before the hate mail starts arriving, I really do think that Snape is trying really really hard to resist it all. Could be, DD is aware of this struggle but trusts and cares for Severus, for at least as long as he can favor him some partway decent existence. From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 07:55:07 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 07:55:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's bit of Voldy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123288 >From Dungrollin > > Now, what's bothering me is that use of the word 'transferred'. That > implies taking from one place and putting in another. But at the > beginning of GoF, Voldemort can speak Parseltongue too. So he > retained that ability, while giving it to Harry at the same time. > Strictly speaking it should have read "copied", shouldn't it? > > It then occurred to me that perhaps a wizard's magical power isn't > necessarily split up into discrete specialised portions ? this > bit for using the unforgivables, that bit for summoning charms, the > other bit for catching up on the gossip from the weekend with > Nagini... and so on. Perhaps it is the overall nature of the magic > specific to one person that determines for which magical skills > they will have an aptitude ? including those which they may > not need to learn at all (parseltongue, flying ? la Harry, > metamorphmagic) ? and diminishing their aptitude for others > (apparition, the animagus transformation, flying ? la Hermione, > etc). With hard work you can get better at certain things, but if > you don't have the aptitude, you'll never be as good as > a 'natural'. > > This is (unless I've made a profound misunderstanding) analogous to > the way the brain works ? it's fairly obvious from day-to-day > life that some people have an aptitude for learning certain things, > while others don't have a hope in hell (me and population genetics > equations, for example). So perhaps what happened was that a bit of > generalised Voldy-flavoured power got transferred to Harry (so Voldy > lost some and Harry gained some) and because the general nature of > Voldy's magic differs to the general nature of Harry's pre-GH magic, > a part of Harry's post-GH magic now includes the power to talk to > snakes. > > Argh... There was a reason why this didn't seem to be a satisfactory > explanation... and I can't remember why, now... Ah yes, I remember: > If this were the case, DD should have said "Unless I'm much > mistaken, he transferred some of his own *power* to you the night he > gave you that scar..." rather than "powers". "Powers" in the plural > suggests that magical powers are indeed split up into discrete > specialised portions, whereas "power" in the singular implies my > meaning. So I don't think that works. > > The other possibility I was thinking of was (I think) suggested by > Carol, although I can't remember whether she suggested it recently, > or whether I've been spending too long in the archives - or, indeed, > whether it was suggested by someone else entirely. > > It went something along the lines of: Voldemort didn't transfer > *some* of his powers to Harry, he transferred *all* of his powers to > Harry. Now, whenever Voldy does magic, he has to access his powers > *through* Harry, which is why Harry's scar hurts. > > Much as I like this idea, it doesn't seem (to me) to be a > satisfactory explanation either. Harry's scar wasn't hurting while > Voldy tortured Bertha Jorkins, for example, it only got around to > hurting when he murdered Frank Bryce. I suppose you could make the > excuse that Voldy was in Albania with Bertha, but in England with > Frank, though I'd bear in mind Snape's words that although "Time and > space matter in magic, Potter [...] The usual rules do not seem to > apply with you..." (OotP, chapter 24: Occlumency, p469, UK) > > But I could very easily be wrong ? if this has been gone into in > detail, could somebody please point me to a post number? It's > interesting me very much, at the moment. And other thoughts, > speculation or full-blown theories would be very, very welcome. Finwitch: About that -- Pettigrew used Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric Diggory, on Voldemort's orders. So the rat IS able to do serious bit of powerful dark magic (at least if he's using Voldemort's wand). If it was the rat, rather than Voldemort in person who tortured poor Bertha Jorkins, your theory holds. Maybe Voldemort was even posessing Pettigrew at that time and using his powers rather than Harry's. And the fact that Voldemort lost it - all powers except for the ability to possess... Perhaps because Lily's love prevented that power from entering into Harry - after all, Harry's great love for Sirius was what kept Voldemort from possessing him. As for the fact that *both* Voldemort & Harry speak Parseltongue... I'd say Voldemort *regained* the ability by possessing snakes. (He even *favoured* snakes, did he not?) Then again, it *is* possible that Dumbledore erred, and Harry was born with Parseltongue and Voldemort got to keep that ability as well. No one will ever know, I think. Of course, after using Harry's blood for the resurrection potion-- Voldemort got the copy of his own powers, added with those Harry was born with. Finwitch From quigonginger at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 09:17:56 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:17:56 -0000 Subject: Harry's Power (was: A few random thoughts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123289 Eggplant originally: > >> In all of recorded history only 3 wizards have been able to speak > >> Parseltong. Harry is one of them. > Ginger originally: > > > Actually, there are only 3 in the main series. > > If you have a copy of FB, look under runespoor, > > and it tells that wizards know so much about > > them due to the writings of Parseltongued > > wizards who conversed > > with them. > Eggplant again: > I'd forgotten FB said that, but this is what Voldemort says to Harry > on that subject in Chamber Of Secrets: > > "There are strange likenesses between us, after all. Even you must > have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably > the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great > Slytherin himself We even look something alike" > > Sounds to me like the ability to talk to snakes has been pretty rare > in the last thousand years, even Dumbledore can't do it. Ginger again: Thanks for the canon. Definately, Parselmouths are rare. Odd, though, that there have been only 3 in the last 1000 years at Hogwarts (and I assume in GB), but several in Africa. No dates are given as to the writings, but I'd assume in the last 1000 years at least. Are there more snakes in Africa? More magical snakes? More Dark Wizards? Makes me wonder how Parseltongue is learned, or if it is, barring Harry, a natural talent. So many questions that have so little relevance to the plot as a whole that they will probably go unanswered. Bummer, Ginger From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 09:48:21 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:48:21 -0000 Subject: Wizard Chess WAS (McG / DD / Re: Why should Harry .....) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123290 > > > > Valky: > I agree with that, I think you know I was using the Wizard Chess > metaphor in terms of plot construction, and cracking the code of > PS/SS to see the foreshadowings of the next books, but on another > level to that I totally agree that there is no Wizard Chess or game > of any nature, to be found. > > OTOH I discovered that I was wrong about Wizard Chess being the > fifth step under the trapdoor, which thoroughly confused me. Its the > fourth AFAIK so now I am wondering why the Chess metaphor fits the > plot so remarkably? And I was kind of hoping I could apply the Logic > Puzzle to a foreshadowing of the HBP as a follow up, but that's not > working now. I guess I'll have to create a new theory about the > under the trapdoor foreshadowings called JMO (JKR Mixed the > Order). ;D Where there's a will..... Finwitch: -- I think it's quite true... Mixing the Order. I mean, ALL books must be in it somehow. The troll (already done with) represents the first book, of course... After all, leaving them for the first time, Harry didn't quite know where he was going... Oh well, I'll leave it to you to explain Devil's Snare, Flying Keys and the rest are supposed to be. Of course, in the 4th book, Harry's facing a bit of repetition - yet another series of obstacles. He has 3 tasks (3 books left). Pass a dragon/saving people who aren't truly in danger/maze. Seems like that mid-task presented the 5th book... Finwitch From asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 09:49:40 2005 From: asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:49:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123291 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > SSSusan: > Glad I'm safe from firearms being wielded by Alla. ;-) > > ...edited... > > Was DD just trying to make McGonagall feel better that night, and he > DIDN'T really expect (or want?) the Dursleys to tell Harry about his > powers & his parents' deaths? > > I know I'm beating this one to death, but I've not really seen > anyone respond to why DD would have announced that he was sure the > D's would tell Harry and yet the reality, 10 years later, is that > they didn't. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan bboyminn: I don't think the Dursleys not telling Harry was that critical an issue, and I don't think it matters with respect to whether Dumbledore would leave Harry at the Dursleys. I suspect Dumbledore reasonably assumed that the Dursleys would tell Harry, but the fact that they didn't wouldn't have mattered. Now, I'm sure he wasn't pleased that they didn't tell Harry about his parents and his past, and given Hagrid's general attitude, I can certainly see why Hagrid would be outraged, but again, at the Dursley's is where Harry is safest. His existance there may not have been pleasant, but bringing him back to the wizard world would have been like putting a sheep among the wolves. In addition, getting the muggle authorities involved would have certainly raised a lot of question that should probably be left un-asked. I think even Dumbledore, in hindsight, would agree that he should have gotten involved at some point to insure better treatment for Harry, but every time those doubts and concerns came up, Dumbledore just reminded himself that unpleasant as the Dursley's may be, it is still the safest place for Harry. Also, remember that Dumbledore is administering all this from 500 miles (fair guess) away over 10 years time, and with a very busy schedule. I'm not necessarily offering that as an excuse, but it is an explanation. Conversely, just because it can be explained, doesn't necessarily mean it should be excused. None the less, I think that is at the heart of the matter. From his distant outpost and with his limted information, Dumbledore just kept reminding himself that it was best to keep Harry out of the wizard world and under the protection of his family's blood. I'm really hoping and somewhat expecting Harry and Petunia to have a little 'sit down', and perhaps then we will find out what was in that letter, what Petunia's thinking was (beyond what we already know). While we know Harry's stay at the Dursley's is going to be short in the next book, I'm very confident, it will, none the less, be interesting and informative. So, to more directly address your question, I don't think Dumbledore believed or stated with absolute certainty that the Dursleys would tell Harry the wizardly details of is life. I think he did make a fair and reasonable assumption that they would do that, but he underestimated just how much the Dursleys loathed the wizard world and despised magic. Certainly, he knew the were the muggliest muggles around, but I don't think it occurred to Dumbledore that the Dursleys would so vigorously and actively try to supress all aspect of magic and of the magical world. In reality, I think the Dursleys did that for their own peace of mind. By convincing themselves they could quash all the magic in Harry, they deluded themselves into believeing they would never have to deal with magic and the wizard world. It gave them peace of mind to believe they could have a wizard under their roof, and still not have to deal with magic in any way. In a sense, it was this delusion that allowed them to continue to believe that they and their lives could be /normal/ even with a wizard in the house. It was 10 years of living this delusion that was shattered and caused the panic when Harry finally got his letters. Even after the letters arrived, the Dursleys did everything they could to hold on to that delusion, even to the point of acting irrationally. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 10:01:00 2005 From: asian_lovr2 at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:01:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-Additional Points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123292 Just noticed that I missed a few points in my previous post. 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. So, I think Dumbledore had an accumulation of general information and general status reports, but I don't think he knew every detail of what happened. This information most likely gave him cause for concern, but he kept reminding himself that the wizzard world was not necessarily safe for Harry, and that the Blood Protection was the greatest level of protection he could give Harry. So, as I said before, he continually chose safety over comfort. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 28 11:53:02 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:53:02 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? (Was: McG / DD / ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123293 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "curlyhornedsnorkack" wrote: > Snorky: > I think fear of Voldemort has an international scope. During the > disturbance after the Quidditch Cup game in GOF, the French students > were hurrying away, not just the British. Also, IMO, Great Britain is > just a little too small for holding Voldemort's ego. (Sorry, I don't > mean to offend anyone!) Geoff: Gad, sir, that's not cricket. Suggesting that our great and noble country is too small. Good grief, it's..... it's.... it's just not British, damn you! And as for this bounder Voldemort, this cad who's trying to take over the world, well, get him with me and give me a horsewhip and he'll soon be singing a different tune. It's all going to the dogs since we got rid of the Empire. Queen Victoria should never have married that German fella, Albert. Harrumph. :-)) From drliss at comcast.net Fri Jan 28 14:02:29 2005 From: drliss at comcast.net (drliss at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:02:29 +0000 Subject: Why Distrust Lupin? Message-ID: <012820051402.27339.41FA45F50003419600006ACB22007623029C9C07049D0B@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 123294 Alshain: "He's pulled the wool over our eyes once, he can do it again. He was our friend, and he lied to us." Peter, OTOH, was a toady and a fairly dim one at that, but his loyalty was unquestionable. Remus seems to have been the better liar, the better actor, the one with more to gain from betraying his friends than Peter (Voldemort was courting the outcasts like the giants), and he *is* a werewolf. James and Sirius at least, Peter too if he had any wizard blood, would have been steeped in horror stories, which gave a foothold to any anti-Dark creatures propaganda. Finally, with the way people were treating werewolves, I don't blame J & S for thinking that even Remus Lupin could get enough and give in to self-fulfilling prophecies. Lissa: I could not agree more with this. I think that the marauders- Sirius and Remus included- WERE still very close when 1981 hit. In the Shack, Peter seems pretty convinced that Sirius would have told Remus if the plans changed... or at least he seems pretty convinced that argument would work. He doesn't bank on Remus having figured out Sirius thought he was the spy. Granted, Peter was desperate, but still. The Potters knew someone close to them was giving away info- not someone alienated and distant. I don't think Sirius wanted to suspect Peter or Remus. I think it came down to the fact it was proved the spy had to be the Potters (eliminated because they were being hunted), Dumbledore (obvious no), Sirius, Peter, or Remus. Sirius knew it wasn't him, so it HAD to be Peter or Remus. And for the reasons Alshain described, he decided it was Remus. As for Sirius's behavior towards Remus in the Pensieve scene: sure, he didn't help him study. But how often do Ron and Harry refuse to help Hermione study? I think Remus was trying to head Sirius off at the pass before he could do something exactly like what he did, and Sirius knew that's what he was doing. Plus he was 15, and that scene took place before he ran away from home or played the Prank. I suspect Sirius grew up a lot after those two events. Oooh. Better get back to work. Lissa [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From noesumeragi at yahoo.es Fri Jan 28 11:01:32 2005 From: noesumeragi at yahoo.es (noesumeragi) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:01:32 -0000 Subject: What will trigger Petunia's magic (Re: Petunia *will* do magic) In-Reply-To: <005c01c504d2$0f666820$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123296 > Charme: > (snipped) > > I think Tonks gives us a clue in OoP where she says that Metamorphmagus' are > born, not "made" or taught. I think such a condition applied to Petunia (I > know, I know it's a stretch, but JKR is tricky that way) would allow JKR to > say she's a Muggle but there's "more" to her. It may not be Metamorphmagus > at all, however I can imagine if there's one magical trait you can be "born" > with, there might be others we don't know about. Yet, that is :) Now noe: Hi, charme. We know about another magical trait you are born with: being a parseltonge ;) But I don't think Petunia was born with "a special" magical trait that later will be developed; I think she was born a witch, with capability to do any *magic*. The problem is, until you *show* your magic, you are a muggle, by default. What I'm wondering about is... what could be Petunia's late magic trigger. When I suggested Lily's spell as a trigger, I had two possibilities in my mind: One: the old blood magic spell could wake up Petunia's latent magic if the spell is in danger of breaking. Two: In orden to maintain the blood spell, Lily transferred some of her magic to her sister Petunia? Well, I like the first one more. What do you think? > Charme: > Your English is wonderful: while I know Spanish by speaking it, I am certain > I couldn't type a full length post of the sort you did! > LOL. You should hear my English teacher's opinion... Anyway, thanks a lot! :) noe From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 28 14:46:53 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:46:53 -0000 Subject: DD knew Moody=Barty Crouch before Polyjuice expired In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123297 > > Carol responds: . > > 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 Curseon 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 receivesDumbledore'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: 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 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: > Then Snape undoubtedly reports his late-night encounter with > Crouch!Moody, along with his suspicion that Harry was walking the halls in his invisibility cloak and the fact that potion ingredients are missing from his office. DD knows that the magical eye can see under invisibility cloaks. "Moody" could see Harry but he let him go unpunished. Why? And he also knows, as Snape does, that the stolen ingredients are those used in a polyjuice potion.< Pippin: He knows something else. He knows something about what Harry saw and heard that night on the stairs, because Harry wrote it all in a letter to Sirius, and Harry, as Dumbledore informs him, is not Sirius's only correspondent. Sirius seems to have omitted telling Dumbledore about the Map, so probably Dumbledore doesn't realize what we (and Sirius) should have spotted: that it's highly suspicious that Moody said Crouch simply disappeared from the Map. But he does know that Harry spotted "Bartemius Crouch" burglarizing Snape's office. Dumbledore knows, as we do, that the Azkaban guards can be fooled and that a clever wizard can fake his own death. He would also remember that young Barty was a fan of Quidditch. This is why young Barty's trial is being studied in the Pensieve. Dumbledore knows what we do not find out until later : Mr. Crouch's son is also named Barty Crouch. Carol: Crouch!Moody shows up unasked, telling Dumbledore that Snape sent him. Since Snape is suspicious of Crouch!Moody and dislikes him, DD almost certainly suspects that this is a lie. Quite possibly he confirms it by talking to Snape later. Pippin: I have a different take on this. I think Spymaster!Dumbledore has means of knowing when there is an intruder on the grounds, and also that Harry was on his doorstep. He ordered Snape to call Harry back and keep him there till Dumbledore arrived, and then inform Moody about the intruder. Snape's eyes glitter as Harry tells his tale -- a sign, IMO, that whatever Snape says, he *is* taking Harry seriously. Snape doesn't go to fetch Dumbledore because he knows Dumbledore is on his way, and anyway, if there is an intruder on the campus, uttering the password out loud is not a good idea. Since Dumbledore sent Snape to get Moody, he does not question Moody's statement, so he doesn't learn that Moody was lying. Dumbledore suspects that Crouch is the impostor, but he doesn't know *who* is being impersonated...not until Moody takes Harry from the scene. Snape's startled exclamation, "Barty Crouch!" comes because, though he also knew that Crouch was the impersonator, it didn't cross his mind that it could be *young* Crouch. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 28 14:53:18 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:53:18 -0000 Subject: Love again...The Lord of the Rings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123298 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" > > vmonte again: > > Snape reminds me of Gollum. > > > > Valky: > LOL Vivian! in that case Ron reminds you of Sam, right? > > Oh you *do* have me wondering about that now.. Voldemorts method of recruiting as DD says, in GOF I think about Dementors, is still offering them much more scope for their powers and their pleasures. > I wonder if perhaps you are on to something there, as much as I DO like Snape... but JKR alludes to Snape not having fully broken free of the power of temptation, like Gollum and the ring. > Pippin: Actually, I think Snape is more like Boromir. Don't laugh! I mean, if Boromir had been allowed to live. Deeply repentant, horrified by what he had tried to do, but still envious, still desirous of glory, and still, no matter how much he tries to trust Gandalf, not at all convinced that putting all their futures in the hands of a dunderheaded Gryff-- I mean, a witless Halfling, is a good idea. Pippin From gbannister10 at aol.com Fri Jan 28 15:09:03 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:09:03 -0000 Subject: In defence of Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123299 My thoughts in writing this post were triggered off by two comments in post 123267: Alla wrote "Rules in the dictatorship CAN be changed and often ARE changed if people decide to DO something about it ( For the latest of such RL developments let me refer you to events in my former home country - Ukraine). Hogwarts students and teachers eventually refused to let Umbridge have power over them. Result? She is not there anymore." Valky also wrote: "You see I don't imagine quite so much student and teacher revolution against DU could have ever been possible if *Harry* hadn't made the first move, broke the ice as it were and confronted her dictatorship face to face. As Alla says, someone has to *decide* to do something about it. That in itself is wisdom. There is a lot of history in RL that shows dictatorships can go on unchallenged for a long time before some reckless desperado, like in this case Harry, shows up to spit on the fire." There have been a number of contributors who have taken the line that Harry stuck his neck out in the DADA lesson and that he deserved the detention with Umbridge despite the way she treated him. But let's step back and look at the wider picture. I wrote a fairly long posting back at message 118574: "Harry's developing behaviour ? average or unique" in which I argued, basing my assumptions on my own teenage years and on over 30 years experience of teaching teens, that Harry in many ways is behaving in a "normal" manner for his age; although admittedly he comes from a unique background, that provides less of a reason for his actions. However far we are now removed from them, I think that many of us can look back on our teenage years and recall two things which influenced our thinking and decisions. First, that we thought we were going to change the world - that we were the best thing since sliced bread and second, we had a finely-tuned sense of what was just or unjust ? that right was right and wrong was wrong. This second is what propelled Harry into his confrontation with Dolores Umbridge. After having been deprived of news ? and also the support of friends - during the summer, he returns to Hogwarts to find that both he and Dumbledore (who is still something of a hero for him) are being subjected to a rubbishing campaign by the Wizarding World media. He knows that Fudge is deliberately lying about Voldemort and is applying pressure to the "Daily Prophet" to propagate these lies to the public. Hence, his initial response in challenging Umbridge's "interpretation" of events. To begin with, he is disbelieved, mocked and ostracised by many of his fellow students at Hogwarts and it is only as events continue to unfold that this "reckless desperado" spits on the fire and indirectly orchestrates the revolt against Umbridge. This is so reminiscent of the way in which people in real situations have, by their reactions to oppression, have changed the mind set of those around them. Think of those unknown people in, say, the French Resistance, who risked everything to disrupt the German occupation. Think of folk like Claus von Stauffenberg, who masterminded the abortive anti-Hitler coup in 1944 or Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the great German Christian leader, who forsook the safety of Canada in 1939 to return to Nazi Germany where he encouraged believers in the darkest days of the war to stand by their faith and who was finally executed for his role. Think of the lady (I fear I forget her name) who refused to give up a bus seat in Birmingham, Alabama and sowed the seeds of the Civil Rights movement in the USA in the 1960s. Real world history is replete with figures who opposed dictators ? both petty and great ? regardless of the possible dangers. My other point is that those people who say that Harry deserved what he got are looking at things with the benefit of hindsight. Dolores Umbridge is introduced at the beginning of OOTP as an ambivalent and sinister figure. She is a shadowy figure at the Wizengamot hearing and our first real look at her makes her a suspicious figure: `In the complete silence that greeted these words, the witch to the right of Fudge leaned forwards so that Harry saw her for the first time. He thought that she looked just like a large, pale toad. She was rather squat with a broad, flabby face, as little neck as Uncle Vernon and a very wide, slack mouth. Her eyes were large, round and slightly bulging. Even the little black bow perched on top of her short curly hair put him in mind of a large fly she was about to catch on a long, sticky tongue. "The Chair recognises Dolores Jane Umbridge, Senior Under-secretary to the Minister," said Fudge. The witch spoke in a fluttery, girlish, high-pitched voice that took Harry aback; he had been expecting a croak. "I'm sure I must have misunderstood you, Professor Dumbledore," she said, with a simper that left her big, round eyes as cold as ever. "So silly of me. But it sounded for a teensy moment as though you were suggesting that the Ministry of Magic had ordered an attack on the boy!" She gave a silvery laugh that made the hairs on the back of Harry's neck stand up. A few other members of the Wizengamot laughed with her. It could not have been plainer that not one of them was really amused.' (OOTP "The Hearing" p.134 UK edition) The reactions, both of Harry and others are interesting. Then at Hogwarts, she effectively elbows Dumbledore out of the way to deliver her "Party Political Broadcast" speech, which again produces some interesting reactions; warning bells seem to ring for both Hermione and Minerva McGonagall. What is not obvious at this point though is the inhuman and vicious way in which she will attack anyone who shows the slightest opposition to her authority. One can understand any teacher being annoyed if their work is questioned by a pupil; Harry was out or order, but understandably so as I indicated earlier. What was totally out of order was Umbridge's barbaric treatment of Harry, the draconian measures she announces at any sign of disagreement, her calculated humiliation of Hagrid both at first meeting and in class, her treatment of Trelawney and her attempted punishment of Fred and George. Harry stuck his neck out, not because he wanted a war with her but because he was trying to set the record straight and rescue his own position. Her reaction mirrors that of the Ministry who believe that,if they do enough to undermine the status and views of the "enemy" and stick their heads in the sand, the clear and present danger will disperse harmlessly. There are real world examples of this being done. One which comes immediately to mind is that of the campaign to isolate Winston Churchill in the 1930s when successive British Governments did not want to know about the activities of the Nazi regime ? an ignorance which enhanced the scale of the dreadful events of the Second World War. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 15:16:01 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:16:01 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123300 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > Betsy said: > >I have problems with the word "starved" too. (snip)> Janet said: > I wonder if there is an echo here of the protagonist in C. S. Lewis's book *The Horse and his Boy.* (snip) > The fact that the character's foster father doesn't treat him as he should is not glossed over. BUT the fact that the character is tough, wiry, and able to endure hardships does help him in his adventures. The bad intentions of the callous foster father don't invalidate the long-run benefits the character received. > Tonks now: This reminds me of the training that monks (of XC and Buddist Religion) go through. They live is small cells, basis needs and nothing else. Lot of fasting, etc. This makes them better able to fight the forces of evil within themselves and elsewhere. So Harry gets some of this type of training at the Dursley's. I think the reason others on this list think this is so terrible is that they are seeing Harry as just an ordinary boy and comparing him to Muggle kids in middle or upper middle class homes. But Harry is not an ordinary boy, or an ordinary wizard either. He is a very powerful wizard. The only one that can take on LV, once as Hagrid said he has been "trained up a bit". Does this point of view change anyones thoughts on this? (Just a minute, let me hid behind the statues first...);-) Tonks_op From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jan 28 15:48:39 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:48:39 -0000 Subject: Why distrus Lupin? was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123301 > Alshain muses: . Was > that the thing that undermined Remus' trustworthiness? "He's pulled the wool over our eyes once, he can do it again. He was our friend, and he lied to us." Peter, OTOH, was a toady and a fairly dim one at that, but his loyalty was unquestionable. > > Remus seems to have been the better liar, the better actor, the one with more to gain from betraying his friends than Peter (Voldemort was courting the outcasts like the giants), and he *is* a werewolf. James and Sirius at least, Peter too if he had any wizard blood, would have been steeped in horror stories, which gave a foothold to> any anti-Dark creatures propaganda. Finally, with the way people were treating werewolves, I don't blame J & S for thinking that even Remus Lupin could get enough and give in to self-fulfilling prophecies. > Pippin: You said it far better than me. But there's also this: "First think of the person who lives in disguise Who deals in secrets, and tells naught but lies" --GoF ch 31 Pettigrew certainly lives in disguise and he deals in secrets. But he is not a skillful liar.How could he get away with spying for a year? Eliminate the impossible, and what remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Remus was the spy. He did not, of course, betray the secret, *he* was whole reason for the secret-keeper switch. But I think he found out who the real secret-keeper was, probably from Lily. IMO, he told Voldemort, asking for Lily's life in return, and maybe Harry's too, since JKR hints on her website that Voldemort's second didn't know about the prophecy. Pippin who thinks that Remus also had a role in the prank, and Sirius knew it. *That* was the reason they couldn't go to Dumbledore with their suspicions. It would have meant admitting that Sirius really had tried to kill Snape. From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Jan 28 16:31:40 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:31:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123302 > SSSusan: > The key phrase in what you say, for me, is "nothing JKR or anyone > else has said is good enough yet to get him off." But I'm about > 100% certain that the way I'm thinking of that phrase is mightily > different than the way you are. > > I think I *can* still see DD choosing to leave Harry there, even if > he knew how he was being treated, but what I'd need to know is, DID > he check back? If he did and decided what was happening was still > preferable to the risks Harry would face in the WW, I might be able > to live with that. For me, I'm more distressed by the notion that > he might not have checked back at all. And *that's* the part I'd > really like to have JKR explain. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan IMO you are setting up a false set of choices, Susan. That is, you seem to be implying that Albus' only choices are to leave Harry at the Dursleys and not interfere, or else remove him from the Dursleys and place him in the WW. 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. Lupinlore From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 16:33:52 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:33:52 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123303 Eustace: "...still wonder whether the Hogwarts Express and/or Platform 9 3/4 might be vulnerable to an attack. Obviously they are protected from Muggles and undoubtedly there are other magical defenses for the train and the platform too. But we do have some evidence that these defenses are not considered foolproof. In POA, someone apparently felt Sirius Black could have slipped onto the train and hence authorized the Dementors to stop and board. I tend to think this was a genuine fear...the alternative would seem to be that Umbridge or someone else at MoM was trying to eliminate Harry much earlier than we are led to believe in OoP--not impossible, but I don't think we've been given much reason to believe that so far." This would be a place for a general attack on the students, if Voldemort decided that terrorizing the wizard citizenry was the way to go. It would be anothere mistake, IMO. I had in mind a focused attack designed to damage Harry in particular by hurting his friends, which might even serve to lure Harry out into the open. The DE's are much weaker now. We don't know what resources Voldemort has at his disposal. Lucius and the DE's captured at the Ministry may or may not have broken out by the end of the summer holidays. Here's another fear: a move against Hermione or the Weasleys during the summer holidays, when they're away from school altogether. All you'd need is to get Hermione in Bellatrix's clutches and you'd drive Harry out of his mind. Jim Ferer From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 16:36:24 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:36:24 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123304 Tonks now: This reminds me of the training that monks (of XC and Buddist Religion) go through. They live is small cells, basis needs and nothing else. Lot of fasting, etc. This makes them better able to fight the forces of evil within themselves and elsewhere. So Harry gets some of this type of training at the Dursley's. I think the reason others on this list think this is so terrible is that they are seeing Harry as just an ordinary boy and comparing him to Muggle kids in middle or upper middle class homes. But Harry is not an ordinary boy, or an ordinary wizard either. He is a very powerful wizard. The only one that can take on LV, once as Hagrid said he has been "trained up a bit". Does this point of view change anyones thoughts on this? (Just a minute, let me hid behind the statues first...);-) Alla: If your theory is correct, than I am afraid Dumbledore is casted in even more immoral light to me. You are saying that Harry's childhood had only purpose and only purpose only - to train him as weapon and starvation is one of the means for it? Sorry, I refuse to define Harry as weapon only, I think of him as a boy, who MAY have the power to disperse the world of Voldie. As Geoff said in one of his posts - He is only special, because he is chosen for special task. (Sorry, if I misquoted you, Geoff) Accordingly, no need to hide under the statues, but this idea will only worsen my view of Dumbledore, I am afraid. :) JMO, Alla From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Jan 28 16:44:37 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:44:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123305 > > I think even Dumbledore, in hindsight, would agree that he should have > gotten involved at some point to insure better treatment for Harry, > but every time those doubts and concerns came up, Dumbledore just > reminded himself that unpleasant as the Dursley's may be, it is still > the safest place for Harry. > > Also, remember that Dumbledore is administering all this from 500 > miles (fair guess) away over 10 years time, and with a very busy > schedule. I'm not necessarily offering that as an excuse, but it is an > explanation. Conversely, just because it can be explained, doesn't > necessarily mean it should be excused. > > None the less, I think that is at the heart of the matter. From his > distant outpost and with his limted information, Dumbledore just kept > reminding himself that it was best to keep Harry out of the wizard > world and under the protection of his family's blood. > Very good points, Steve. Let me see if I've got your arguments straight. Essentially you are arguing that Dumbledore is a "frog in hot water" in this particular scenario (i.e. if you put a frog in a pot of hot water it'll hop out but if you put it a pot of cold water and gradually turn up the heat it'll sit their until it dies). He keeps reminding himself of the (very real) dangers Harry might face in the WW, and over time let's himself get "used" to the situation. Finally (say in OOTP) he looks back and says something like "how did I ever allow things to come to this?" thus perhaps instigating the confrontation at the train station between the Order and the Dursleys. That is a very believable scenario. Like most such, it explains without, as you say, excusing. However, like most such scenarios it falls afoul of the "epitome of goodness" definition that JKR has laid down for DD. I.E. such neglect does not equal "epitome of goodness." Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 16:47:18 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:47:18 -0000 Subject: Love again...The Lord of the Rings In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123306 Vmonte: > > > Snape reminds me of Gollum. Pippin: Actually, I think Snape is more like Boromir. Don't laugh! I mean, if Boromir had been allowed to live. Deeply repentant, horrified by what he had tried to do, but still envious, still desirous of glory, and still, no matter how much he tries to trust Gandalf, not at all convinced that putting all their futures in the hands of a dunderheaded Gryff-- I mean, a witless Halfling, is a good idea. Alla: LOL, Pippin! Some time ago I wondered whether Snape will have any similarities with Boromir and I REALLY want him to. But I disagree that we know for sure yet, since Snape's motives are unknown mostly. Unfortunately, I also see similarities with Gollum . If Snape will be more like Boromir, the possibility of him being toasted incrreases significantly though. JMO, Alla From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 17:14:42 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:14:42 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123307 justcarol67 Wrote: > But I don't think Harry *can* put his memories > in a Pensieve. Both Dumbledore and Snape can > stick their wands in their hair and pull out > silvery strands of thought--exactly the memory > they want to remove and, in Dumbledore's case, > examine--but they are both skilled Occlumens > (whatever the plural may be). Harry, even after > months of lessons, is a rank beginner. If what you say is true and Snape thought Harry wouldn't be very good at Occlumency in the beginning then Snape was being even more cowardly than I thought to protect his own memories. Eggplant From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Fri Jan 28 17:25:30 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:25:30 -0000 Subject: What will trigger Petunia's magic (Re: Petunia *will* do magic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123308 My guess is that the only thing to make Petunia do magic will be in defence of Dudley. Something will happen to threaten him and she will be forced to take action and her magic will make the choice for her. Casey From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Fri Jan 28 17:32:16 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:32:16 -0000 Subject: Why distrus Lupin? was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123309 > Pippin > who thinks that Remus also had a role in the prank, and Sirius > knew it. *That* was the reason they couldn't go to Dumbledore > with their suspicions. It would have meant admitting that Sirius > really had tried to kill Snape. That's an interesting thought. Although I do believe that Sirius really did try to kill Snape with forethought, it would explain why Remus forgave him. I don't believe in ESE!Remus, but I just can't get past the fact that he didn't tell Dumbledore that Sirius was an anamagus. Especially after he broke into the Gryffindor common room. Casey From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 17:34:02 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:34:02 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six, - his Hit List Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123310 Jim Ferer > That's a big leap [for Percy to make], from self-interested > insecure sycophant to apprentice Death Eater willing to > betray his family to torture and death. In GoF Ron didn't think it was such a big leap for Percy to make, and I'm sure the events in OoP did not alter his dislike, bordering on hatred, for his brother: "Wonder if Percy knows all that stuff about Crouch?" Ron said as they walked up the drive to the castle. "But maybe he doesn't care . . . It'd probably just make him admire Crouch even more. Yeah, Percy loves rules. He'd just say Crouch was refusing to break them for his own son." "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said Hermione severely. "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the way of his career .. . Percy's really ambitious, you know. ..."" > Besides, how do we know he hasn't been under > deep cover for Dumbledore all year It's possible I suppose, it's also possible Umbridge is really a very good person who is also under deep cover, Voldemort too. But I don't think Rowling is likely to do any of these things because none of them would make interesting stories. The Greeks had it right, to make a good rip roaring story you need to throw in a little fratricide matricide and patricide. Eggplant From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 28 17:55:27 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:55:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123312 SSSusan: > > I think I *can* still see DD choosing to leave Harry there, even > > if he knew how he was being treated, but what I'd need to know > > is, DID he check back? If he did and decided what was happening > > was still preferable to the risks Harry would face in the WW, I > > might be able to live with that. For me, I'm more distressed by > > the notion that he might not have checked back at all. And > > *that's* the part I'd really like to have JKR explain. SSSusan note: Steve addressed this issue quite well in 123291 & 129292. Lupinlore added: > IMO you are setting up a false set of choices, Susan. That is, you > seem to be implying that Albus' only choices are to leave Harry at > the Dursleys and not interfere, or else remove him from the > Dursleys and place him in the WW. 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. SSSusan: Fair enough to describe the situation this way, rather than how I previously did. SO now you've gotten me to start considering a whole *new* set of questions. (Oh, joy! :-)) With what power, would you say, could DD MAKE them act better? Do you mean threats of magical punishment? Threats to turn them over to muggle social services? Threats to take Harry away if they don't behave themselves?? What if "willingly" IS a part of the protection equation? If it is, then I see problems with ANY type of threats. Even if "willingly" isn't a necessary component, let's look at it this way. If DD is right about the basic requirement that Harry reside w/ a blood relative, then The Dursleys are DD's only choice. If we're right about the Dursleys' feelings about Harry, then they really don't like him much. So what would they do if DD threatened them in some way? Well, it seems to me they might just say, "Fine. TAKE the damn kid. We won't abide by your 'requirements,' and we don't want the bother of him anymore!" THEN what would DD have done? This whole questioning makes me think that whomever it was who first suggested that DD offered some additional protection for the Dursleys as a whole (or of Dudley at least), in exchange for taking Harry in, was correct. Petunia doesn't seem to want him, but she keeps him, and she tells Vernon he MUST allow Harry to stay. Yet we've seen DD doing no threatening 'til that point; we've seen DD interfering in no way. There must be a REASON Petunia said yes in the first place, short of a threat, and all I can think of is that it was an OFFER, rather than a threat: an offer of protection extending to *them* as long as Harry resides there a part of each year. So now that I've said that, I can anticipate an argument that DD should have tightened the screws a little over the years. Could've said, "Eh, Petunia dear, I see that you're really being quite nasty to little Harry. You'd better straighten up or the protection deal for YOU ALL is off." Then again, if he did that, they might say, "Fine. You take him and we'll fend for ourselves." And then DD is stuck w/o the blood protection for his little protege. If that's the correct scenario [DD offered protection to the Dursleys if they took Harry in], then it's sort of a symbiotic, or perhaps more accurately a co-dependent, relationship: DD needed the Dursleys' help, the Dursleys needed DD's protection, but nobody wanted to push too hard or go too far with demands for fear the other side would balk at the deal. Sheesh. No WONDER DD stayed out of it! Siriusly Snapey Susan From caseylane at wideopenwest.com Fri Jan 28 18:08:54 2005 From: caseylane at wideopenwest.com (Casey) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:08:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123313 SSSusan: This whole questioning makes me think that whomever it was who first suggested that DD offered some additional protection for the Dursleys as a whole (or of Dudley at least), in exchange for taking Harry in, was correct. Petunia doesn't seem to want him, but she keeps him, and she tells Vernon he MUST allow Harry to stay. Yet we've seen DD doing no threatening 'til that point; we've seen DD interfering in no way. There must be a REASON Petunia said yes in the first place, short of a threat, and all I can think of is that it was an OFFER, rather than a threat: an offer of protection extending to *them* as long as Harry resides there a part of each year. Casey: I don't believe Dumbledore added much extra to Lilly's spell. I think the spell protected Harry, but staying with a blood relative kept it active over the years. And with that protection the Dursleys were protected also. I think that Voldemort killed Lilly and Petunia's parents, as well as the Potters. Dumbledore convinced Petunia to keep Harry to protect *her* family with Lilly's spell. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 18:21:06 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:21:06 -0000 Subject: Harry's bit of Voldy - Just a Part In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123314 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > ... > > It's about what really happened at GH (again, again). > When DD and Harry are talking at the end of CoS, after > they've got rid of the Weasleys and Lockhart, and before > Lucius Malfoy interrupts, DD says (I'll quote it again, > for those without their books to hand) > > Chapter 18: Dobby's Reward, p245 UK: > > "You can speak Parseltongue, Harry," said Dumbeldore > calmly, "because Lord Voldemort ? who is the last > remaining descendent [ancestor in my copy] of Salazar > Slytherin ? can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much > mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you > the night he gave you that scar. Not something he > intended to do, I'm sure..." > "Voldemort put a bit of himself in *me*?" Harry said, thunderstruck. > "It certainly seems so." > > Now, what's bothering me is that use of the word 'transferred'. That > implies taking from one place and putting in another. But at the > beginning of GoF, Voldemort can speak Parseltongue too. So he > retained that ability, while giving it to Harry at the same time. > Strictly speaking it should have read "copied", shouldn't it? > > ...edited... > bboyminn: First, I think we need to remember that inner magical essense is a very abstact and intangible thing; almost spiritual in nature, and therefore we can't necessarily make any assumptions about it's nature and how it will or won't behave. While I concede that /magic/ is not tangible, a tangible analogy will still work to make my point. If I loan you a cup of sugar and a pound of flour, that doesn't mean I am then left without sugar or flour. A part of Voldemort's magical essense, in this case, his ability to speak parseltongue could be transferred to Harry without Voldemort being left without that ability. By illustration, Harry speaks parseltongue with difficulty, Voldemort on the other hand speaks it with an easy comfort. That could imply that some portion of Voldemorts ability to speak to snakes was transferred; some portion, but not all. To use a different illustration, Jame Potter could be said to have transferred some of his fine flying and Quidditch ability to his son, but that transfer doesn't leave James without that ability. Since the nature of magical essense is a very mysterious intangible commodity, I don't think we can really say that Voldemort's skills didn't pass in the same nature as James's skills. Another way of looking at it is that some of Voldemort's magical essense was mirrored in Harry by the failed curse; in Harry, we are seeing a /reflection/ of some aspects of Voldemort's power. For a further discussion on the Transfer of Power, see this thread.... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/122358 > dungrollin continues: > > It went something along the lines of: Voldemort didn't transfer > *some* of his powers to Harry, he transferred *all* of his powers to > Harry. Now, whenever Voldy does magic, he has to access his powers > *through* Harry, which is why Harry's scar hurts. > > Much as I like this idea, it doesn't seem (to me) to be a > satisfactory explanation either. Harry's scar wasn't hurting while > Voldy tortured Bertha Jorkins, for example, ... > > ... Any ... thoughts, speculation or full-blown theories would be > very, very welcome. > > Ta, > > Dungrollin bboyminn: I'm not buying that theory either. Although there is some school of thought regarding the end of the series in which Voldemort's death draws all his/Voldemort's magical power out of Harry, and that leaves Harry will little or no magical power of his own -- doomed to live the rest of is life as a muggle or a marginal wizard. It's a nice theory, but not well supported, afteral, Harry's name was in the 'Book' since the day he was born. That implies some magical ability was recognised in him before his encounter with Voldemort. Also, as someone else pointed out, Voldemort engaged in pretty substantial magic before the morning when Harry's scar started hurting. Although, we must consider, that the scar started hurting after Voldemort had gained his ugle_baby!mort body. Perhaps, it was Voldemort gaining a body that completed the connection. Still, I just don't buy Harry's body containing the sum total of all Voldemort's power, and Voldemort accessing it by Scar!Internet connection. On the other hand, I am thoroughly convinced that Harry having some essense of Voldemort is significant, and will somehow come into play in the final resolution. When I ponder mysteries like this, I can't help wondering how JKR can tie up the many loose ends and mysteries remaining in the books. It would seem like it would take two full books even if she dropped the stories and just explained all the loose-ends. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From jferer at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 18:26:14 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:26:14 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six, - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123315 Eggplant, quoting Ron in GoF:<<"Wonder if Percy knows all that stuff about Crouch?" Ron said as they walked up the drive to the castle. "But maybe he doesn't care . . . It'd probably just make him admire Crouch even more. Yeah, Percy loves rules. He'd just say Crouch was refusing to break them for his own son." "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," said Hermione severely. "I don't know," said Ron. "If he thought we were standing in the way of his career .. . Percy's really ambitious, you know. ..."">> I don't see the similarity. Ron is suggesting that Percy might allow a relative to be imprisoned *by the Ministry* if that relative was accused of a crime. Ron is not suggesting that Percy is a nascent DE. Ron's problem with Percy is that, in Ron's view, Percy has turned over his judgement and loyalties to the Ministry. That's not the same as turning his judgement and loyalties over to Lord Voldemort. Eggplant:"It's possible I suppose, it's also possible Umbridge is really a very good person who is also under deep cover, Voldemort too. But I don't think Rowling is likely to do any of these things because none of them would make interesting stories. The Greeks had it right, to make a good rip roaring story you need to throw in a little fratricide matricide and patricide." Actually, it doesn't appear possible that Umbridge is a good person. We've seen too much of her and heard from her own mouth who and what she is. We've seen nothing *inside* of Percy in year five; he looks like a disgusting toady apparatchik. There's no evidence that Percy is spying for Dumbledore, only this: it would be a smart thing for Dumbledore to do and Percy is perfectly placed for it. We haven't seen anything to positively contradict it. And call me dumb, but Percy is a Weasley and a Gryffindor. That counts for something. Jim Ferer From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Jan 28 18:34:03 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:34:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's bit of Voldy (apologies to Snow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123316 Dungrollin, previously: > It went something along the lines of: Voldemort > didn't transfer *some* of his powers to Harry, he > transferred *all* of his powers to Harry. Now, > whenever Voldy does magic, he has to access his > powers *through* Harry, which is why Harry's scar > hurts. > > Much as I like this idea, it doesn't seem (to me) > to be a satisfactory explanation either. Harry's > scar wasn't hurting while Voldy tortured Bertha > Jorkins, for example, it only got around to hurting > when he murdered Frank Bryce. I suppose you could > make the excuse that Voldy was in Albania with > Bertha, but in England with Frank, though I'd bear > in mind Snape's words that although "Time and space > matter in magic, Potter [...] The usual rules do > not seem to apply with you..." (OotP, chapter 24: > Occlumency, p469, UK) Finwitch: About that -- Pettigrew used Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric Diggory, on Voldemort's orders. So the rat IS able to do serious bit of powerful dark magic (at least if he's using Voldemort's wand). If it was the rat, rather than Voldemort in person who tortured poor Bertha Jorkins, your theory holds. Maybe Voldemort was even posessing Pettigrew at that time and using his powers rather than Harry's. Dungrollin: Could be, could be... I found what I was looking for in the archives (from not so long ago, actually), and it wasn't Carol's theory, it was from Snow ? sorry Snow, I've got a memory like a ... a ... wossname. It starts at post 121617 "Satellite!Harry". See, I'm liking this theory very much, but I'm afraid it's just not quite neat enough to completely convince me. There are hints that Voldy did torture and kill Bertha and *didn't* possess Wormtail to do it ? GoF, chapter 1: The Riddle House. Voldy says: "I killed Bertha because I had to. She was fit for nothing after my questioning, quite useless [...] But Memory Charms can be broken by a powerful wizard, as I proved when I questioned her. It would be an insult to her *memory* not to use the information I extracted from her, Wormtail." GoF, chapter 34: Veritaserum. Barty Crouch says: "My master had found out that I was still alive. He had captured Bertha Jorkins in Almbaina. He had tortured her. [...] He tortured her until he broke through the Memory Charm my father had placed upon her." GoF, chapter 33: The Death Eaters. Voldy says: "... but the means I used to break the Memory Charm upon her were powerful, and when I had extracted all useful information from her, her mind and body were both damaged beyond repair. She had now served her purpose. I could not possess her. I disposed of her [...] Wormtail's body, of course, was ill-adapted for possession, as all assumed him dead, and would attract far too much attention if seen." Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Voldy didn't possess Wormtail briefly in order to torture and kill Bertha, but Voldy also says: "Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body I would be able to inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth [...] 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." Which suggests that he became Voldy!baby in Albania before making his way back to England. (It also suggests, by the way, that Nagini was in Albania with him). And we know for sure that as Voldy!baby he can cast an AK, because he kills Frank Bryce. So it's quite possible that it was Voldy!baby, rather than Wormtail who tortured and killed Bertha. And finally, GoF, chapter 35: Veritaserum, "It was very quick. My father was placed under the Imperius curse by my master. My master forced him to go about his business as usual..." It could be argued that Barty Crouch is saying "my master" when what he means is "my master ordered Wormtail to...", except that after that he changes to: "You needed Alastor Moody," said Dumbledore. His blue eyes were blazing, though his voice remained calm. [Crouch replies] "Wormtail and I did it." So I see no reason to disbelieve Barty Crouch's implication that Voldy!baby was using magic (particularly as he was under Veritaserum at the time), that he used the Imperius curse on Crouch senior; but Harry didn't feel his scar hurt when it happened. Finwitch: And the fact that Voldemort lost it - all powers except for the ability to possess... Perhaps because Lily's love prevented that power from entering into Harry - after all, Harry's great love for Sirius was what kept Voldemort from possessing him. Dungrollin: (Sorry, by the way: I always seem to be disagreeing with you, Finwitch.) I'm not sure that Voldy being unable to possess Harry is really analogous to Harry being able to receive the power to possess from Voldy. Why did Lily's sacrifice only protect him from that and not from being a Parselmouth? Finwitch: Of course, after using Harry's blood for the resurrection potion-- Voldemort got the copy of his own powers, added with those Harry was born with. Dungrollin: Hmm, not convinced by this one either, I'm afraid. If Voldy now has Harry's powers that should include the power that "the Dark Lord knows not", which would either have killed him because it's incompatible with general Voldyness, or would mean he shouldn't have had any difficulties in possessing Harry in the MoM. However, going back to my original problem with "transferred" rather than "copied" it occurs to me that if we're dealing with Possessed! Tom, (Tom Riddle possessed by the spirit of Salazar Slytherin = Voldemort) the powers that Slytherin and Riddle had in common (parseltongue and probably some others) would already be present in double dose. If, when the AK (or whatever) rebounded on Voldy ripping him from his body, the experiment that worked made his spirit shed all non-essentials, those powers that he had two lots of could have (insert convincing mechanism here) ended up in Harry. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced by Possessed!Tom. Dungrollin Sure (as usual) that she's missed something obvious. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 18:34:47 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:34:47 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123317 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Alla: > > If your theory is correct, than I am afraid Dumbledore is casted in even more immoral light to me. You are saying that Harry's childhood had only purpose and only purpose only - to train him as weapon and starvation is one of the means for it? Tonks here: I am not saying that DD planned it that way. As has been said by others DD had no choice to put Harry with the Dursleys. It was the only way to save his life. (Just accept that as a fact.) What I am saying is that sometimes things have a way of working out for the best in the long run. Now I am not using the argument that you sometimes hear well meaning people say when some terrible thing happens and it turns out OK in the end. It was not the will of the gods, or God or even DD. But good can come out of a bad situation. The situation is not set up that way. It is not set up to have good come. But as they say "when life gives you a lemon, make lemonade." So what I am saying is that Harry had a hard time at the Dursley's, and the side effect of that was the same as the training that a monk gets. And that is good, because it prepared him to fight evil. I guess Harry could have rebelled against the treatment that he had and become an angry juvenile delinquent or something, but he didn't. He accepted things as they were and in coping with the situation, it made him stronger. Do you really think that the story would have the same impact if He had been just as spoiled as Dudley? "Rich brat becomes Super Hero" No, I don't think so. Super Heroes never start out that way, they usually have some sort of tragic beginning. Tonks_op From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 18:47:21 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:47:21 -0000 Subject: Abusive Crouch!Moody - Perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123318 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > ...edited... > > >>Nicky Joe: > > >I think the reason no one is crying "child abuse" in this scene is > because we all know Crouch!Moody is as evil as Voldemort and Draco > probably got off easy. And because Draco is a nasty little sucker > and most of us would like to see him snapped in half as much as > Harry would.< > Betsy: > Oh, I don't think getting dropped from 10 feet in the air is > really "getting off easy." I felt a lot of sympathy towards Draco > in this instance, especially after realizing that he was targeted > with such violent anger because of something his father did. > > Betsy bboyminn: Let's not lose sight of the fact that Draco cursed Harry while Harry's back was turned, and part of Crouch!Moody's anger was at Draco's cowardly attack. Let also remember that wizards are very resilient; example, Neville being casually dropped out a second story window and bouncing down the driveway, or Harry falling 50 feet from his broom. In addition, in Draco's magically transformed Ferret-form, he may not have been as vulnerable to physical harm. Although, it's clear he did suffer both physical and emotional pain from the incident. It's also clear he suffered no real damage and required no medical attention. I'm not excusing what Crouch!Moody did, I'm just trying to keep it in perspective. Steve/bboyminn From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 18:54:34 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:54:34 -0000 Subject: Why distrus Lupin? was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123319 Casey: > I don't believe in ESE!Remus, but I just can't get past the fact > that he didn't tell Dumbledore that Sirius was an anamagus. > Especially after he broke into the Gryffindor common room. Finwitch: Well, to me it's rather clear. A part - however small part - of Remus believed Sirius never betrayed James. He was there during their school years. He *knew* how very close James and Sirius were. In addition, I believe he read the paper - not as keenly as Sirius - but subconciously I think he did notice the rat - the rat lacking a finger. It came to a choice. Choice between Dumbledore and Sirius, or should I say, the old, permitting headmaster and Padfoot. Dumbledore was one who allowed him education and later a job - something which Remus feels everyone *should* do. Most likely because Dumbledore just wasn't for anti-werewolf bigotry. Well, neither were his friends. Definately not. Padfoot & others gave him *friendship*. While he had expected him and James (never mind Peter) to turn against him (that werewolf bigotry) - they didn't. Instead, they went trough all the trouble of hard study for nearly three years *just for him*, so they could be with him, transforming as well. And where there was no Wolfsbane, the company of his animagi-friends was the only thing that allowed him enough mind to make choices... Nah - even though Remus was logically suspecting Sirius - well, I think he couldn't so much as think of Padfoot without feeling the foursome, their time together etc. (that was what started the animagi- business after all), the strongest friendship - in other words, betraying Padfoot was emotionally equal to betraying the concept of friendship. Finwitch From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 19:10:15 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:10:15 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123320 Tonks here: I am not saying that DD planned it that way. As has been said by others DD had no choice to put Harry with the Dursleys. It was the only way to save his life. (Just accept that as a fact.) Alla: Lupinlore said it actually, but I'll say it again - I do accept it as the reason for doing it initally . What I don't accept is the fact that Dumbledore did not do anything to ease it during the next ten years. Tonks: What I am saying is that sometimes things have a way of working out for the best in the long run. Now I am not using the argument that you sometimes hear well meaning people say when some terrible thing happens and it turns out OK in the end. It was not the will of the gods, or God or even DD. But good can come out of a bad situation. The situation is not set up that way. It is not set up to have good come. But as they say "when life gives you a lemon, make lemonade." So what I am saying is that Harry had a hard time at the Dursley's, and the side effect of that was the same as the training that a monk gets. And that is good, because it prepared him to fight evil. I guess Harry could have rebelled against the treatment that he had and become an angry juvenile delinquent or something, but he didn't. He accepted things as they were and in coping with the situation, it made him stronger. Do you really think that the story would have the same impact if He had been just as spoiled as Dudley? "Rich brat becomes Super Hero" No, I don't think so. Super Heroes never start out that way, they usually have some sort of tragic beginning. Alla: Ummmm, yes, absolutely good can come out of bad. I don't see how it is relevant though to the initial assesment of the situation. Sure, sufferings made Harry stronger. Does it mean that because of that what Dumbledore did was OK? Not to me, sorry. And one more thing - I DON'T see Harry as Super!Hero, sorry. I most certainly see him as human. I am also not quite sure why you offer only two alternatives - either abused or as spoiled as Dursley. How about if due to Dumbledore's interference Dursleys would not be treating Harry as harshly as they were and leave it at that. JMO, Alla From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 19:46:31 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:46:31 -0000 Subject: Harry's bit of Voldy (apologies to Snow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123321 > Finwitch: > And the fact that Voldemort lost it - all powers except for the > ability to possess... Perhaps because Lily's love prevented that > power from entering into Harry - after all, Harry's great love for > Sirius was what kept Voldemort from possessing him. > > Dungrollin: > (Sorry, by the way: I always seem to be disagreeing with you, > Finwitch.) I'm not sure that Voldy being unable to possess Harry is > really analogous to Harry being able to receive the power to possess > from Voldy. Why did Lily's sacrifice only protect him from that and > not from being a Parselmouth? Because ability to converse with snakes is not a dark art - even if many who had it were dark wizards. It's simply a language which some rare wizards and all snakes can speak, that's all. Possession, OTOH, as it eats away the (soul of) Possessed Being to death is too dark to get trough the Light of Love. > Dungrollin: > Hmm, not convinced by this one either, I'm afraid. If Voldy now has > Harry's powers that should include the power that "the Dark Lord > knows not", which would either have killed him because it's > incompatible with general Voldyness, or would mean he shouldn't have > had any difficulties in possessing Harry in the MoM. Finwitch: The prophecy says 'power the dark lord knows not' - it doesn't say 'power the dark lord has not'. Voldemort simply didn't know that power existed in Harry. Of course, the powers LV got by Harry's blood - well, that doesn't reach to any powers Harry gained *later on*. And Sirius had a great deal to do with that. just before Voldemort attempted the possession, Sirius fell trough the Veil (or Harry thinks he did). The extreme emotions - which happened to be rising during the year simply weren't there when Voldemort took the blood, because Harry was too young - and strongest among those was Harry's love for Sirius, greatly amplified due to grief and loss. Ah.. Emotional pain. Voldemort can deal easily with physical pain - like a crucio - but emotional pain, now that he cannot stand. It's a funny sort of power- demonic entities like Voldemort can't stand the pain included. (and Harry's not very good at dealing with it either, but at least Harry's *learning* how...). Finwitch From delwynmarch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 19:48:10 2005 From: delwynmarch at yahoo.com (delwynmarch) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:48:10 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry save the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123322 Just hopping back on the forum, I didn't mean to participate, but this one bothers me : Alla wrote: " Why does Harry have a duty to save WW? I am not talking about metathinking look at all - because Harry is the hero of the story, etc. I am asking why Harry who does not know that he is the main character in the books has a duty to save WW, who , IMO treats him quite horribly from times to times." "My main argument was that Harry was NOT given the possibility to exercise the conscious choice of whether to be a Hero or not (...) while at the same time Harry is being blamed for acting selfishly and immaturely in OOP. It had been said that his behaviour could cost WW the war, so in that context I was asking - why should Harry care, when they treat him that badly AND force him to be their weapon?" "What I DO disagree with is the argument that Harry has ANY obligation to WW in general and therefore he had no right to be angry in OOP, especially when Harry did not even know that he is the Order most precious weapon. It should be Harry's CHOICE, not something that is forced upon him." Del replies: It's in cases like that that it is useful to get out of this forum for a while. Because then the first answer that comes to your mind when considering such question is : Harry is not being forced to do or be anything. Consider the 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..." Several things come to my mind when reading this prophecy : 1. This Prophecy doesn't mention anything about saving the WW. It talks only of a very private battle between Harry and LV only. For example, the WW could already be extinct when this happens, or it could happen in 50 years at a time when both Harry and LV will be forgotten from the WW public and it won't even make the news. 2. The only time when it mentions an obligation is when it says that either Harry or LV must die at the hand of the other. But this is not a *moral* obligation. The Prophecy doesn't try and force Harry to do anything : it just tells him that either he will kill LV or LV will kill him, period (according to the most widely accepted understanding of this passage). 3. The Prophecy doesn't impose any kind of duty on Harry. It doesn't say that Harry has to make ANY choice. It says that Harry will be born with a special power, and it mentions some choices that LV will make. But it doesn't say ANYTHING about Harry making choices. So the way this Prophecy is written: 1. Harry doesn't have to make any specific choice. He can choose to wait for LV to come, he can choose to become a saint, or he can choose to become a DE, and the end result will still be the same as far as the Prophecy is concerned : kill LV or be killed. 2. He also doesn't have to develop any specific mentality : the Prophecy says he can vanquish LV, not that he will become the Saviour of the WW or anything like that. Technically, Harry could vanquish LV and then take his place, and he would still fulfill the Prophecy. 3. He doesn't have to develop any kind of ability or power, because he was BORN with the power to vanquish LV. There might be *people* forcing things on Harry, like DD. But they are pulling those obligations out of thin air, because the only basis for them is the Prophecy, which does NOT mention those obligations *at all*. Harry is perfectly free to be and become whatever he wants. He has a pretty unusual circumstance in his life in that he has a would-be Evil Overlord breathing down his neck, but he is in no way obliged to make this circumstance the center of his life. Some people are born with a disability, or with the "wrong" skin colour, but they don't have to make that characteristic the center of their life. Harry is restricted in his choices because of the shadow of LV, but who isn't restricted by something or other? There are many people who lived in circumstances where their lives were daily at risk for example, but they didn't necessarily stop working for the life of their dreams because of that. In OoP, Harry was very restricted in his moves by Umbridge and the Order, but that didn't keep him from doing his best to live the life he wanted. Now that he knows about the Prophecy, there's no reason he shouldn't keep on doing just that: live the life he wants, as much as his circumstances permit. The only thing the Prophecy tells Harry is that *at some time* in his life, he will have to either kill LV or be killed by him. That's it. It doesn't tell him that he has to build his life around this fact or that he must take each step in his life with this one single idea in mind. It doesn't even tell him that he will have any influence on whether he or LV will die! For all we know, maybe it will all depend on whether *LV*, not Harry, will do something in particular. Or maybe it will all be an accident and Harry will end up killing LV while trying to do something else entirely. Just because DD built Harry's life around the fact that Harry is the one with the power to vanquish LV doesn't mean that Harry has to do so too. He hasn't done so until now for obvious reasons, and yet he managed very well with LV. Maybe the only choice Harry has to make is to go on with his life as though LV was nothing more than an annoying buzz in the back of his head? Maybe *this* is the path that will lead him to somehow defeat LV in the end? After all, if Harry builds his entire life around defeating LV, what will be left to him when he does defeat LV?? And where will he find the whatever it will take to defeat LV if he doesn't have anything to fight for, anything to look forward to? We must remember that it was because he *had* something, or rather someone, to look forward to that he managed to kick LV out of his body at the end of OoP. If Harry hadn't had the perspective of seeing Sirius again, he might never have been able to summon the surge of love that drove LV out of his body. It could be that *this* was the reason Sirius had to die : so that Harry would realise where his strength comes from and how to summon it. And this would mean that, far from cutting himself from his friends and getting into some military routine, Harry would on the contrary have to delve even more deeply into his "normal" life, because this normalcy is what can trigger his special power. Am I missing something? Del From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 20:01:44 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:01:44 -0000 Subject: Abusive Crouch!Moody - Perspective In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123323 Steve: > In addition, in Draco's magically transformed Ferret-form, he may not > have been as vulnerable to physical harm. Although, it's clear he did > suffer both physical and emotional pain from the incident. It's also > clear he suffered no real damage and required no medical attention. > > I'm not excusing what Crouch!Moody did, I'm just trying to keep it in > perspective. > Finwitch: We don't know what the real Moody would have done - having seen Draco send a curse at Harry. He may well have turned him into a Ferret (from an experienced, scarred (reputedly paranoid) Auror, that would have been a *reflex* - to save Harry), AND, just like Crouch!Moody, asked Harry that very question. 'Did he get you?'. It's that *bouncing* I find questionable. Dunno, perhaps even the real Moody would have used that manner to punish Draco, but oh well. Finwitch From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 20:01:12 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:01:12 -0000 Subject: Imperius Resistance & Occlumency -Revelation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123324 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > > Betsy: > > I'm not sure I understand this, are you saying that if Harry sees > > someone murdered, his emotional reaction to that would somehow > > give Voldemort power? Because Harry did see Cedric murdered and > > during the battle at the MoM I don't think that memory was ever > > called up. > Carol responds: > It does come up and it's one of the moments when Snape gets angry > with Harry. "You are handing me weapons!" he says, indicating that > Harry *should* be resisting and isn't. Sorry I don't remember which > chapter it's in, but Snape is very definitely displeased that Harry > has let him see such an important and powerful memory and is trying > to get across to Harry that such a memory in the hands of Voldemort > would be a very dangerous weapon. > > Carol bboyminn: I think the problem that is occuring in this scene is that Harry can't see the harm in the mental images (thoughts & memories). They are, afterall, his own memories and he can see them whenever he wants too. So why is this situation any different? ...other than Snape can see them too. It is clear however that when Harry sees a memory that he feels is personal and private, he can cut it off. Let me diverge for a moment, and I hope teachers will back me up on this, a teacher's true job is not explanation (the transfer of data), it's revelation; to bring about a revelation from within the student. In a sense, the lessons that come from within ourselves are the lessons we learn best. So a teachers job is not simply to explain, but to bring students to that "Eureka! I get it!" point. Harry can't see the harm in those curious images, so he only cuts off those selective memories that he doesn't want people to see. What Snape is trying to tell (explain to) Harry is that he must completely close his mind. He can't risk selectively choosing images, because he can't know in advance what thoughts and memories Voldemort will be able to exploit. In addition, for Harry to have seen the beginning of a memory, also means that his interrogator has seen that first glimpse of a sensitive memory, and can therefore use it against him. The fact that Harry cut that particular memory off would be an indication that it was a memory that had power and potential to be used against him. So, it's best to not let any memories out, because that guarantees that your interogator will not have any weapons to use against you. The problem is that Snape is explaining this in the most blunt and demanding way. He is flat out, angrily, telling Harry to do it. But Snape is making no effort to push Harry to the point of revelation. He is not taking the time to teach Harry this vital and critial point until Harry reaches that "I get it!" moment. Not 'I get it' as in "Yes... yes... I hear what you are saying, so shut up about it', but that internal blinking on of the light of revelation where Harry internally from his own mind becomes enlightened to the idea. Snape's blunt and demanding teaching style is understandable given the animosity between them, and I'm sure each of them is frustrated by the fact that, specifically and in general, the other party certainly doesn't 'get it'. I suspect that if Harry and Snape were on more benevolent terms, Snape would indeed patiently (in his own Snapely way) take the time to push Harry towards revelation. But under the circumstances Snape bluntly tells Harry what to do, but fails to explain the situation to the point that Harry fully understands. I'm sure Snape thinks, subconsciously, that Harry gets it, but is being stubborn and deliberately uncooperative, or just plain lazy. Because of their mutual animosity, their hard feeling push them farther and farther from /revelation/ just when revelation is exactly what is needed most. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bob.oliver at cox.net Fri Jan 28 20:24:59 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:24:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123325 > > > SSSusan: > Fair enough to describe the situation this way, rather than how I > previously did. SO now you've gotten me to start considering a whole > *new* set of questions. (Oh, joy! :-)) > > With what power, would you say, could DD MAKE them act better? Do > you mean threats of magical punishment? Threats to turn them over to > muggle social services? Threats to take Harry away if they don't > behave themselves?? How about a howler saying "Let the kid out of the closet?" How about an observation that the best way to appreciate mushrooms is to BE one for a weekend? How about simply doing the same thing the Order did at the end of OOTP and saying "If you treat this child horribly you'll have me to answer to."? > What if "willingly" IS a part of the protection equation? If it is, > then I see problems with ANY type of threats. Granted. But we don't know that yet and THAT is why Albus is still on the hook. If indeed Petunia drove a VERY hard bargain that Albus accepted with a VERY heavy heart (and both of those VERY's have to be there) I would say then that Albus IS off the hook. But that brings up the problem of the end of OOTP. If it is not OK to threaten the Dursleys in the past, why is it now? > > Even if "willingly" isn't a necessary component, let's look at it > this way. If DD is right about the basic requirement that Harry > reside w/ a blood relative, then The Dursleys are DD's only choice. > If we're right about the Dursleys' feelings about Harry, then they > really don't like him much. So what would they do if DD threatened > them in some way? Well, it seems to me they might just say, "Fine. > TAKE the damn kid. We won't abide by your 'requirements,' and we > don't want the bother of him anymore!" Once again, we don't know. But I find it hard to believe that Albus would have been totally without the ability to bribe/threaten, cajole even in this scenario. > > THEN what would DD have done? > > This whole questioning makes me think that whomever it was who first > suggested that DD offered some additional protection for the Dursleys > as a whole (or of Dudley at least), in exchange for taking Harry in, > was correct. Petunia doesn't seem to want him, but she keeps him, > and she tells Vernon he MUST allow Harry to stay. Yet we've seen DD > doing no threatening 'til that point; we've seen DD interfering in no > way. There must be a REASON Petunia said yes in the first place, > short of a threat, and all I can think of is that it was an OFFER, > rather than a threat: an offer of protection extending to *them* as > long as Harry resides there a part of each year. > > So now that I've said that, I can anticipate an argument that DD > should have tightened the screws a little over the years. Could've > said, "Eh, Petunia dear, I see that you're really being quite nasty > to little Harry. You'd better straighten up or the protection deal > for YOU ALL is off." Then again, if he did that, they might > say, "Fine. You take him and we'll fend for ourselves." And then DD > is stuck w/o the blood protection for his little protege. Which once again in no way lets DD off the moral hook and in fact shoves him on deeper. I'm sorry Susan, but if DD had any form of leverage and didn't use it, he is a party to child abuse, nothing more . > > If that's the correct scenario [DD offered protection to the Dursleys > if they took Harry in], then it's sort of a symbiotic, or perhaps > more accurately a co-dependent, relationship: DD needed the Dursleys' > help, the Dursleys needed DD's protection, but nobody wanted to push > too hard or go too far with demands for fear the other side would > balk at the deal. Sheesh. No WONDER DD stayed out of it! > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Once again, it would be understandable but in no way clears him of the moral outrage of participation in child abuse, and in fact deepens his complicity. The ONLY way Albus can get off is if he had no leverage whatsoever he might have used to make Harry's life with the Dursleys better. Lupinlore From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 28 20:29:17 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:29:17 -0000 Subject: In defence of Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123326 Geoff: > This is so reminiscent of the way in which people in real > situations have, by their reactions to oppression, have changed the > mind set of those around them. Think of those unknown people in, > say, the French Resistance, who risked everything to disrupt the > German occupation. Think of folk like Claus von Stauffenberg..., or > Dietrich Bonhoeffer.... Think of the lady (I fear I forget her > name) who refused to give up a bus seat in Birmingham, Alabama and > sowed the seeds of the Civil Rights movement in the USA in the > 1960s. Real world history is replete with figures who opposed > dictators ? both petty and great ? regardless of the possible > dangers. SSSusan: Rosa Parks, Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955. Geoff: > My other point is that those people who say that Harry deserved > what he got are looking at things with the benefit of hindsight. > Dolores Umbridge is introduced at the beginning of OOTP as an > ambivalent and sinister figure. She is a shadowy figure at the > Wizengamot hearing and our first real look at her makes her a > suspicious figure.... > > Then at Hogwarts, she effectively elbows Dumbledore out of the way > to deliver her "Party Political Broadcast" speech, which again > produces some interesting reactions; warning bells seem to ring for > both Hermione and Minerva McGonagall. > > What is not obvious at this point though is the inhuman and vicious > way in which she will attack anyone who shows the slightest > opposition to her authority. > > What was totally out of order was Umbridge's barbaric treatment of > Harry, the draconian measures she announces at any sign of > disagreement, her calculated humiliation of Hagrid both at first > meeting and in class, her treatment of Trelawney and her attempted > punishment of Fred and George. > > Harry stuck his neck out, not because he wanted a war with her but > because he was trying to set the record straight and rescue his own > position. SSSusan: Geoff, while I agree with you that folks may have been arguing with the benefit of hindsight in the Harry/DJU scenario (by knowing the things DJU would eventually do & stand for), and while I agree that in the FIRST instance of Harry's standing up to DJU, it was understandable, justified, right, and all of that, I know that what I was arguing when we discussed this was what happened *after* the first instance & the first round of detentions. Once McGonagall gave Harry the warning to lie low, once she told him that crossing DJU could cost him much more than house points & detention, once she told him more was at stake than who was telling the truth and who was telling lies, from THEN on I think Harry can be blamed for not setting aside the issue of justice or tyranny or personal reputation in the name of keeping himself and his allies safely entrenched at Hogwarts. Siriusly Snapey Susan From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 20:53:36 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:53:36 -0000 Subject: DD knew Moody=Barty Crouch before Polyjuice expired In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123327 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, caesian wrote: > > Why does Dumbledore request that Professor Snape retrieve Winky > > from the kitchens BEFORE the polyjuice potion had worn off? I > > cannot think of a good reason for her to be present except that > > the imposter was Barty Crouch Jr. > > > > Carol responds: > Here's my take on this. ....edited... > > ...huge snip... > > ... Barty Jr. also comes into the picture at this point but DD does > not yet make the connection. He tells Harry that he doesn't know > whether young Barty was guilty or not, and he has no reason to > suspect that the boy didn't die in Azkaban. > > ...snip more great analysis... > > But when Harry disappears after the Third Task, DD realizes that the > Impossible though it seems, the imposter must be Barty Crouch Jr., > convicted by his own father of being a Death Eater. DD's action in > sending Snape for Winky as well as for the veritaserum shows > how confident he is that he has arrived at the correct conclusion. > ...edited... > > Carol, bboyminn: Most excellent analysis Carol, very good indeed, and I'm with you all the way. However, there is one small clue you forgot. And, oddly, it is probably a clue we all forgot because we, as readers, have TOO MUCH information; information that Dumbledore doesn't have. Listen to these bit and pieces that Harry tells Dumbledore... --GOF, Am Ed, HB, pg 558-- "What did Mr. Crouch say, Harry?" said Dumbledore... "Said he wants to warn you... ...said he's done something terrible... ...HE MENTIONED HIS SON... (my emphasis) ...and Bertha Jorkins... .-- and Voldemort... ... something about Voldemort getting stronger..." --- end this part --- So, Harry did drop a clue about Crouch Sr. son. We know the details of how the reference to Barty Jr was made, but Dumbledore does not, all he knows is that Barty Sr mentioned his son in connection with 'something terrible' that Barty Sr has done, and has made a further connection to Voldemort. Later, in a coversation with Ron and Hermione, Harry reenforces what he said to Dumbledore and points out that [pg 565] '...he seemed to think his wife and son were still alive...'. This occurs in the Owlery when they are sending a note to Sirius, a note which may have contained not just a reference to Crouch Sr mentioning his son, but also thinking that his son was still alive. '...he's done something terrible...' '...he wants to warn Dumbledore...' '...he mentioned his son...' '...he seemed to think his son was still alive...' The connection to Crouch Sr was pretty strong by the end of the third task, and a hint was drop about Crouch's son being related to the terrible thing Crouch wanted to warn Dumbledore about. As an aside, everyone knows that Moody is odd and eccentric, but I suspect that Dumbledore was starting to notice odd inconsistencies, that didn't prove anything, but added to Dumbledore suspicions. I think when Dumbledore sent for Winky, he wasn't necessarily certain that Fake!Moody was Crouch Jr, but he has sufficient suspicious to warrant the elf being there when the Polyjuice wore off. If it wasn't Barty Jr, then there was no purpose, but certainly no harm, in having the elf present. However, if it was Barty Jr, it's possible the elf might be able to help; directly or indirectly, willingly or unwillingly. So, I think Dumbledore had reasonable suspicion at that point, but I don't think he knew with absolute certainty that it was Barty Jr. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 28 21:11:24 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:11:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123328 SSSusan: > > If that's the correct scenario [DD offered protection to the > > Dursleys if they took Harry in], then it's sort of a symbiotic, > > or perhaps more accurately a co-dependent, relationship: DD > > needed the Dursleys' help, the Dursleys needed DD's protection, > > but nobody wanted to push too hard or go too far with demands for > > fear the other side would balk at the deal. Sheesh. No WONDER > > DD stayed out of it! Lupinlore: > Once again, it would be understandable but in no way clears him of > the moral outrage of participation in child abuse, and in fact > deepens his complicity. The ONLY way Albus can get off is if he > had no leverage whatsoever he might have used to make Harry's life > with the Dursleys better. SSSusan: Okay, but I feel that you're not really addressing what I'm saying. I *know* you're very upset about Harry's treatment and that DD did nothing about it. But I'm saying WHAT IF DD couldn't push too hard because the Dursleys might just BACK OUT OF THE DEAL, might just say - - oh, maybe, for instance, when Harry was age 5 or age 7? -- "We don't CARE anymore. He's yours!" If DD thought that was a real possibility, then he has very little leverage. So what could DD have done then? How would he have protected little Harry? That's what I would like to know: if the Dursleys had backed out, what options would have been available to DD for ensuring Harry's safety? Yeah, it's a hypothetical, but at this point, with the limitations on what we know about those 10 years, it's all hypothetical. Might as well address this one, which seems like a plausible set-up -- that the Dursleys could have back out. Siriusly Snapey Susan From mercy_72476 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 21:19:46 2005 From: mercy_72476 at yahoo.com (Lisa (Jennings) Mamula) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:19:46 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123329 Maybe this question has been posed before, but I haven't seen it here. If this is the case, please point me toward the appropriate thread and forgive my ignorance. :) 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. Vernon -- Also no mention of parents (that I remember). Vernon and Petunia (and Marge) being the way they were toward Dudley, surely Vernon's parents would have been just as doting (read: disgusting). So where are they? Just wondering what you all know/think. LisaMarie From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Jan 28 21:35:18 2005 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:35:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123330 > SSSusan: > Okay, but I feel that you're not really addressing what I'm saying. I *know* you're very upset about Harry's treatment and that DD did nothing about it. But I'm saying WHAT IF DD couldn't push too hard because the Dursleys might just BACK OUT OF THE DEAL, might just say -- oh, maybe, for instance, when Harry was age 5 or age 7? -- "We don't CARE anymore. He's yours!" If DD thought that was a real possibility, then he has very little leverage. So what could DD have done then? How would he have protected little Harry? That's what I would like to know: if the Dursleys had backed out, what options would have been available to DD for ensuring Harry's safety? Potioncat: I think SSSusan is on the right track. This is a universe where a child can be magically made to participate in a dangerous competition because his name was put in a goblet. No matter that he wasn't the one who entered his name. This is a universe where a house-elf is magically freed if he is given clothing, even if the wizard didn't mean to give him the clothing. Harry's protected at the Durleys as long as he can call it home, but if they kick him out, he's done for. I think DD had to weigh the risks, and this was his best choice. From dk59us at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 21:54:09 2005 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:54:09 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123331 Eustace_Scrubb opined: >>I still wonder whether the Hogwarts Express and/or Platform 9 3/4 >>might be vulnerable to an attack. Jim Ferer: > This would be a place for a general attack on the students, if > Voldemort decided that terrorizing the wizard citizenry was the way > to go. It would be anothere mistake, IMO. Eustace_Scrubb: I agree that it would likely be a strategic mistake. But it seems like a mistake Voldemort would be all too likely to make. He seems to have trouble learning from his mistakes. Despite the evidence that Harry is the biggest threat to him, Voldemort continues to fear Dumbledore more than he does Harry. Not that it's a bad idea to fear Dumbledore...after all, despite the DEs disastrous miscalculation of the students' ability to resist them, their mission was close to succeeding until the Order members arrived. And at the very least the DEs would probably have gotten away--and no one would have seen Voldemort--had Dumbledore not arrived. (A pretty result that would have been: the Department of Mysteries ransacked by Harry Potter, some misguided fellow students, a werewolf, a discredited ex-Auror...all with ties to Dumbledore. And some cockamamey story about Death Eaters luring them there. Tonks and Shacklebolt would have had to act as if they were apprehending their Order friends or risk being outed as DD supporters. Can you say A-Z-K-A-B-A-N, boys and girls? I knew you could.) Jim Ferer: > Here's another fear: a move against Hermione or the Weasleys during > the summer holidays, when they're away from school altogether. All > you'd need is to get Hermione in Bellatrix's clutches and you'd > drive Harry out of his mind. Eustace_Scrubb: Agreed, and wasn't this in part why Ron and Hermione spent most of last summer at Grimmauld Place rather than at their homes. I can't imagine that Dumbledore would willingly leave them more exposed during the summer before 6th year. Not that their defenses are necessarily invulnerable, of course. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From snow15145 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 22:49:51 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:49:51 -0000 Subject: Harry's bit of Voldy (apologies to Snow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123332 Dungrollin: Could be, could be... I found what I was looking for in the archives (from not so long ago, actually), and it wasn't Carol's theory, it was from Snow ? sorry Snow, I've got a memory like a ... a ... wossname. It starts at post 121617 "Satellite!Harry". See, I'm liking this theory very much, but I'm afraid it's just not quite neat enough to completely convince me. Snow: I had a feeling from your last post that you may have been talking about that thread. It's no wonder you couldn't remember exactly who it was with something like 130,000 posters and yet you came very close with remembering Carol was involved in the discussion and succeeded in finding it. I think that defiantly says quite a lot for your ability to remember as well as to maneuver through the dreaded Yahoomort. Hat's off to you, well done. Dungrollin: There are hints that Voldy did torture and kill Bertha and *didn't* possess Wormtail to do it ? GoF, chapter 33: The Death Eaters. Voldy says: "... but the means I used to break the Memory Charm upon her were powerful, and when I had extracted all useful information from her, her mind and body were both damaged beyond repair. She had now served her purpose. I could not possess her. I disposed of her [...] Wormtail's body, of course, was ill-adapted for possession, as all assumed him dead, and would attract far too much attention if seen." Snow: I believe Voldemort is talking future tense when he says that Wormtail's body was ill adept for possession because he explains in what context his body is ill adapted; "as all assumed him dead, and would attract far too much attention if seen." It is the *if seen* part of the statement that allows me to believe that Wormtail's body was not entirely ill adept, it was only useful to Voldemort where no one could see Wormtail; like in the woods of Albania torturing Bertha. Dungrollin: Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Voldy didn't possess Wormtail briefly in order to torture and kill Bertha, but Voldy also says: "Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body I would be able to inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth [...] 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." Which suggests that he became Voldy!baby in Albania before making his way back to England. (It also suggests, by the way, that Nagini was in Albania with him). And we know for sure that as Voldy!baby he can cast an AK, because he kills Frank Bryce. So it's quite possible that it was Voldy!baby, rather than Wormtail who tortured and killed Bertha. Snow: Aha except Voldemort speaks of this event happening after his realization that he could not possess Bertha. Therefore I conclude that the concoction made to turn Vapormort into Babymort happened after the torture of Bertha, which still allows for the scenario that Voldemort had possessed Wormtail for the interrogation of Bertha. Voldemort was using Wormtail's abilities under this possession (not his own) to torture Bertha, which would not have therefore been scar seeringly eventful for Harry. Dungrollin: And finally, GoF, chapter 35: Veritaserum, "It was very quick. My father was placed under the Imperius curse by my master. My master forced him to go about his business as usual..." It could be argued that Barty Crouch is saying "my master" when what he means is "my master ordered Wormtail to...", except that after that he changes to: "You needed Alastor Moody," said Dumbledore. His blue eyes were blazing, though his voice remained calm. [Crouch replies] "Wormtail and I did it." So I see no reason to disbelieve Barty Crouch's implication that Voldy!baby was using magic (particularly as he was under Veritaserum at the time), that he used the Imperius curse on Crouch senior; but Harry didn't feel his scar hurt when it happened. Snow: Two separate circumstances. The first quote applies to Crouch Sr., which could have been Voldemort possessing Wormtail at the time, whereas the second quote is about putting Moody under the Imperius, which could have been Wormtail without his possession buddy. It is rather like the instances with Quirrel and Quirrelmort, sometimes he feels like a nut sometimes he don't. In other words, Vapormort wasn't always possessing Quirrel either. Dungrollin: If Voldy now has Harry's powers that should include the power that "the Dark Lord knows not", which would either have killed him because it's incompatible with general Voldyness, or would mean he shouldn't have had any difficulties in possessing Harry in the MoM. Snow: As I see it Voldy is only accessing *his old powers* through Harry so he is not actually sharing all of the powers that Harry possesses. On the other hand Harry does, through this connection, have some use of the only power that Voldemort himself actually retained and that is the possession factor. I have to say some use of it because Harry did not actually possess the snake in the MOM but did view from inside the possession. Like I had said in one of the Satellite!Harry posts, this was the time in which Voldemort became aware of Harry's presence. It was the fact that Harry was now accessing a power that was not bequeathed to Harry that allowed Voldemort to sense Harry's presence. It makes perfect sense to me and yet it is getting quite lonely on my own little boat with a crew of one. There is a bright side to this though, that makes me captain. Snow From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Fri Jan 28 23:07:33 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:07:33 +1100 Subject: Tribal loyalty, love and principles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6464AE1C-7181-11D9-A79F-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 123333 This segment is often quoted in anti-Percy posts: > "Wonder if Percy knows all that stuff about Crouch?" Ron said as > they walked up the drive to the castle. "But maybe he doesn't > care . . . It'd probably just make him admire Crouch even more. > Yeah, Percy loves rules. He'd just say Crouch was refusing to > break them for his own son." I do wonder at the fact that so many people seem to agree with Ron that Crouch refusing to break the rules for his son is a bad thing. Here we are invited to place tribal/family loyalty ahead of loyalty to principles. Where I see Crouch Snr going wrong is NOT in condemning his Death Eater son to Azkaban IF HE DESERVED IT, but in not loving the the son enough to bring him up right, so it never came to this point. It was lack of love that twisted (or contributed to the twisting of) Crouch Junior so that he became a person who merited the WW's severest legal punishment. At that point it was far too late, completely pointless and wrong to try to make amends by perverting the course of justice. When he refused to break the rules for his son he should have been doing it with grief and heartbreak BECAUSE IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, not with cold dislike. Jocelyn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 23:16:42 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:16:42 -0000 Subject: In defence of Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123334 >>Geoff: >Harry stuck his neck out, not because he wanted a war with her but because he was trying to set the record straight and rescue his own position. < >>SSSusan: >...while I agree that in the FIRST instance of Harry's standing up to DJU, it was understandable, justified, right, and all of that, I know that what I was arguing when we discussed this was what happened *after* the first instance & the first round of detentions. >Once McGonagall gave Harry the warning to lie low, once she told him that crossing DJU could cost him much more than house points & detention, once she told him more was at stake than who was telling the truth and who was telling lies, from THEN on I think Harry can be blamed for not setting aside the issue of justice or tyranny or personal reputation in the name of keeping himself and his allies safely entrenched at Hogwarts.< Betsy: I wonder though -- maybe Harry *needed* to take on Umbridge. If you look at his situation, Harry knows that Voldemort is back. He knows that a war is brewing of which he will probably have a major part (even without the prophecy, he knows Voldemort is after him personally). And Harry has been shunted aside. He knows the Order is up to something, but he is not allowed to be involved. I'm starting to think that taking on Umbridge and her cruel detentions may have helped keep Harry sane. Within the detentions themselves Harry almost seems to be playing a game of chicken with Umbridge, in his refusal to admit pain, to slow his writing, to speak of it to anyone. And in the classroom as well, in his refusal to let Umbridge get away with lies, Harry is going head to head with an enemy. After a summer of high tension and no action, I think Harry needed something real and tangible that he could grapple with. (I think it's telling that in the heat of battle he completely forgets about quidditch practice.) Dumbledore will not let him grapple with Voldemort so he'll take on the lesser evil. And perhaps it wasn't the wisest move on Harry's part. It certainly wasn't the safest. But it may have helped with the DA recruitment in the beginning, and it certainly got the ball rolling on the interview, etc. Umbridge was defeated, in the end, by the students who supported Harry. The teachers did their bit to help sow the seeds of rebellion, but it was Harry's battle, and it was his DA members who actually took Umbridge down. So maybe, in this instance, Harry got himself a victory. Betsy From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Jan 29 00:04:00 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:04:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123335 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Lupinlore: > > Once again, it would be understandable but in no way clears him of > > the moral outrage of participation in child abuse, and in fact > > deepens his complicity. The ONLY way Albus can get off is if he > > had no leverage whatsoever he might have used to make Harry's life > > with the Dursleys better. > > > SSSusan: > Okay, but I feel that you're not really addressing what I'm saying. > I *know* you're very upset about Harry's treatment and that DD did > nothing about it. But I'm saying WHAT IF DD couldn't push too hard > because the Dursleys might just BACK OUT OF THE DEAL, might just say - > - oh, maybe, for instance, when Harry was age 5 or age 7? -- "We > don't CARE anymore. He's yours!" If DD thought that was a real > possibility, then he has very little leverage. So what could DD have > done then? How would he have protected little Harry? That's what I > would like to know: if the Dursleys had backed out, what options > would have been available to DD for ensuring Harry's safety? > > Yeah, it's a hypothetical, but at this point, with the limitations on > what we know about those 10 years, it's all hypothetical. Might as > well address this one, which seems like a plausible set-up -- that > the Dursleys could have back out. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Fair enough. What could Albus have done? Hmmm, here's an idea, pull a Peter Pettigrew! I.E. fake Harry's death and smuggle him out of the country. I do want to point out that we are actually not very much different in our approach to this. You, Susan, want evidence that Albus checked up on Harry. I, in order to let Albus off the hook, have to see not only that he checked up, but that he *tried* to help and was thwarted or was prevented from helping by *a factor we are shown.* In other words, in order for Albus to get off the hook we need to be *told* that Petunia ordered him never to interfere on pain of Harry getting the boot, or *shown* that he tried to interfere and Petunia threatened to put Harry out. Otherwise the circumstantial evidence of Albus' complicity is just too strong. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 00:38:33 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:38:33 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123336 Renee wrote: Snape bound and gagged > Lupin, insulted him and threatened to drag him from the Shrieking > Shack. Carol responds: A minor point here. Snape knew that Lupin would turn into a werewolf when he left the Shrieking Shack. He also believed him to be the accomplice of a multiple murderer. It was, in his view, imperative to control Lupin, whom he regarded, correctly, as extremely dangerous. Carol From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 00:56:34 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:56:34 -0000 Subject: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: <20050123141904.22491.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123337 Dungrollin wrote: > >> Now that story sounds oddly familiar... Substitute "tortured to insanity" with "murdered by Voldemort" and "grandmother" with "aunt and uncle"... So why doesn't Harry fear Snape more than anything else? > > Gerry replied: > > Well, maybe because he has a different character? Had different parents, so a different genetic make-up, in which fear genes do not play such a big part? > > Magda added: > Also Neville probably grew up hearing from his Gran about his parents' great sacrifice for the good side and the evils of the DE's who did it, and seeing his parents on a regular basis. That would be pretty terrifying for a child. Harry didn't find out the truth until he was 11 and then it came wrapped in a whole lot of new information> about being a wizard, etc. > > Magda Carol responds: I agree with Magda about the difference between Harry and Neville, but I don't see how this difference leads to a fear of Snape. 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. And, Gerry, I'm not sure that Neville inherited any "fear genes" (innate timidity?). Both his parents were aurors. 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? Let's say that you were a child born in the 1930s whose parents had been seized by the Nazis when you were too young to understand or remember, but you now know at age eleven who the Nazis are and what they do to their victims. Your timidity would be understandable, and you might fear stern authority figures as a mask for the much more terrible people who had stolen and tortured your parents and might at any time take you? I'm not sure if this is a valid analogy. I'm just trying to understand how Neville's boggart could possibly be Snape, or how threatening to poison a toad could possibly be compared with really torturing your parents into insanity. Carol, who wonders if Neville even realizes that Snape rescued him from suffocation by Goyle From coatiman2020 at yahoo.com Fri Jan 28 20:05:34 2005 From: coatiman2020 at yahoo.com (Jay) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:05:34 -0000 Subject: Harry's Seclusion and the Weasley Suspicion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123338 This may be just my own Hufflepuff paranoia, but I have a strong feeling that Harry's seclusion into the comfort of Gryffindor and the Weasly boy's suspicion and immediate distaste of anyone better than them may come back and bite them on the butt later on. It seems, and I don't have my books with me so I can't cite canon, that Harry has very little, if any idea of who his other classmates are. Now that he has the DA, that may change, but how many times have we heard mention of "somone Harry knew only by face" or not knowing anyone other than gryffindors at all. If it weren't for mixed house classes and the occasional Quidditch match, would Harry know his other classmates at all? My next problem is with the Weasleys. Now the parent's seems nice enough, I'd certainly love to get to know Arthur and Molly. The older siblings seem very open to meeting new people as well. We know since Charlie works with dragons outdoors, he must meet all kinds of people. The same goes for Bill working as a treasure hunter. But what about the twins and Ron? Justin Finch-Fletchley innocently mentions that he likes Lockhart and is immediately dubbed an idiot by Ron (again, I forget the exact words). He was simply stating that he liked an energetic, albeit bumbling and stupid, teacher. Ron unjustly jumped to conclusions just because his ideas didn't mesh with Justin's. As soon as Cedric Diggory beats the Gryffindors at Quidditch he's an idiot/ "pretty boy" to Fred and George, probably Ron too. Did jealousy play a part? Maybe it's just my psychology classes finally taking root, but as soon as Oliver Wood mentions Cedric's name, the three female chasers burst into giggles. Maybe there's some feeling of inadequacy on the twin's part when they're up against Cedric. They seem comfortable enough around girls, so perhaps the immediate distate is something deeper. 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 know I've been rambling on some very strange issues, but that always irked me about the books. Thanks for letting me rant and it'll be interesting to hear what you all have to say. -Jay- From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 01:21:31 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:21:31 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123339 This whole discuss really touches a nerve in me as I know that it does for others. Let us try to look at this rationally. 1. We don't know how much DD knew about Harry's situation. Mrs. Figg must have kept him informed, but she would not have known all that much since Petunia tries to keep up appearances and Harry would not say anything to Mrs. Figg. And Mrs. Figg was probably suppose to keep an eye out for any sign of LV or DE as her primary duty. I think that if DD had a better more direct way of monitoring the Dursley household he would not have needed Mrs. Figg's help. 2. Harry did not have a great home life as a young child (lets keep to Pre-Hogwarts days here). Some say it was abuse, other not. Let's just say that it could have been better. And DD acknowledges that Harry had a difficult time. 3. Some here are accusing DD of being a party to child abuse because he did nothing to interfere. Some say that it was not his duty to interfere as he was an outsider, and Harry was with his family. Others say that he could have and should have done *something*. Others say that it doesn't matter what DD did as long as he did something to help Harry. I think that we all have Harry's best interest in mind. And this can explain why some otherwise illegal and immoral ideas have been suggested. But let's really think about this. 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. He is also a very moral man. Yes, he knows Dark Magic, but he will not use it. I think that DD trust people, even Muggles, to do the right thing. I don't think that the letter *remember my last* was a threat, just a reminder. DD did all that he could do. And yes you can laugh if you will, but DD is a very wise, noble, and powerful wizard who knows far more than any of us and because of that he will not stoop to the levels that some have suggested. He kept Harry alive and well. Maybe not as well as some, or even he would have like, but well enough. Tonks_op From klevasseur at earthlink.net Sat Jan 29 01:23:05 2005 From: klevasseur at earthlink.net (ms_luna_knows) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:23:05 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123340 > justcarol67 Wrote: > > > But I don't think Harry *can* put his memories > > in a Pensieve. Both Dumbledore and Snape can > > stick their wands in their hair and pull out > > silvery strands of thought--exactly the memory > > they want to remove and, in Dumbledore's case, > > examine--but they are both skilled Occlumens > > (whatever the plural may be). Harry, even after > > months of lessons, is a rank beginner. > > If what you say is true and Snape thought Harry wouldn't be very good > at Occlumency in the beginning then Snape was being even more cowardly > than I thought to protect his own memories. > > Eggplant If the reason that Snape was teaching Harry Occlumency was because DD thought LV was accessing Harry's mind, how is it *cowardly* for Snape to remove/protect his own memories? My understanding of why Snape removed his memories was to keep LV from accessing them through Harry. If LV *reads* Snapes memories in Harry's mind, that would put Snape in danger, yes, but it would/could also affect the Order. If LV discovered Snape was a spy for the Order, he could (1) kill Snape, and the Order would lose it's insider information, or (2) he could start feeding Snape misleading information to futher his own cause. Ms. Luna--who is not a great fan of Snape's, but who *admires* what he is doing for the Order. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 01:31:29 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:31:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123341 Tonks: I think that we all have Harry's best interest in mind. And this can explain why some otherwise illegal and immoral ideas have been suggested. But let's really think about this. Alla: Personally I think that IF Dumbledore never checked on Harry as Susan suggested OR he checked and did nothing as Lupinlore assumed Dumbledore did much MORE immoral thing than IF he was able to bribe Dursleys. You know, I think that in order to save the child from such treatment, bribery will be quite MORAL thing to do, IF we look at it in context, but of course that is just my opinion. Tonks: Do we really think that a wizard, one of the greatest and most powerful wizard of the day, should *threaten* a Muggle with magic. Alla: Let me think a second. YES. I really DO think so. Tonks: Using magic in a Muggle area is against the WW laws. Bribery is against everyone's laws. Only the weak, the bullies, *threaten* others. Alla: If you threaten to save somebody else's life or just make such life better, I would not call you bully, more like "good samaritan", but again, it is just me. Tonks: And yes you can laugh if you will, but DD is a very wise, noble, and powerful wizard who knows far more than any of us and because of that he will not stoop to the levels that some have suggested. Alla: If he did not do anything, but we will learn that he could, TO ME he already stoop to those levels. Tonks: He kept Harry alive and well. Maybe not as well as some, or even he would have like, but well enough. Alla: He kept Harry alive ,whether he was WELL or not, is a VERY debatable issue TO ME. Just my opinion of course, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 29 01:43:03 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 01:43:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123342 Alla: You know, I think that in order to save the child from such treatment, bribery will be quite MORAL thing to do, IF we look at it in context, but of course that is just my opinion. > > > Tonks: > > Do we really think that a wizard, one of the greatest and most > powerful wizard of the day, should *threaten* a Muggle with magic. > > Alla: > > Let me think a second. YES. I really DO think so. > Pippin: My question would be, if bribery and threats will really persuade an unwilling person, why wasn't Harry doing exactly as the Dursleys wished? Why wasn't Hogwarts completely controlled by Umbridge? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 02:00:02 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:00:02 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's Ghost In-Reply-To: <005301c50167$b4b0ebc0$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123343 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TrekkieGrrrl" wrote: > > This has probably been discussed before, since almost everything has > > as least once. But forgive an old Auror's memory. > > > > I was rereading PS/SS and came to the part just after the sorting > > when they meet the ghosts. Sir Nick says the Bloody Baron is the > > Slytherin ghost. ""Harry looked over at the Slytherin table and saw > > a horrible ghost sitting there, with blank staring eyes, a gaunt > > face, and robes stained with silver blood." > > > > Seamus asks Sir Nicholas "how did he get covered in blood?" Nick > > answers "I've never asked" > > > > What is the story here? We now know that this is Unicorn blood. How > > did Harry and Seamus know it was blood when it was silver? I guess > > because of his name. (The narrator told us. And JKR didn't want to > > explain anything more.) What is the story behind the Bloody Baron?? > > Was this explained anywhere else, in the books, interview, etc.? > > > > Tonks_op > > Hmm I've never though of it as unicorn blood. Sure it's silver, but isn't > that because the ghost itself is more or less silver. I've always imagined > ghosts as somewhat monochrome. So blood on them would also be white. Or > silver, if you'd describe the ghost itself as silvery. > > But if it IS indeed unicorn blood the Bloody Barin is splattered with, it > sure raises some wuestions as to when and where he died. And why. He must be > a former Slytherin to be the Slytherin ghost. But we only know that Nick > died ages ago, the Bloody Baron could theoretically have died recently... > > And he must be a pretty powerful ghost since he's the only one that can > control Peeves. > > ~TrekkieGrrrl Carol adds: I really don't think it's unicorn blood since any blood apattered on a ghost would be silver. (If it weren't for the epithet Bloody Baron, it's quite possibly that it might be taken for some other liquid he'd spilled on himself at the time of his death.) But assuming that it *is* blood, it's quite possibly the blood of the opponent he died fighting. BTW, I'm guessing that he became the Slytherin ghost quite soon after the founding of Hogwarts, possibly around the time of the Magna Carta, which King John was forced by his *barons* to sign in 1216. A recent history of England gives the Age of the Barons as 1189?1327, that is, from the reign of King Richard I (so-called Coeur de Lion) to the horrible and degrading death of Edward II. So I'd say the Bloody Baron most likely dates from that period, possibly earlier, from the Norman Invasion in 1066 onward, but certainly no later than the Yorkist kings Edward IV and Richard III (died 1485). The more powerful nobles of their time, notably the earls of Warwick and Northumberland, were sometimes referred to as barons. But that's pushing the limits of the term, I think. Carol From catportkey at aol.com Sat Jan 29 02:03:48 2005 From: catportkey at aol.com (catportkey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:03:48 EST Subject: half blood prince Message-ID: <1e.3dcf4185.2f2c4904@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123344 Who will be the half-blood prince . . . ?????? a. a new character? ?????? b. existing character such as Hagrid? (Hey, why not!) Thanks Pook [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 02:07:13 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:07:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123345 Pippin: My question would be, if bribery and threats will really persuade an unwilling person, why wasn't Harry doing exactly as the Dursleys wished? Why wasn't Hogwarts completely controlled by Umbridge? Alla: Pippin, who said anything that bribery will definitely persuade Dursleys? Not me. :o) I was just agreeing with Lupinlore's suggestion as one of the POSSIBILITIES. What I was taking a strong exception to is Tonk's suggestion that bribery IN THIS CONTEXT ( and of course only in fictional context) will always be immoral and illegal thing to do. Am I confusing? I am just saying that IF Dumbledore knew FOR SURE that bribery would work to ease Harry's life, he should have used it without hesitation. Just my opinion, Alla From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 29 02:12:44 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:12:44 -0000 Subject: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123346 Carol: > I'm not sure if this is a valid analogy. I'm just trying to > understand how Neville's boggart could possibly be Snape, or how > threatening to poison a toad could possibly be compared with > really torturing your parents into insanity. SSSusan: Maybe it's as simple as what Neville can remember? He was about a year-and-a-half old when his parents were attacked by the DEs. He will not really have a conscious recollection of that. But Snape is here & now, and the embarrassment, humiliation and anxiety he has felt around Snape is fresh & current. Siriusly Snapey Susan From catportkey at aol.com Sat Jan 29 02:13:20 2005 From: catportkey at aol.com (catportkey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:13:20 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Half Blood Prince Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123347 In a message dated 1/20/2005 8:34:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,? glowriter at cox.net writes: Stephanie: I was talking to my best friend about? HP and it dawned on me about a possible suspect for HBP. I mentioned? it as a joke since I can almost not believe it to be true. Well, I? have an idea that Trevor the toad is the HBP. I think JKR has been? pointing him out to us as he continually escapes from Neville. How he is? a Prince I'm not sure, but I strongly think he is either a wizard? turned into a toad, or an animangus. I'm reading the books again now, so? I plan on paying more attention to information regarding Trevor. I? may be imagining things. ---------------- 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 Pook [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 02:30:42 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:30:42 -0000 Subject: Innocent Albus? (was RE: Why should Harry...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123348 Alla wrote: > > Oh, OK, as long as he is not dead, it is perfectly fine to let him > be abducted by Voldie thing, see his classmate murdered, him being > forced to participate in the bizarre ritual of Voldie coming back to > life AND fighting for his life because I'd say but for Priori > Incantatem, Harry could very well end up dead at the Graveyard. Of > course we know looking from the outside that Rowling would not kill > Harry that early in the story, but looking from "within the story" > I'd say his death was VERY real possibility. > > Tonks wrote: > > I am not saying that DD keeps him always from danger. The world is a > dangerous place, especially the WW. By watching over I mean that DD > is always there is some form when Harry needs him most, not that he > watches him 24/7. > > > Alla wrote: > > And I disagree with that. Carol chimes in: Dumbledore did show up in time to save Harry from Quirrell in SS/PS, he provided the means (Godric Gryffindor's sword and Fawkes) for Harry to defeat Diary!Tom in CoS, he provided the time turner suggestion that allowed Harry and Hermione to save not only Sirius and Buckbeak but *themselves* in PoA--yes, I know the Patronus was Harry's but he couldn't have cast it without DD's and Hermione's help), and he saves Harry from Voldemort in OoP--the only time so far that Harry hasn't saved himself (with help). So I'd say that 80 percent of the time, DD was watching over Harry and protecting him in one way or another when he most needed it. But he *had* to let Harry do the vanquishing himself to gain experience. There is no other way to learn to fight Voldemort, just as (IMO) there is no other way to learn Occlumency than to have your mind invaded and learn *by experience* to use magic or your own mind to fight back. (I have no doubt that that's the way snape learned, but that's another thread.) Even in GoF, he tried to keep Harry out of the TWT with the age line and he made sure that teachers and other powerful wizards (Charlie and friends to deal with the dragons) were available to rescue him or the other champions if they got into trouble (they could send up sparks if they needed to be rescued in the Third Task). As I've argued in another post, I also think that Dumbledore was keeping his eye on Crouch!Moody, deducing that he was an imposter and that he had put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire but unable to *prove* anything until C!M disobeyed his orders and took Harry from the field. But how could he possibly have known that C!M had also turned the Tri-Wizard Vup into a portkey that would transport Harry (and poor Cedric) to the graveyard where baby!Mort and Wormtail waited? Even the most watchful, careful mentor could not have prevented that. Carol, who is quite willing to concede that DD is imperfect (I couldn't abide him if he weren't), but I think he really does do his best to guide and protect Harry From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sat Jan 29 02:32:39 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:32:39 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Half Blood Prince Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123349 catportkey at aol.com said: >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 There are already questions about how Hagrid came to be conceived. Regarding a half centaur/half wizard child, I definitely do not want to know. :/ Besides, centaurs with the exception of Firenze are as maniacal about their superiority and the inferiority of humans as any pureblood Death Eater about the superiority of wizards over Muggles, so I doubt if such a thing *would* happen even if it *could.* Re: Trevor as Half Blood Prince, I am extremely attracted by this theory but I thought of a problem: Crookshanks must have encountered Trevor at some time since Hermione bought him, and if Trevor weren't a real toad, wouldn't Crookshanks have made some indication? Janet Anderson From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 02:42:36 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:42:36 -0000 Subject: More Snape Defense, regarding Snape's childhood. (Long) In-Reply-To: <006201c50199$7c46b580$640aa8c0@LHJ> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123350 TrekkieGrrrl wrote: > > Many people HAVE stopped their personal development in their teens. > Some of them are are addicted to something, a few are not. > > Sirius, as an example from the books. As Magda points out, we feel sorry for Sirius because he's been locked up in Azkaban. Well, Snape has been locked up inside himself longer than that.. IMO, that is. Carol adds: Locked up in Hogwarts with dunderheads to teach! Oops. Shouldn't have said that. BTW, I agree with you that the boy in the memories is definitely Snape. That's the way they're presented and who else could he be? They are, as you said, *his* memories, and Harry weould recognize the hooked man if it were Snape instead of identifying the angry man in front of him with the crying little boy. Carol, hoping that no one thinks I think that HRH are dunderheads From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sat Jan 29 02:53:04 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:53:04 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Half Blood Prince Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123351 In a message dated 1/28/2005 6:34:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, norek_archives2 at hotmail.com writes: Re: Trevor as Half Blood Prince, I am extremely attracted by this theory but I thought of a problem: Crookshanks must have encountered Trevor at some time since Hermione bought him, and if Trevor weren't a real toad, wouldn't Crookshanks have made some indication? Janet Anderson ***************************************************************** Chancie: I don't think Crookshanks would really be that concerned with Trevor, unless he was "an unsavory or suspicious" character. When he was meeting up with Sirius in his dog form, he knew he wasn't a dog, but didn't go and try to have Hermione follow him out to the forbidden forest. Sirius just says that it took a while for Crookshanks to trust him. If Trevor is HBP, then, I would assume that he wouldn't be a bad/evil character, or we may (as you said) have seen something come of it before. JMO [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Sat Jan 29 03:11:52 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:11:52 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123352 Carol: > I'm not sure if this is a valid analogy. I'm just trying to > understand how Neville's boggart could possibly be Snape, or how > threatening to poison a toad could possibly be compared with > really torturing your parents into insanity. SSSusan: Maybe it's as simple as what Neville can remember? He was about a year-and-a-half old when his parents were attacked by the DEs. He will not really have a conscious recollection of that. But Snape is here & now, and the embarrassment, humiliation and anxiety he has felt around Snape is fresh & current. Siriusly Snapey Susan ********************************************************* Chancie: I agree with SSS, because Nevile wouldn't have remembered that. And also as she said the pain Snape has caused him is/was on going, and relived everyday. Also at this time, Belatrix and co. were still in Azkaban, and he probably didn't see them as anything to fear. Besides, Harry's greatest fear wasn't Voldemort, who killed his parents, and tried to kill him 3 times up until then (3 if you include Tom Riddle in CoS) but his greatest fear was the Dementor's. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 03:35:24 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 03:35:24 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123353 >>Nora: >Ideology is something you're brought up with, but it is a choice as well, especially by that age--see below, methinks.< Betsy: Yes, but I think this scene shows us that *at this point* James has not put much thought into his ideology. He knows what he stands for, and he knows what the opposite side looks like, but he chooses an action that as readers we'd recognize the "Death Eater Quidditch Hooligans" using on Muggles in the beginning of GoF. To corrupt a much used phrase in my area, "What would Dumbledore do?" I assure you, not hang Snape upside down and show off his undies to the world. (And though I don't believe in Perfect!Dumbledore, he is representative of James's stated ideology.) Of course, we don't learn anything about Snape's commitment to *his* ideology at this time. He may well be a true believer by this time, eagerly awaiting his cool new skin art. There's no real hint on him. We also know that Sirius is going to have such a large crisis of conscience fairly soon. He leaves his family at 16 IIRC, and that certainly speaks to him making his ideology his own (especially considering that he'd broken family tradition by going into Gryffindor in the first place). >>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.< >>Nora: >Umm, I note you snipped the part of my post where I made noises in that direction--the complication of the White Hats, yet the dangers pointed out of exonerating any character based on a perceived victim status.< Betsy: Eek! I snipped that part because I thought it obvious that I agreed with those points. I was trying to not be redundant -- sorry! Because I agree that while James and Sirius do not come off well, Snape does not come off lily-white. Snape is a victim in this particular scene, but he is by no means an innocent. His language and his slash at James showed that. >>Nora: >There is more to a person than family background--it is also a matter of personal choice what you choose to follow. [And choices show what we really are, in the Potterverse. Essentialist, but unavoidable.] >Sirius is the grand example of not following in the family footsteps, and I think that's one of the Big Thematic Issues he's meant to represent. It's an important one, as we've seen fairly little deviation from the family line...and his situation and Percy's are pretty incommensurate, so I won't make that comparison.< Betsy: I agree that personal choice is one of the big themes of the books. And this scene certainly shows that a person can choose to change. Again, James is an absolute snot in this scene, but we *know* that he's more than what these actions showed him to be. (Erm - you know you're just getting me all excited about the idea of a Draco Redemption don't you?) Actually - it's funny that although this is *Snape's* memory, I feel like we the readers get more insight into James and a sense of his character arc than Snape's. >>Betsy >So I think she's telling us more here - maybe about the possiblity of change, maybe about the ability of folks to raise above their upbringing, maybe something about motive being as or more important than method. I don't know what exactly, but I do think there's more to this scene than simply who used what word.< >>Nora: >Motive more important than method...I'm not sure about that, being as we've been highly critical of Slytherin philosophy, and their "any means to achieve their ends". Not that I want to completely equate ends and motive--n'est pas la meme chose, exactly. In fact, I'd say that this scene might point towards the opposite: James generally has fairly good motives, but his methods suck rocks. I think the problem of doing things that are not only right, but doing them the right WAY is a big one through the series.< Betsy: Ah yes, but in this scene James uses the right methods (all white magic) to achieve an inpure motive - the humiliation of another student. It's fairly clear that James and Sirius are not reacting defensivly at this point. >>Nora: >There is more to this scene than who used what word, and we DO get character insights that are decidedly gray on all sides. My main contention is that it's methodologically sloppy and discriminatory to not leave open the possibility that more things were feeding into this than we think, or know. That's the point of pulling seriation into the discussion as well--you can't have a pattern from one instant.< Betsy: There is something to be said, however, for what the author chooses to show us. I don't think this is an isolated event, no matter that this is the only such event we witness. I'm quite certain that this was not the only time the Mauraders and Snape clashed. And I'm as equally certain that Snape was not always so totally routed, that any or all of the Mauraders suffered under his wand a time or two themselves. But I think it is fairly safe to say that James and Sirius were very popular young boys (confirmed by McGonagall and Madam Rosemerta) and Snape was most definitely not (confirmed by some of the other memories Harry glimpsed). I doubt James was *always* an ass. I'm betting that there were times he was quite nice to lesser beings :P. And I'm sure (or I hope) that Snape did have some good times at Hogwarts. I do think it's also fairly safe to say that there was *very* bad blood between Snape and James/Sirius (also confirmed in other places in the books). This memory seems to suggest that perhaps the bad blood started on the James/Sirius side - but I agree that that particular conclusion is a leap. Snape certainly acts like he was the wronged party. But, we are talking about Snape here, so grains of salt all around. ;) >>Betsy: >Yes, but how does JKR show us Sirius' confidence in his Transfiguration? By having Sirius refuse to help Remus study! Sweet Remus, whose painful werewolf transformations Sirius sees as a wonderful lark. Again, not very friendly to Sirius is this scene. And JKR uses every trick she can to make that clear.< >>Nora: >Shh, or you'll attract Pippin with words like those. A true charge, but for me at least, a personally understandable one; it's the noble thing yet the mind-numbingly boring to help those who are not as quick as you at something, particularly in the midst of a barrage of exams. But again, I'm loathe to extrapolate that into "The Model of Sirius and Remus' Relationships At School". It tells us something, but the other rule of seriation is that when you have new information, you have to alter the pattern to accomodate it.< Betsy: Hee! Not Pippin! (I'm joking.) I don't think JKR was trying to say that Remus and Sirius weren't really friends, or that Sirius routinely treated Remus like crap. (Or even that he was being *mean* to Remus here. Remus didn't seem all that upset until the attack actually begins.) But I think that by having Sirius turn down a request from Remus who we're supposed to like, rather than Peter, who we aren't, she's illustrating Sirius's self-centeredness and arrogance with quick brush-strokes. I think it's also a quick way to point out that the attack on Snape took place because Sirius was bored. If JKR wanted to throw Harry (and us) a bone (don't worry - your Dad wasn't *that* bad), there may have been talk of a recent wrong they needed to avenge. She could have had Snape idly hexing a younger student or even a fly - James and Sirius ride to the rescue. But JKR specifically sets up that Sirius is bored and Snape is avaliable. >>Betsy: >(Frankly, I think the "let's feed Snape to the werewolf" scene will be a big turning point for James, and I *really* hope JKR will flesh that scene out.)< >>Nora: >Personally, I'm betting with sick amusement that that scene is actually a lot less important to anything than we think it is. That's my personal perversity, however.< Betsy: *clutches bunny and huddles in corner* >>Nora: >*pets the bunny again* Snape is currently at least somewhat sympathetic--which means he could become more sympathetic, but we could just as easily be set up for a reversal in his disfavor. That is to say, we got the dirt on James this book--it's time to air all of Snape's bloody laundry next book (and oh do those interviews hint that it's there). That's a prediction that's testable, of course, and will be abandoned happily if proven wrong.< Betsy: I would like to learn what made Snape change his mind about Voldemort, and why Dumbledore seems to trust him so completely. And I think to learn what caused his change we will have to be shown what he was like pre-ideological shift. I do not expect it to be pretty. Actually - I think I'll feel a little let down if it turns out Snape was on the softer side of the Death Eater movement. However, if JKR plays to theme, showing us the darker side of James would suggest we're going to learn (with Harry) the lighter side of Snape. >>Nora: >I don't believe in ESE!Snape by any means, although I think his function in the series is presently deliberately ambiguous. That means, by the way, that I'm professionally agnostic. I would *like* to be able to like Snape (to pull in more subjective criteria) more than I do at present. >However, I'm also going to put my money firmly in the 'personal choice' basket, which means (paradoxically) I'm esteeming Snape higher than you might think. I surmise that it was his own actions that got him into DEdom, but consequently that it was his own actions that got him out. What makes me wonder is that there is such strong textual and interview evidence that he retains a good number of decidedly negative qualities (Dumbledore won't let him have DADA for a good reason, as we've mentioned in the past), which makes one wonder about his sincerity. I think it would, from my view, lessen the impact of his character arc if we end up with poor Snape, nowhere to turn but the DEs, rather than a willed choice--but that is also just speculation, and I adapt with no qualms to new canon.< Betsy: I agree in that I think Snape joined the Death Eaters with eyes wide open. The snarling, spitting boy from the pensieve memory does not strike me as an easily led little duckling. I do firmly believe in Redeemed!Snape (got the soap-box to prove it!) but I do agree that he has *some* negative qualities. He's very slow to forgive (I wonder if that will change?) and he does enjoy having the little children quake in his presence (why else did he spend so many nights practicing his flowy-cloak thing?). I am eager to learn why exactly Dumbledore feels Snape as DADA professor is a bad thing. No guesses of my own though I don't think it's simply, Snape is so good at Potions, nor do I think it's, but you scare the children so (hello Professor Moody). >>Betsy: >I personally think that JKR gave us and Harry this scene to reinforce the premise that there is no perfect good or perfect evil when it comes to people. And maybe to forshadow that those who seem hopelessly bad may have a chance at redemption. And perhaps to suggest that there's more to person than good upbringing?< >>Nora: >Sirius has that thematic aspect; maybe Snape is another side of it, but I'm not sure. Maybe he's the failure of the will to make the proper choices, paying for it until he can, but always in a struggle with what he really *wants* to do and what he knows that he should? That does explain some of the tendencies to a mild sadism (the enjoyment of the emotional pain of others--and yes, I stick by my interview guns there; really, if she says it in an interview, there's not much reason to expect contradictory information and all the reason in the world to expect confirmation, right?) and the complex of behaviors that can be summed up as "Dude, do you HAVE to?". Talk about possibly good motives and generally poor methods...< Betsy: There are a lot of shadow aspects to Snape and Sirius. The same obsession with James and its projection onto Harry, the same frustration with being put on the sidelines (OotP for Sirius, end of PoA for Snape), the same breaking with the "family" (Blacks for Sirius, Lucius et al for Snape), same taste for drama, same slowness to forgive, maybe even a similar ruthlessness. (It was interesting to me that Sirius was going to suggest a similar attack on the dragon in the first task of GoF that Krum used.) They are mirror opposites in appearance and the pensieve scene suggests they were mirror opposites in their school hierarchy. There was a thread a short while ago kicking around the idea that Snape and Sirius were actually half- brothers, and though I haven't seen anything in canon to suggest this is so, I do think there's a thematic link. (Perhaps this explains why the "Snape is really Harry's father" fanfic has become such a cliche?) I agree that Snape is not a fluffy little bunny (sudden hilarious idea for Snape's animagus), but I do think he's *already* made his choice. Dumbledore's stong confidence in Snape leads me to believe that Snape's choice was consciously and willingly made. I don't get the sense that he looks at other Death Eaters, like Lucius Malfoy, and think, "Oh, why can't I...?". Of course, I also believe that Snape has several different motives that require his methods - but that's a whole 'nother post. :) Betsy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 03:38:56 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 03:38:56 -0000 Subject: Imperius and Occlumency - Another Perspective In-Reply-To: <044401c501b3$0ab11b80$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123354 Charme wrote: >It appears Snape does get upset/angry/annoyed when he sees Harry's memory of Cedric, Harry appears to have a vision (like that of the DoM) that Snape *can't or doesn't* seem to see completely, and then when Harry pokes his nose in the Pensieve. The latter I feel isn't because of the memory Harry saw, but the possibility Snape sees Harry's actions as "breaking the rules" yet again, only this time he breaks the rules where Snape is directly affected. The first, Harry's memory of Cedric, leads Snape to believe Harry isn't taking this effort of Occlumency as serious as Snape. Carol responds: I'm pretty sure that Snape does see this scene clearly and is angry because Harry is "handing him weapons," letting him see scenes that are extremely painful for him (and that he has refused to talk about with anyone else, though snape doesn't know this). I think his anger results from what he know that Voldemort could do with such painful memories if he found them in Harry's mind. I do agree that Snape is angry because Harry isn't taking Occlumency seriously, but it goes deeper than that IMO. (Why do you think Snape can't see the memories? Why would he be upset about Harry seeing Cedric's dead body if he can't see it, too? And how, if he can't see the memories as Harry does, can he recognize Rookwood and ask what "that man and that room" are doing in Harry's mind?) Charme wrote: > The DoM vision Harry has interests me most: Snape doesn't see what Harry does in that instance, and only understands what was in Harry's vision when Harry is vocalizing his realization and asks Snape about the DoM. Snape even asks Harry why he would ask about the DoM, when I would think Snape would know what Harry saw if he'd seen it too. Carol responds: Again, I interpret this scene a bit differently. Harry is not reliving his dream here. It's a real memory of his walk down the corridor to the courtroom with Mr. Weasley. There's no indication that Snape doesn't see the same corridor, Mr. Weasley and all, but there's nothing in that memory that Snape would have reason to react to. But Harry should *not* know that the same corridor leads to the Department of Mysteries, the very place that the Order members have been guarding. Snape doesn't yet know about Harry's dream. That's why, when Harry asks, "What's in the Department of Mysteries?" Snape reacts with astonishment. "*What* did you say?" Neither of them has seen the Department of Mysteries in that memory, only the corridor leading to the courtroom, but Harry has just recognized the corridor he actually walked down as the same one that appears in the dream he's been having. And that, for Order Member!Snape, is a shocking revelation. Carol From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jan 29 03:46:52 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 03:46:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123355 > Alla: > > Pippin, who said anything that bribery will definitely persuade > Dursleys? Not me. :o) > > I was just agreeing with Lupinlore's suggestion as one of the > POSSIBILITIES. What I was taking a strong exception to is Tonk's suggestion that bribery IN THIS CONTEXT ( and of course only in fictional context) will always be immoral and illegal thing to do. > > Am I confusing? I am just saying that IF Dumbledore knew FOR SURE that bribery would work to ease Harry's life, he should have used it without hesitation. > Pippin: 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? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 04:03:08 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:03:08 -0000 Subject: Why should Harry be expected to listen to anyone at H... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123356 KathyK wrote: > > My brain's a little fuzzy on the details but I had to > wonder why Lockhart would bother with a memory charm if he were > going to just leave Harry and Ron to die. So I double-checked CoS. > > Lockhart says, US paperback p. 303: > "I shall take a bit of this skin back up to the school, tell them I > was too late to save the girl, and that you two *tragically* lost > your minds at the sight of her mangled body--say good-bye to your > memories!" > > > Lockhart leaving the boys to die in the Chamber makes no sense when > you look at his plan. If he wanted them dead he would just leave > them there and not breathe a word about the Chamber to anyone else. > But good ol' cowardly yet opportunistic Lockhart will not let pass > the chance for more glory. He wants everyone to know *he'd* found > the Chamber of Secrets and taken on the basilisk. > > Yeah, so I don't think Lockhart meant to kill Harry at all. > > KathyK Carol responds: He was, however, perfectly willing to let Ginny die. I like St. Mungo's Lockhart a lot better. "I didn't learn closed up writing for nothing, you know!" Carol, hoping she didn't undersnip From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 04:10:41 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:10:41 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: <20050123014327.ccclwqon44cc8ocw@webmail1.isis.unc.edu> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123357 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, snholmes at e... wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, snholmes at e... wrote: > > > > Steph: > > I was just wondering whether or not anyone ever figured out what > > happened to Sirius' motorbike (the one Hagrid rode on that Halloween > > night to deliver Harry to the Dursleys'.) > > Tonks here: > I think that everyone here decided that it probably made it way to > Arthur Weasley's home. > Carol responds: I don't think we reached any real agreement, actually. Another possibility that was mentioned is that the motorcycle is running wild in the Forbidden Forest along with the flying Ford Anglia. Nice toys for little Grawpy if he gets tired of pulling up trees. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 04:21:22 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:21:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123358 Alla: snip. Am I confusing? I am just saying that IF Dumbledore knew FOR SURE that bribery would work to ease Harry's life, he should have used it without hesitation. Pippin: 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? Alla: Partially. I don't think that Dumbledore can rely on his past experience, his past experience mislead him way too often in the books, IMO. ONLY IF he knows that in this particular situation with Dursleys and Harry bribery will not work and make things worse, THEN he should not use it, IMO. But I don't think that he should not use bribery only because his past experience showed him that it does not work in general, because contrary to Dumbledore' s experience it could have worked in this situation. It is a hypothetical only of course, but who knows, maybe it was another of "old man's mistakes". Just my opinion, Alla From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 04:32:22 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:32:22 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123359 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > Yes, but I think this scene shows us that *at this point* James has > not put much thought into his ideology. He knows what he stands > for, and he knows what the opposite side looks like, but he chooses > an action that as readers we'd recognize the "Death Eater Quidditch > Hooligans" using on Muggles in the beginning of GoF. To corrupt a > much used phrase in my area, "What would Dumbledore do?" I assure > you, not hang Snape upside down and show off his undies to the > world. (And though I don't believe in Perfect!Dumbledore, he is > representative of James's stated ideology.) But you've already admitted to a split between motivations (read: ends, goals...all the things we talk about as being 'ideological') and actions. That means, by your own criteria, that you can know what the right thing is but still go about it the wrong way. As I posted back in 118630, 118617, and 118670 (some light reading, natch), James is not a little Marxist walking around carrying his Little Red Book, but if we, say, take Ron in CoS as our parallel model, he does know what those things mean at a surprising level of sophistication and conviction--it's that he uses some pretty crappy methods to carry it out. His motivation that is better (noting that NOT ALL of his motivations in this scene are good by ANY means) is the attack on the use of "Mudblood"; his crappy methods are the turning of people upside down. > Of course, we don't learn anything about Snape's commitment to > *his* ideology at this time. He may well be a true believer by > this time, eagerly awaiting his cool new skin art. There's no real > hint on him. No, strictly speaking, there's not. But it is, again, suggestive in the use of words, and we have the infamous 'gang of Slytherins' yet to account for. I *will* bet that they play a role in this, somehow. Too careful set up for dear Bella to have nothing to do, you know. > We also know that Sirius is going to have such a large crisis of > conscience fairly soon. He leaves his family at 16 IIRC, and that > certainly speaks to him making his ideology his own (especially > considering that he'd broken family tradition by going into > Gryffindor in the first place). I admit to having had the perspective that Sirius had some major break beforehand, via the going into Gryffindor, and the running away from home as the ultimate result of that; less than it being a genuine crisis of conscience, it was an inevitable fait accompli. > Betsy: > Ah yes, but in this scene James uses the right methods (all white > magic) to achieve an inpure motive - the humiliation of another > student. It's fairly clear that James and Sirius are not reacting > defensivly at this point. See above: I think that conception of motives and methods is more narrow than what I was getting at, and if you're going to play with such Kantian terms, play on the larger scale. > Betsy: > There is something to be said, however, for what the author chooses > to show us. I don't think this is an isolated event, no matter > that this is the only such event we witness. Problem is, it is currently *textually* an isolated event. No seriation. The argument that it is shown to us as representative is equally as weak as the argument that it is there for future modification. > I think it's also a quick way to point out that the attack on Snape > took place because Sirius was bored. If JKR wanted to throw Harry > (and us) a bone (don't worry - your Dad wasn't *that* bad), there > may have been talk of a recent wrong they needed to avenge. She > could have had Snape idly hexing a younger student or even a fly - > James and Sirius ride to the rescue. But JKR specifically sets up > that Sirius is bored and Snape is avaliable. There's the ever-intriguing existence line, though. And from a literary perspective, so much more effective to let Harry and us see such a strong one side, before pulling out the other half of the dialectic. > Betsy: > I would like to learn what made Snape change his mind about > Voldemort, and why Dumbledore seems to trust him so completely. You are aware of the interview where she says "Snape told Dumbledore his story and Dumbledore believed it", right? I am also firmly agnostic here, but that doesn't inspire grand confidence in lil' me. > And I think to learn what caused his change we will have to be > shown what he was like pre-ideological shift. I do not expect it > to be pretty. Actually - I think I'll feel a little let down if it > turns out Snape was on the softer side of the Death Eater > movement. However, if JKR plays to theme, showing us the darker > side of James would suggest we're going to learn (with Harry) the > lighter side of Snape. Not necessarily; it may equally as well suggest that it's Snape's turn to be dragged through the dirt. That's the more obvious structural parallel. > I am eager to learn why exactly Dumbledore feels Snape as DADA > professor is a bad thing. No guesses of my own though I don't > think it's simply, Snape is so good at Potions, nor do I think > it's, but you scare the children so (hello Professor Moody). I think it's that he's been Dark on a level that Moody never has. Not to mention that it points towards a suggestion that Dumbledore *still*, to this very day, worries about Snape's inclinations if offered a particular position. "Bringing out the worst" is the interview language, after all. I think if you're disinclined to take her sadism comment seriously, you have more trouble coming up with scenarios. > I agree that Snape is not a fluffy little bunny (sudden hilarious > idea for Snape's animagus), but I do think he's *already* made his > choice. Dumbledore's stong confidence in Snape leads me to believe > that Snape's choice was consciously and willingly made. I don't > get the sense that he looks at other Death Eaters, like Lucius > Malfoy, and think, "Oh, why can't I...?". Of course, I also > believe that Snape has several different motives that require his > methods - but that's a whole 'nother post. :) I believe that we-the-fandom *massively* overestimate the actual complexity of Snape, and there is going to be a lot of "That's it?" in the long run. I think that a theme for Snape is the continual struggle against cynicism and the particular mutation of arrogance that is its inevitable companion; take "I see no difference" as thematic for that. [And that post is WAY back in the archives--I'm not digging that far tonight. To summarize; Snape consistently does not make the differentiations that he should, does not exercise the willingness to listen and rethink positions that marks Dumbledore's actions...] That's why I like Diana so much as a theory, the idea that the essence of the conversion was the realization that there are standards of right and wrong, and that there is NOT "no good and evil, only power and those...". The issues represented by Diana are the ones that he still obviously struggles with. IMO. -Nora reaffirms a professional agnosticism, and looks around for the similarly inclined From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 04:36:23 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:36:23 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123360 eggplant wrote: > The memories Harry saw certainly won't endanger Snape, just embarrass him. And it's very difficult to understand how Snape could still be a spy after Dumbledore told the entire world in open court years ago that Snape had been a spy. Fame is usually a good thing but not if you're a spy. The term "famous spy" is a bit of a non sequitur. Carol responds: Dumbledore did not tell "the entire world" that Snape had been a spy. He told the Wizengamot in what was probably a closed hearing, with neither the public nor the press present. (No Rita Skeeter; that was Bagman's hearing.) Most likely both Snape, who was cleared of all charges, and Karkaroff, who was there to testify against his fellow DEs, were afforded court protection. There's no indication whatever that he was a "famous spy." Unlike the accused DEs who got off by pleading the Imperius Curse (Malfoy, Nott, Avery, et al.), his name was not published in the Daily Prophet. If his true story were known, he'd have been murdered by his former friends, who still believe him to be a loyal DE (or did until they were arrested in the MoM). Or, if he somehow managed to maintain their trust despite being a known spy for the other side (some convincing Slytherin-style lie that he wasn't *really* spying for Dumbledore--pulled the wool over the old Legilimens' eyes), there's no way that the parents of the non-Slytherin students would tolerate him as a teacher of their children. It's clear, at least to me, that the WW (excluding the members of the Wizengamot, the teachers at Hogwarts, the Order members, and now Cornelius Fudge) don't know Snape's past, either the DE past he's rejected or the spy role he's apparently resumed. I do think, though, that his cover is finally in danger of being blown. Carol, with apologies for repeating arguments I've made before but I think this is important From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 04:56:50 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:56:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123361 >>Lupinlore: >Fair enough. What could Albus have done? Hmmm, here's an idea, pull a Peter Pettigrew! I.E. fake Harry's death and smuggle him out of the country.< Betsy: Because that would be *such* a wonderful lifestyle for Harry, living out of a suitcase, never staying in one place for long, unable to go to school, possibly going through a continual change of guardians, and I don't know - hourly doses of polyjuice? And no real guarantee that a vigilant Death Eater didn't get his hands on the boy. Oh, yeah - *much* better than putting up with snarky relatives and some minor bullying. >>Lupinlore: >I, in order to let Albus off the hook, have to see not only that he checked up, but that he *tried* to help and was thwarted or was prevented from helping by *a factor we are shown.* In other words, in order for Albus to get off the hook we need to be *told* that Petunia ordered him never to interfere on pain of Harry getting the boot, or *shown* that he tried to interfere and Petunia threatened to put Harry out. Otherwise the circumstantial evidence of Albus' complicity is just too strong.< Betsy: And I need to see something that shows us that Harry suffered to such an extent that Dumbledore needed to risk Harry's life by interfering. So far, there's been nothing in the books that I thought needed Dumbledore's direct interference. Betsy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 05:12:12 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 05:12:12 -0000 Subject: Incomprehensible comparison of Sirius and Aragorn In-Reply-To: <20050124005857.31658.qmail@web53110.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123362 Juli wrote: > Really? I read LOTR long before HP, and since the > first read I fell in love with Aragon, then I read HP > and the same thing happened all over, I think Sirius > and Aragon are kindred souls, they seem to have the > same core. > > Aragon grew to become a king of both Gondor and > Anarion, for decades he fought evil, he put his > personal gains last. And now Sirius, he spent half his > life in Azkaban, then got out looking for justice, but > not for himself but for his best friends. Carol responds: Forgive me, but unless you and I are reading different books, Sirius was not seeking justice in PoA, he was seeking revenge, a whole different concept. In his own words, he wanted to commit the murder he had been arrested for committing. It wouldn't bring James and Lily back; it would cost him his own soul via a Dementor's mouth; it would accomplish nothing except to still the maniacal desire to plunge a twelve-inch knife into the heart of a rat the size of the knife blade. I'm in no way excusing Peter Pettigrew, but Sirius Black in PoA is a violent and dangerous man with a very fragile hold on sanity. I see no resemblance of any kind to Aragorn, who is violent only in battle against Orcs and never at any point desires to murder those who have betrayed him. (Notice his justice to the Dunlendings after Helm's Deep, for example.) Aragorn is a born captain, loved by many men (and two women), concerned not with his personal life but with his duty to the people of Middle Earth. Sirius cares only for himself and James, and to a lesser degree for Remus and pre-betrayal Peter. As a boy, he wants to be entertained (joining James in hexing Severus two against one--hardly Aragorn-like. He goes into danger not because he has to but for the fun of it. I can't imagine the young Aragorn wanting to become an Animagus in order to run with a werewolf. ("I'm bored. Wish it were a full moon.") Maybe there's a slight resemblance after he joins the Order. Maybe he wants to help save the WW (though he's not destined to lead it). If so, we never see that Sirius. Carol, who does see a Gollum/Kreacher resemblance and we doesn't like it at all, no, precious, we doesn't From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 05:18:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 05:18:36 -0000 Subject: Incomprehensible comparison of Sirius and Aragorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123363 Carol responds: Forgive me, but unless you and I are reading different books, Sirius was not seeking justice in PoA, he was seeking revenge, a whole different concept. In his own words, he wanted to commit the murder he had been arrested for committing. It wouldn't bring James and Lily back; it would cost him his own soul via a Dementor's mouth; it would accomplish nothing except to still the maniacal desire to plunge a twelve-inch knife into the heart of a rat the size of the knife blade. Alla: I am afraid we are reading different books then, Carol. :o) Because concept of justice to me includes bringing guilty party to just punishment. Sure Sirius wanted revenge ( I cannot blame him at all), but he wanted revenge on someone who he knew FOR SURE was guilty, so I 'd say he was seeking justice too. And for someone who was so bent up on revenge,a s you suggested, he agrees with Harry's suggestion to bring Peter to castle awfully fast, IMO. Just my opinion, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 05:44:02 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 05:44:02 -0000 Subject: Wizards and firearms (Was: Dumbledore's serious errors) In-Reply-To: <421A1317.7AB2A7EC.0B4B226A@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123364 Joan wrote: > I always wondered why no one ever thought of going after the DE's or V with firearms. If your body is destroyed to the point that you bleed to death or your organs are destroyed, you can't live or repair yourself no matter how magical you are. Carol responds: Do we know that for certain? Wizards can survive splinching--half their body in one place and half in another. Hagrid expresses contempt for the idea that powerful wizards like James and Lily Potter could die in a car crash. Evidently either the crash couldn't kill them or they could do something to prevent it. Wizards can survive in various other conditions that would kill a Muggle--Alastor Moody's nine-month ordeal in his own trunk, for example. So *would* a bullet kill a wizard, or would the DEs merely laugh at the pitiful attempts of Muggle "pleezemen" pointing pistols at them, knowing that if they're hit they can just summon the bullet (Accio!) and then sew up the wound with a Reparo? (Remember Molly's scorn for the crude Muggle practice of using stitches?) Would Harry really have drowned when the gillyweed wore off during the Second Task or would accidental magic kick in to save him? What about Godric Gryffindor's sword, which has always struck me as an odd weapon for a wizard? Or Walden Macnair's executioner's axe? (I don't think Hagrid's crossbow was intended for wizards, but I could be wrong.) So, back to a question I asked ages ago. What besides AK (and being blown to pieces like Benjy Fenwick) can kill a wizard? Carol From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 06:14:09 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 06:14:09 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123365 What are the Dursley's actually accused of? Locking Harry in a cupboard. Downside, or abusive side if you prefer: Harry lived in cramp quarters, which has no windows and does have spiders, when they had adequate accommodations available. Plus side, or alternate view: Harry was not subjected to further bullying or humiliation from Dudley when he was in his own corner or cupboard. Dark exclusive places often lend to a greater thinking process. Spiders to Harry are nothing to be afraid of. What are the Dursley's actually accused of? Harry not being adequately fed. Downside: Harry was neglected from eating at the proper mealtime. Plus side: Harry waited until the Dursley's fell asleep and raided the kitchen. Harry didn't have to be subjected to watching Dudley feed his porky face or to wash the dishes when they were done. What are the Dursley's actually accused of? Harry not being allowed the enjoyment of going on outings: Downside: Harry missed a lot of enjoyment and entertainment along with educational value that comes from outings to the zoo or museum. Having to stay with Mrs. Figg. Plus side: Harry did not have to be publicly humiliated. Mrs. Figg was an Order member that was placed, unknowingly to Harry, for his further protection from Voldemort. What are the Dursley's actually accused of? Harry was not loved like a son: Downside: Harry never felt the security of parental love. Plus side: Not being loved like they love their own son who is overly indulgent in everything that he does. If the Dursley's had loved him like their son, Harry would be another Dudley, who by the way has been compared to Draco. What are the Dursley's actually accused of? Taking in a child from a sister Petunia would rather have ignored was related to her: Downside: Harry's life as represented by Harry in canon. Plus side: Harry had the best insurance from his nemesis that even money couldn't buy. Conclusion: It is totally agreeable that Harry did not have adequate upbringing but who was at fault for this? The Dursley's?who didn't have to take the child, in the first place, no matter what pact Petunia made with Dumbledore but by allowing him houseroom may have saved him as a result. Dumbledore?who said that he realized the extent of Voldemort's power and given Lily's sacrifice supplied Harry with the best protection he could. Or was it Lily?who chose her son's fate by protecting Harry with her blood that did actually save her son's life. Sometimes you have to choose what is right over what is easy! Snow From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Jan 29 06:36:04 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 06:36:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123366 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > > > Sometimes you have to choose what is right over what is easy! > > Snow Exactly, and I am not AT ALL convinced that Dumbledore has done so. Until I see SOLID evidence that he attempted to curtail the abusive behavior of the Dursleys and was prevented from doing so, he seems very much to be complicit in child abuse. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Jan 29 06:48:20 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 06:48:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123367 > > Betsy: > And I need to see something that shows us that Harry suffered to such > an extent that Dumbledore needed to risk Harry's life by > interfering. So far, there's been nothing in the books that I > thought needed Dumbledore's direct interference. > > Betsy Well, to me EVERYTHING in the books screams out for DD's direct interference UNLESS DD IS SPECIFICALLY RESTRAINED FROM INTERFERING. Sorry, nothing can justify child abuse (and yes, it IS abuse even if not legally actionable). And yes, this is very much a matter of opinion and is one of those things we can argue about all day long and no one will ever budge. But, I repeat, unless we are SPECIFICALLY told (not by implication, suggestion, or any other indirect method) that DD had no way of easing Harry's suffering at the Dursleys short of placing Harry in dire and direct danger of death, mutilation, etc., he remains complicit to child abuse (even if not legally actionable child abuse). Lupinlore From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 06:57:15 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 06:57:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123368 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > > > > > > Sometimes you have to choose what is right over what is easy! > > > > Snow > > Exactly, and I am not AT ALL convinced that Dumbledore has done so. > Until I see SOLID evidence that he attempted to curtail the abusive > behavior of the Dursleys and was prevented from doing so, he seems > very much to be complicit in child abuse. > > Lupinlore Snow: What are the results of Harry's abusive upbringing? Is Harry inadequate because of his upbringing? Nothing I have seen that can be directly related to abusiveness Is Harry resentful of his upbringing? I rather doubt that, given the save Dudley's life circumstance Is Harry disrespectful? Not when he is treated with respect (shows backbone) Is Harry abusive to other people? Not that I have seen What is it again that Dumbledore subjected Harry to because Harry shows no scars of the weary battle of abusiveness. If the abusiveness that you are seeing is so apparent, why hasn't Harry shown any signs of weakness from it? Snow From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 07:28:40 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:28:40 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123369 >>Betsy: >Yes, but I think this scene shows us that *at this point* James has not put much thought into his ideology. >>Nora: >But you've already admitted to a split between motivations (read: ends, goals...all the things we talk about as being 'ideological') and actions. That means, by your own criteria, that you can know what the right thing is but still go about it the wrong way.< 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). >>Nora: >As I posted back in 118630, 118617, and 118670 (some light reading, natch), James is not a little Marxist walking around carrying his Little Red Book, but if we, say, take Ron in CoS as our parallel model, he does know what those things mean at a surprising level of sophistication and conviction--it's that he uses some pretty crappy methods to carry it out. His motivation that is better (noting that NOT ALL of his motivations in this scene are good by ANY means) is the attack on the use of "Mudblood"; his crappy methods are the turning of people upside down.< Betsy: But you are assuming a depth of conviction that frankly, James does not express here. Yes, he knows that "mudblood" is a bad word. This suggests that he was raised right. But he flips Snape over in retaliation for the slash to his face, and he threatens to remove Snape's underwear because Lily turns him down. None of that points to a deeper ideological reason for picking on Snape. And nothing in the text of this scene suggests any purer motive. >>Betsy: >Of course, we don't learn anything about Snape's commitment to *his* ideology at this time. He may well be a true believer by this time, eagerly awaiting his cool new skin art. There's no real hint on him.< >>Nora: >No, strictly speaking, there's not. But it is, again, suggestive in the use of words, and we have the infamous 'gang of Slytherins' yet to account for. I *will* bet that they play a role in this, somehow. Too careful set up for dear Bella to have nothing to do, you know.< Betsy: I'm just wondering how far down the road to Death Eaterdom Snape is at this point. Nothing in the scene gives us a clue. There's been a lot of back and forth on ages, but I have the impression that Lucius et al are older than Snape, and I think Bella may be as well. But certainly, at some point they are friends with Snape. (Could they be seventh years at this time?) >>Nora: >I admit to having had the perspective that Sirius had some major break beforehand, via the going into Gryffindor, and the running away from home as the ultimate result of that; less than it being a genuine crisis of conscience, it was an inevitable fait accompli.< Betsy: I'll admit that I find it hard to believe that an eleven year old can have such an altering break. Not much canon to say either way. But though they might not have approved of the victim choice (though Snape may well not be "pure" in the strictest sense) I'm sure the Black family would have loved Sirius's methods. >>Betsy: >Ah yes, but in this scene James uses the right methods (all white magic) to achieve an inpure motive - the humiliation of another student. It's fairly clear that James and Sirius are not reacting defensivly at this point.< >>Nora: >See above: I think that conception of motives and methods is more narrow than what I was getting at, and if you're going to play with such Kantian terms, play on the larger scale.< Betsy: But I don't need to. It's very obvious that James would argue that he's correct ideologically because he uses the proper language and weapon. But his actions are not those of his ideology. His argument is childish. That James at fifteen is less mature than Harry at fifteen is quite apparent. Of course, I don't think James has been tested when this memory takes place, and at some point James does mature. But at this point in time James does not understand what is right and what is wrong. >>Betsy: >There is something to be said, however, for what the author chooses to show us. I don't think this is an isolated event, no matter that this is the only such event we witness.< >>Nora: >Problem is, it is currently *textually* an isolated event. No seriation. The argument that it is shown to us as representative is equally as weak as the argument that it is there for future modification.< Betsy: I would argue that it's *not* isolated textually. We have long known that Snape and James did not get along (I think we learn that all the way back in PS/SS when Dumbledore tells Harry about the life debt). We know how Snape views James. We've been given some hints about the Mauraders from Lupin, Sirius, McGonagall, and the map itself. And though we're horrified by the fact that James *did* behave as badly as Snape suggested he did (even worse actually), this event doesn't come completely out of the blue. So I would say that the representative argument is actually stronger than the future modification argument. This is how James was. He will change. Here is what Snape endured. Does he rise above it? (I'm assuming that by future modification you mean that we'll learn something that puts a whole new spin on this scene.) >>Nora: >There's the ever-intriguing existence line, though. And from a literary perspective, so much more effective to let Harry and us see such a strong one side, before pulling out the other half of the dialectic.< Betsy: A dangerous game though. With so little time and so many characters, will JKR really lead us so far down a false path? And why put all this effort into painting characters such an intriguing shade of grey to end up throwing a can of white paint over your work? >>Betsy: >I would like to learn what made Snape change his mind about Voldemort, and why Dumbledore seems to trust him so completely.< >>Nora: >You are aware of the interview where she says "Snape told Dumbledore his story and Dumbledore believed it", right? I am also firmly agnostic here, but that doesn't inspire grand confidence in lil' me.< Betsy: Please don't make me explain my view of the interviews again. This quote doesn't change it. Very little information shared, so very many ways to read the quote... blah, blah. (I'll assume it was a speaking interview too, which is just... yeah.) >>Betsy: >However, if JKR plays to theme, showing us the darker side of James would suggest we're going to learn (with Harry) the lighter side of Snape.< >>Nora: >Not necessarily; it may equally as well suggest that it's Snape's turn to be dragged through the dirt. That's the more obvious structural parallel.< Betsy: Actually, I'd say that since James is Harry's hero, and Snape is Harry's nemisis, the most obvious structural parallel would be more dark to light rather than dark to dark. >>Betsy: >I am eager to learn why exactly Dumbledore feels Snape as DADA professor is a bad thing. No guesses of my own though I don't think it's simply, Snape is so good at Potions, nor do I think it's, but you scare the children so (hello Professor Moody).< >>Nora: >I think it's that he's been Dark on a level that Moody never has. Not to mention that it points towards a suggestion that Dumbledore *still*, to this very day, worries about Snape's inclinations if offered a particular position. "Bringing out the worst" is the interview language, after all. I think if you're disinclined to take her sadism comment seriously, you have more trouble coming up with scenarios.< Betsy: GOD! Not the damn interviews!! Right, I will not use interviews to try and predict the overall arc of a continually developing character like Snape. Because I hope with all that's holy that JKR would not give away the future development of the character in some damn book signing in Bristol! *pants a little, stops strangling the bunny, aaaand is calm again* Yes, there is a reason that Dumbledore doesn't give Snape the DADA position. No, I don't think there's enough in the books to suggest why Dumbledore decides against it. Yes, Dumbledore *does* trust Snape. In OotP he states this with such clarity it's almost an oath. So yes, I'm eager to learn more about this - and I will not look to interviews!! This I swear! As God as my witness! *eats raw root vegtable - no not really* >Nora: >I believe that we-the-fandom *massively* overestimate the actual complexity of Snape, and there is going to be a lot of "That's it?" in the long run. I think that a theme for Snape is the continual struggle against cynicism and the particular mutation of arrogance that is its inevitable companion; take "I see no difference" as thematic for that. [And that post is WAY back in the archives--I'm not digging that far tonight. To summarize; Snape consistently does not make the differentiations that he should, does not exercise the willingness to listen and rethink positions that marks Dumbledore's actions...] That's why I like Diana so much as a theory, the idea that the essence of the conversion was the realization that there are standards of right and wrong, and that there is NOT "no good and evil, only power and those...". The issues represented by Diana are the ones that he still obviously struggles with.< Betsy: I agree that Snape isn't *that* complex. He was raised to believe one way - went that way for a while (maybe helped along by the sadism of James and Sirius - Yeah, I said it!). Recognizes that the way he's going is wrong, changes to other side. He's a spy - but even that isn't that complex a role. All the way along he's had a snarky personality. It doesn't change. Maybe he tweaks it a bit 'cause of his spy gig, but I do think the whole, "mwwaahaha - I'm eeevil!" is a little over the top. I also doubt he's barely holding himself back from hexing all the students. Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 07:39:26 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:39:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123370 >>Lupinlore: >Well, to me EVERYTHING in the books screams out for DD's direct interference UNLESS DD IS SPECIFICALLY RESTRAINED FROM INTERFERING. Sorry, nothing can justify child abuse (and yes, it IS abuse even if not legally actionable). And yes, this is very much a matter of opinion and is one of those things we can argue about all day long and no one will ever budge. But, I repeat, unless we are SPECIFICALLY told (not by implication, suggestion, or any other indirect method) that DD had no way of easing Harry's suffering at the Dursleys short of placing Harry in dire and direct danger of death, mutilation, etc., he remains complicit to child abuse (even if not legally actionable child abuse).< Betsy: So Dumbledore is as equally guilty as the Dursleys in Harry not getting a gameboy. He is evil! The biggest thing Harry had to suffer was lack of love from the Dursleys. Can anyone force anyone to love? (Though, one could argue that the Dursleys tried to stamp out Harry's magic because they did care for him.) And I do wonder what you think the Death Eaters would do to Harry if they got their hands on him. Serve him cake? Betsy From bob.oliver at cox.net Sat Jan 29 07:51:54 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:51:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123371 > > Betsy: > So Dumbledore is as equally guilty as the Dursleys in Harry not > getting a gameboy. He is evil! The biggest thing Harry had to > suffer was lack of love from the Dursleys. Can anyone force anyone > to love? (Though, one could argue that the Dursleys tried to stamp > out Harry's magic because they did care for him.) > > And I do wonder what you think the Death Eaters would do to Harry if > they got their hands on him. Serve him cake? > > Betsy The biggest thing? And just how big is that? I would say enormous. Witness Harry's documented inability to trust others, particularly adults. Witness the effects on him of the summer before OOTP. Witness his ensnarement at the Mirror of Erised. And on. And on. And on. As for being kicked out and ending up with the Deatheaters, how big a possibility was that? Petunia put up with scolding from a Howler and being threatened by the Order without putting Harry out, which ain't very good evidence that she wouldn't have buckled and done as she was told had Dumbledore chosen to exert himself earlier. So, on one side we have a couple of pathetic examples of Muggledom. On the other, the Greatest Wizard in the World. And we're seriously asked to believe that DD has no way of exerting pressure on the Dursleys at all? Granted the Dursleys MIGHT have put Harry out. Yet they didn't after the Howler nor after being threatened by the Order. Strange for people who are so ready to kick the boy out. No, until we are SPECIFICALLY told otherwise the high-hand in the situation seems to reside with DD, and until we are SPECIFICALLY told about why he did not use that hand to alleviate Harry's suffering, he remains complicit. Oh, and the "Not getting a gameboy" isn't even worthy of a reply. Lupinlore From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 08:13:09 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:13:09 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123372 >>Lupinlore: >The biggest thing? And just how big is that? I would say enormous. Witness Harry's documented inability to trust others, particularly adults.< Betsy: I'd argue that Harry's lack of trust in adults is a strength, especially for a boy whose actions may take down Voldemort. (I see some shades of "Ender's Game" in this.) And Harry does trust his friends. I was actually surprised by how deep his trust in them goes. >>Lupinlore: >Witness the effects on him of the summer before OOTP.< Betsy: That had nothing to do with the Dursleys and everything to do with Harry's isolation. He would have been isolated no matter where he was. Witness his anger at Grimmauld Place and at Hogwarts. >>Lupinlore: >Witness his ensnarement at the Mirror of Erised.< Betsy: Harry's an orphan. That's what ensnared him in the mirror. Nothing can change the fact that his parents are dead. Though I do agree that a loving family (foster or otherwise) may have helped, so again I ask how you force someone to love. >>Lupinlore: >As for being kicked out and ending up with the Deatheaters, how big a possibility was that? Petunia put up with scolding from a Howler and being threatened by the Order without putting Harry out, which ain't very good evidence that she wouldn't have buckled and done as she was told had Dumbledore chosen to exert himself earlier.< Betsy: How do you know? How would Dumbledore know? His choices were very limited at the time, and too much of a threat could have lead to complete disagreement, which he could not afford. >>Lupinlore: >So, on one side we have a couple of pathetic examples of Muggledom. On the other, the Greatest Wizard in the World. And we're seriously asked to believe that DD has no way of exerting pressure on the Dursleys at all? >Granted the Dursleys MIGHT have put Harry out. Yet they didn't after the Howler nor after being threatened by the Order. Strange for people who are so ready to kick the boy out. No, until we are SPECIFICALLY told otherwise the high-hand in the situation seems to reside with DD, and until we are SPECIFICALLY told about why he did not use that hand to alleviate Harry's suffering, he remains complicit.< Betsy: Classic bargining dilemma. The Dursleys had something Dumbledore desperately needed. He could offer them nothing but danger and inconvenience. So yes, at this time the Dursleys, pathetic Muggles though they may be, had all the power. And they continued to have all the power until Harry was old enough to enter into wizarding society. And if Dumbledore had used his magic to compell them to act in a manner of which he approved, what example would that set Harry? Perhaps Harry would have become a dark lord himself. Betsy From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 08:11:18 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:11:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Incomprehensible comparison of Sirius and Aragorn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050129081118.36076.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123373 Carol responds: > I see no resemblance of any kind to Aragorn, who is > violent only in > battle against Orcs and never at any point desires > to murder those who > have betrayed him. Aragorn is a born captain, loved > by many men (and > two women), concerned not with his personal life but > with his duty to > the people of Middle Earth. Sirius cares only for > himself and James, > and to a lesser degree for Remus and pre-betrayal > Peter. Juli now: It's hard to explain why I think they are alike, call it a gut feeling, sixth sense, intuition. There is something that just makes me think they are alike, I tried to explain it before but I guess I wasn't very convincing. There's just something about them. > Carol, who does see a Gollum/Kreacher resemblance > and we doesn't like > it at all, no, precious, we doesn't Juli: it's creepy, they are both creepy. Maybe towards the end Kreacher will serve the WW just like Gollum *saved* middle earth. But still I can't see redemption for him, he willingly sent Harry to the MoM which he knew was just to hurt him. He betrayed his master... Anyways, I agree Carol I don't like that resemblance, it makes me nervous, ichy, it makes me wonder if we still haven't seem the worst of Kreacher. Juli __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 From snow15145 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 09:05:25 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:05:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > > > > Betsy: > > So Dumbledore is as equally guilty as the Dursleys in Harry not > > getting a gameboy. He is evil! The biggest thing Harry had to > > suffer was lack of love from the Dursleys. Can anyone force anyone > > to love? (Though, one could argue that the Dursleys tried to stamp > > out Harry's magic because they did care for him.) > > > > And I do wonder what you think the Death Eaters would do to Harry if > > they got their hands on him. Serve him cake? > > > > Betsy > > The biggest thing? And just how big is that? I would say enormous. > Witness Harry's documented inability to trust others, particularly > adults. Witness the effects on him of the summer before OOTP. > Witness his ensnarement at the Mirror of Erised. And on. And on. > And on. > > As for being kicked out and ending up with the Deatheaters, how big a > possibility was that? Petunia put up with scolding from a Howler and > being threatened by the Order without putting Harry out, which ain't > very good evidence that she wouldn't have buckled and done as she was > told had Dumbledore chosen to exert himself earlier. > > So, on one side we have a couple of pathetic examples of Muggledom. > On the other, the Greatest Wizard in the World. And we're seriously > asked to believe that DD has no way of exerting pressure on the > Dursleys at all? > > Granted the Dursleys MIGHT have put Harry out. Yet they didn't after > the Howler nor after being threatened by the Order. Strange for > people who are so ready to kick the boy out. No, until we are > SPECIFICALLY told otherwise the high-hand in the situation seems to > reside with DD, and until we are SPECIFICALLY told about why he did > not use that hand to alleviate Harry's suffering, he remains complicit. > > Oh, and the "Not getting a gameboy" isn't even worthy of a reply. > > > Lupinlore Snow: When push came to shove, or neglect became abuse, yes Dumbledore did step in, didn't he? When Vernon attempted to choke Harry, the protection did stop him, didn't it? When the true abuse like attempting to throw Harry out leaving him unprotected was evident, it didn't happen, did it? What do you want to see from Dumbledore, the man has already cried (only time) as a product of what he has been made to put Harry through. Dumbledore has already apologized for what he was made to do. Dumbledore had to use the protection Lily laid upon Harry to ensure his OVERALL safety. Dumbledore has acknowledged that Harry was neither the most nourished boy nor the happiest boy but really BIG-- but "was alive and healthy" and yes protected against any TRUE abuse. The kind that induces long lasting affects like death. Yes, Harry was seen to be healthy when he first entered Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardly, and he was! Harry does not display, even now after everything he has gone through, any lasting affects from his so called abusive days with the Dursley's. Conclusion is Harry does not display any long-term affects from his less than adequate upbringing because he was protected given the entire picture. You can't just focus on the tree when the entire forest is burning, such is Harry, you can't just focus on one aspect of neglect and ignore his entire safety. What did you save him from if he is dead? Are you willing to risk his life over neglect or ensure his life only when push comes to shove and Harry is faced with possible extinction? Snow From R.Vink2 at chello.nl Sat Jan 29 10:17:27 2005 From: R.Vink2 at chello.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:17:27 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123375 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Renee wrote: Snape bound and gagged > > Lupin, insulted him and threatened to drag him from the Shrieking > > Shack. > > Carol responds: > A minor point here. Snape knew that Lupin would turn into a werewolf > when he left the Shrieking Shack. He also believed him to be the > accomplice of a multiple murderer. It was, in his view, imperative to > control Lupin, whom he regarded, correctly, as extremely dangerous. > Renee: That makes me wonder about two things (not for the first time): 1) Why didn't Snape bring the Wolfsbane potion to the Shack, if only for his own safety? I'm sure there are charms to avoid spilling liquid from a cup. 2) is tying up a werewolf sufficient to keep it in check? And I still don't see why he'd have to *drag* Lupin if he could have levitated him. From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 11:52:46 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:52:46 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123376 Betsy wrote: 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. vmonte responds: Well, let's go over the other times JKR was shown us events from the past. In Dumbledore's penseive memories we see the Death Eater trials, and we are introduced to Barty Crouch and son. JKR leads us to believe that Crouch Senior is heartless, and that his son may have been innocent. And how about Tom Riddle's diary? JKR also tricks us here by showing us Tom as though he is a wonderful boy who saved Hogwarts from the monster in the chamber. She also makes us believe that Hagrid is responsible for opening the chamber. We take what Tom Riddle tells Harry at face value. The real clue in that scene is when Dumbledore makes an appearance. He asks Tom whether there is something that he is not telling him--this is the clue to what is really going on in that scene. So, yes, I do think that she is tricking us again. Snape's memories are only showing us a small part of a larger picture. Vivian From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 12:07:48 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:07:48 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six - his Hit List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123377 Eustace_Scrubb: I agree that it would likely be a strategic mistake. But it seems like a mistake Voldemort would be all too likely to make. He seems to have trouble learning from his mistakes. Despite the evidence that Harry is the biggest threat to him, Voldemort continues to fear Dumbledore more than he does Harry. Does he? Voldemort's activities all year were centered on Harry and the Prophecy. Ultimately Harry is the biggest threat to Voldemort, as the only one who can defeat him, but Dumbledore is still the biggest threat to the DE's and their current operations, as we saw in the MoM. That's why I agree with you Voldemort is right to fear Dumbledore. Eustace:"(A pretty result that would have been: the Department of Mysteries ransacked by Harry Potter, some misguided fellow students, a werewolf, a discredited ex-Auror...all with ties to Dumbledore. And some cockamamey story about Death Eaters luring them there." Ooooeee, Mama, what a mess that would have been. They WOULD have landed in Azkaban. I wonder what the plan was, to leave them there to take the heat, take Harry away with them, or just off them right there? (probably take Harry at least back to V, so we could have had one of those Talking Killer scenes) Jim Ferer From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 29 13:57:27 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:57:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123378 Alla, earlier: > Am I confusing? I am just saying that IF Dumbledore knew > FOR SURE that bribery would work to ease Harry's life, he > should have used it without hesitation. Pippin: > 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? Alla responded: > Partially. I don't think that Dumbledore can rely on his past > experience, his past experience mislead him way too often in the > books, IMO. > > ONLY IF he knows that in this particular situation with Dursleys > and Harry bribery will not work and make things worse, THEN he > should not use it, IMO. SSSusan: But how can Dumbledore know FOR SURE? It seems you're suggesting he should try it and see how it goes. But what if trying it ONE time leads to the Dursleys calling off all bets and kicking Harry out for good? How CAN he know for sure? At some point, we're going to have to concede that DD had to use his judgment, I think, because no human, even a wizard, can KNOW everything in advance. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 29 14:15:23 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:15:23 -0000 Subject: Wizards and firearms (Was: Dumbledore's serious errors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123379 Joan wrote: > > I always wondered why no one ever thought of going after the > > DE's or V with firearms. If your body is destroyed to the point > > that you bleed to death or your organs are destroyed, you can't > > live or repair yourself no matter how magical you are. Carol responds: > Do we know that for certain? Wizards can survive splinching--half > their body in one place and half in another. Hagrid expresses > contempt for the idea that powerful wizards like James and Lily > Potter could die in a car crash. Evidently either the crash > couldn't kill them or they could do something to prevent it. SSSusan: I never saw this as Hagrid expressing disbelief that a car crash could have killed James & Lily. I always read his reaction as expressing his contempt that the Dursleys would have told Harry J&L died of such a *mundane* cause, rather than the truth of their being murdered, heroes, for a cause. I was the one who joked about AK-47s and Uzis originally in 122897, to which Joan was responding. Not that I feel I have canon to argue your point that it may be harder to kill a witch or wizard, but I think it unlikely that wizards *can't* die due to accident or firearms. I think this particular scene with Hagrid could be taken differently than the two options you presented. Siriusly Snapey Susan From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 14:15:20 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:15:20 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123380 Lisa Marie wrote: > > Maybe this question has been posed before, but I haven't seen it here. If this > is the case, please point me toward the appropriate thread and forgive my > ignorance. :) > > 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? Meri now: Interesting question, and one that I don't think we will ever have a full answer on seeing as JKR has said she won't write a prequel series describing the Marauders' Hogwarts days. (I am going to cut and paste to put some relevant examples together, forgive my editing.) > Molly & Arthur -- Do the Weasley kids not have any grandparents? > > 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? Meri: As for these parental untits, I think we have to keep in mind that at the time that the Marauders were at Hogwarts there was a war going on. We don't know how involved, if at all, these people were in the Order, though I suspect that James' parents at the very least were members at one time or another. Who knows how many hiding places James and Lily went through before arriving in GH? Perhaps a stint at the Potter house? We know Molly's brothers were killed in action, along with IIRC their wives and children, so perhaps Molly's mother and father, too, were murdered. As for Ted Tonks, he is a Muggle and probably not very interesting, although I have heard speculation that he was one of the news reporters in SS, but I doubt it. > Sirius -- We know they are dead, but how? Sirius is young; it seems his > parents would be too young to die of natural causes. Meri: Young people lose their parents to natural causes all the time, though WW convention would seem to indicate much longer life spans. I can't recall the passages in Order off the top of my head, do we have canon as to when they died? Anyway, it is possible that they died while he was in Azkaban, and he was there into his mid- thirties. Plus we don't have canon to tell us how old they were when they had their kids, so perhaps they were old to begin with. > Lily & Petunia -- Another mystery. > > Vernon -- Also no mention of parents (that I remember). Vernon and Petunia > (and Marge) being the way they were toward Dudley, surely Vernon's parents > would have been just as doting (read: disgusting). So where are they? Meri: Lily and Petunia's parents were Muggles, and it is possible (and I know that there has been speculation about this) that LV killed them for some reason and that this is why Petunia hates the WW so much. Also, I always got the impression (even before the medium that shall not be named reinforced this by casting the roles this way) that Unlce Vernon and Aunt Petunia were a good piece older than James and Lily, so the Dursley parents could well be dead of natural causes as well. Just a few knuts. Meri - off to work where there is no heat! From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 14:22:02 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:22:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-what could DD do? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123381 SSSusan:" SSSusan: But how can Dumbledore know FOR SURE? It seems you're suggesting he should try it and see how it goes. But what if trying it ONE time leads to the Dursleys calling off all bets and kicking Harry out for good? How CAN he know for sure? At some point, we're going to have to concede that DD had to use his judgment, I think, because no human, even a wizard, can KNOW everything in advance." That's the nature of things with people who actually have to get something done: you have to make decisions knowing you could be wrong, that you have no guarantee. Like the fire chief who sends his firefighters into a building with no guarantee it won't collapse, the guy in charge has to take his best shot. I don't agree that bribery would have been wrong with respect to the Dursleys if it would have worked. "After you pay the Danegelt, you still have the Dane" doesn't apply here; it's a specific, limited goal (to get one couple to ease up on one kid). My guess is that Dumbledore decided he could not interfere for the ancient protection to work. And the Dursleys could have been good to Harry about as long as a dog can walk on two legs. It's just not in their nature. Heck, they abused Dudley worse than they did Harry. Jim Ferer From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sat Jan 29 14:31:49 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:31:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's bit of Voldy (apologies to Snow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123382 Dungrollin stands at the high tide mark, and realigns the same canon, sighting at the little boat captained by Snow all alone. Snow appears to have been dodging. Dung has no boat of her own, though there are, and have been for months, plans for one on a roll of parchment under her arm. Dung feels dreadfully guilty for a moment, because it's such a handsome little boat. Then thinks, "Oh, what the hell, I'll probably miss again, anyway." Dungrollin previously: There are hints that Voldy did torture and kill Bertha and *didn't* possess Wormtail to do it ? GoF, chapter 33: The Death Eaters. Voldy says: "... but the means I used to break the Memory Charm upon her were powerful, and when I had extracted all useful information from her, her mind and body were both damaged beyond repair. She had now served her purpose. I could not possess her. I disposed of her [...] Wormtail's body, of course, was ill-adapted for possession, as all assumed him dead, and would attract far too much attention if seen." Snow: I believe Voldemort is talking future tense when he says that Wormtail's body was ill adept for possession because he explains in what context his body is ill adapted; "as all assumed him dead, and would attract far too much attention if seen." It is the *if seen* part of the statement that allows me to believe that Wormtail's body was not entirely ill adept, it was only useful to Voldemort where no one could see Wormtail; like in the woods of Albania torturing Bertha. Dungrollin, previously: Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that Voldy didn't possess Wormtail briefly in order to torture and kill Bertha, but Voldy also says: "Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body I would be able to inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth [...] 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." Which suggests that he became Voldy!baby in Albania before making his way back to England. (It also suggests, by the way, that Nagini was in Albania with him). And we know for sure that as Voldy!baby he can cast an AK, because he kills Frank Bryce. So it's quite possible that it was Voldy!baby, rather than Wormtail who tortured and killed Bertha. Snow: Aha except Voldemort speaks of this event happening after his realization that he could not possess Bertha. Therefore I conclude that the concoction made to turn Vapormort into Babymort happened after the torture of Bertha, which still allows for the scenario that Voldemort had possessed Wormtail for the interrogation of Bertha. Voldemort was using Wormtail's abilities under this possession (not his own) to torture Bertha, which would not have therefore been scar seeringly eventful for Harry. Dungrollin: Yep, that's entirely possible, though it's not the only possible interpretation. I was trying to show that Voldy says "*I* tortured and killed Bertha Jorkins," and Crouch Jnr (under Veritaserum) says "*my master* tortured and killed Bertha Jorkins"; and that, since Vapour!Mort became Voldy!Baby in Albania, it's perfectly possible that it was as Voldy!Baby that he tortured and killed Bertha, rather than by possessing Wormtail. The fact that he mentions becoming Voldy!Baby and not possessing Wormtail *after* he talks about torturing and killing Bertha doesn't necessarily mean that it happened in that order. I admit that it's the most obvious reading, though. Dungrollin previously: And finally, GoF, chapter 35: Veritaserum, "It was very quick. My father was placed under the Imperius curse by my master. My master forced him to go about his business as usual..." It could be argued that Barty Crouch is saying "my master" when what he means is "my master ordered Wormtail to...", except that after that he changes to: "You needed Alastor Moody," said Dumbledore. His blue eyes were blazing, though his voice remained calm. [Crouch replies] "Wormtail and I did it." So I see no reason to disbelieve Barty Crouch's implication that Voldy!baby was using magic (particularly as he was under Veritaserum at the time), that he used the Imperius curse on Crouch senior; but Harry didn't feel his scar hurt when it happened. Snow: Two separate circumstances. The first quote applies to Crouch Sr., which could have been Voldemort possessing Wormtail at the time, whereas the second quote is about putting Moody under the Imperius, which could have been Wormtail without his possession buddy. It is rather like the instances with Quirrel and Quirrelmort, sometimes he feels like a nut sometimes he don't. In other words, Vapormort wasn't always possessing Quirrel either. Dungrollin: I know, that's what I meant, sorry for not being very clear... I was trying to anticipate the argument that Crouch Jnr, being a creep, would have given Voldy credit for things that Wormtail did under orders, but after all the "my master did this" and "my master did that" he doesn't try to give credit to Voldy for capturing Moody, he says "Wormtail and I did it." So when Crouch says "My father was placed under the Imperius curse *by my master*", I don't see any reason to think that it was anybody other than Voldy!baby holding the wand. Wormtail and Voldy arrive at the Crouch house after the Quidditch World Cup and before Moody is captured, and there is no mention of Harry's scar hurting at this time. Dungrollin, previously: If Voldy now has Harry's powers that should include the power that "the Dark Lord knows not", which would either have killed him because it's incompatible with general Voldyness, or would mean he shouldn't have had any difficulties in possessing Harry in the MoM. Snow: As I see it Voldy is only accessing *his old powers* through Harry so he is not actually sharing all of the powers that Harry possesses. On the other hand Harry does, through this connection, have some use of the only power that Voldemort himself actually retained and that is the possession factor. I have to say some use of it because Harry did not actually possess the snake in the MOM but did view from inside the possession. Like I had said in one of the Satellite!Harry posts, this was the time in which Voldemort became aware of Harry's presence. It was the fact that Harry was now accessing a power that was not bequeathed to Harry that allowed Voldemort to sense Harry's presence. Dungrollin: I was responding to Finwitch's claim that Voldy gained Harry's powers after using his blood in the graveyard. (D?j? vu strikes again, see message 117282...) Replying to Snow: Though I don't see why it's necessary for Harry to be able to use Voldy's powers of possession for this episode. It seems to me to be just the same as the dreams he has from Voldemort's point of view, except that in this one Voldy's point of view was from the snake that he was possessing, so that is what Harry sees. A more general problem with Satellite!Harry (I think) is that we have to believe that Voldy, having spent years as formless gas, unable to do magic, finally gets a body in which he can use a wand, and only casts three spells over a period of 10 months, during GoF. Killing Frank Bryce, Imperioing Crouch Snr, and Crucioing Wormtail (and that Harry only felt his scar hurt for two of those occasions). Such a handsome little boat... Dungrollin fires the canon and waits to see whether it will hit, miss or be deflected in mid-air by Snow's canon... From nrenka at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 14:45:26 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:45:26 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123383 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > 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). He follows the end-goals ideas of his ideology while breaking the methodological concerns of the ideology. Bifurcated ideology doesn't invalidate the general existence of said ideology. And I'm not sure that JKR is holding anyone to a Kantian level of "means are ends" that I might. Sneaky of me to go meta there, I know, but it's revealing. > Betsy: > But you are assuming a depth of conviction that frankly, James does > not express here. Yes, he knows that "mudblood" is a bad word. > This suggests that he was raised right. But he flips Snape over in > retaliation for the slash to his face, and he threatens to remove > Snape's underwear because Lily turns him down. None of that points > to a deeper ideological reason for picking on Snape. And nothing in > the text of this scene suggests any purer motive. But it's also only after Snape pulls out "Mudblood" that James seems to get really upset. It's compounded with his annoyance about Lily, but I read that as being one of the primary motivators. I do this, in part, because I suspect that the 'gang of Slytherins' is hanging over this encounter even if they are now currently departed. There's also the comment that some have been quick to discount, that "James hated the Dark Arts"; easy (if possibly idiotic, and not justified anyways) to see Young!Snape as a representative of such, no? And we know that the Dark Arts, pureblood ideology, and becoming a Death Eater all walk hand in hand in one looped nexus. I admit that I can see a young jerk Vigilante!James coming out of an opposition to all those attitudes. Just because it's not written out or even fully conscious doesn't mean that it's not operating on a profound level. > Betsy: > I'm just wondering how far down the road to Death Eaterdom Snape is > at this point. Nothing in the scene gives us a clue. There's been > a lot of back and forth on ages, but I have the impression that > Lucius et al are older than Snape, and I think Bella may be as > well. But certainly, at some point they are friends with Snape. > (Could they be seventh years at this time?) Per interview (hehehehe), Snape is "35 or 36" in GoF. Lucius Malfoy is 41, in OotP. But being as you refuse to use interviews, that source of enlightenment is right out, no? :) > Betsy: > I'll admit that I find it hard to believe that an eleven year old > can have such an altering break. Not much canon to say either > way. But though they might not have approved of the victim choice > (though Snape may well not be "pure" in the strictest sense) I'm > sure the Black family would have loved Sirius's methods. But at least in JKR's essentialist world, the choice to go into Gryffindor instead of into Slytherin is a very profound one. (We may not *like* that it is, but so far, it just is, end stop.) It speaks to an already-formed concept of self and relations that is at odds with that of the family, that far along. Perhaps somewhat like how Harry, even at 11, rejects Draco because he reminds him of Dudley--that's not only a knee-jerk reaction, that's a choice with principles lurking but simply as of yet unstated behind it. (He seems to have pegged canon!Draco quite well from the beginning, as well.) > Betsy: > I would argue that it's *not* isolated textually. We have long > known that Snape and James did not get along (I think we learn that > all the way back in PS/SS when Dumbledore tells Harry about the > life debt). We know how Snape views James. We've been given some > hints about the Mauraders from Lupin, Sirius, McGonagall, and the > map itself. And though we're horrified by the fact that James > *did* behave as badly as Snape suggested he did (even worse > actually), this event doesn't come completely out of the blue. So > I would say that the representative argument is actually stronger > than the future modification argument. This is how James was. He > will change. Here is what Snape endured. Does he rise above it? > (I'm assuming that by future modification you mean that we'll learn > something that puts a whole new spin on this scene.) But then you have the problem of accounting for the good ways that people speak of James; the affection of Rosemerta and somewhat from McGonagall, Hagrid telling Harry there's no higher praise, etc. And again, reported hints and snippets about a character are not quite the same thing as what we got--yes, they hinted that the 'James, perfect angel' was not going to turn out--not a hard prediction to have made, if you're paying attention. But there are still a lot of dissonant elements. Not so much whole new spin, but I think we may get things of either of two classes: Things that seriously complicate what we took as straightforward, or situations that present another scene that is strongly contradictory. As a complete hypothetical, say we get a scene with older Slytherins bullying MWPP and Young!Snape enjoying/joining in/instigating/whatever. (Given Bellatrix's sometimes presence here, it's not TOO far flung.) Doesn't excuse James, no. Does it give some reasons for background? Yep. >> Nora: >> There's the ever-intriguing existence line, though. And from a >> literary perspective, so much more effective to let Harry and us >> see such a strong one side, before pulling out the other half of >> the dialectic. > > Betsy: > A dangerous game though. With so little time and so many > characters, will JKR really lead us so far down a false path? And > why put all this effort into painting characters such an intriguing > shade of grey to end up throwing a can of white paint over your > work? You misunderstand the nature of dialectic. :) Even with some white paint, it's then going to blend with the black--but yank us towards a synthesis. What has been presented to us cannot be fully reversed at all, nor do I think JKR is going to. It can, however, be profoundly complicated, as we've got a few major events of the past that explication has been promised for. Frankly, it could take very little space and time for us to get enough information to have to re-read that scene at least partially. We still need answers about a number of events. And here I am talking *actual* answers, not reported hearsay. There is a different textual/ontological level of existence for actions that we actually *see*, and actions that we have some cryptic comments about from Snape. > Betsy: > Please don't make me explain my view of the interviews again. This > quote doesn't change it. Very little information shared, so very > many ways to read the quote... blah, blah. (I'll assume it was a > speaking interview too, which is just... yeah.) Just sayin'. It's not the sort of thing to inspire grand confidence, and ignoring what has been hinted at as a possible possibility...is not for me, at least. I don't like getting whacked. *waves at all the Vampire!Snape theorists out there* > Betsy: > Actually, I'd say that since James is Harry's hero, and Snape is > Harry's nemisis, the most obvious structural parallel would be more > dark to light rather than dark to dark. But Snape is currently the sympathetic one, in terms of the James/Snape conflict--and if we find out why he converted, we should also find out the deep dirt. > Betsy: > > Yes, there is a reason that Dumbledore doesn't give Snape the DADA > position. No, I don't think there's enough in the books to suggest > why Dumbledore decides against it. Yes, Dumbledore *does* trust > Snape. In OotP he states this with such clarity it's almost an > oath. So yes, I'm eager to learn more about this - and I will not > look to interviews!! This I swear! As God as my witness! *eats > raw root vegtable - no not really* Okay, don't freak out. I'm just saying here that the interviews can be used as a useful regulation--one has every reason to expect a clarification of the line of reasoning, really. So here's some in- books reasoning for you: it is strongly hinted at the end of CoS that Dumbledore knows Lockhart is a fraud. Given the combination of interview and in-book revelation of Snape's continual application for the position, it seems telling that Dumbledore would hire a worthless egoist for this position over his *trusted* man. The interview provides a nice solution to the 'why?', and a telling one. I'll be over here petting the bunny iff'n it comes out right, of course. Even though I'm not a believer in ESE!Snape, you have to admit that it has been set up cleanly to go either way. Hermione could be right (that Dumbledore trusts Snape and we should trust Dumbledore), being as she is usually right. However, Ron could be right (not trusting Snape), as Dumbledore has now been kicked off of his pedestal and shown to be fallible, and it would be very nice for *Ron* to be right and Hermione wrong. Toss a coin, kids. -Nora hums and reads some more of Uncle Carl From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 14:55:33 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:55:33 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123384 Betsy: Actually, I'd say that since James is Harry's hero, and Snape is Harry's nemisis, the most obvious structural parallel would be more dark to light rather than dark to dark. Nora: But Snape is currently the sympathetic one, in terms of the James/Snape conflict--and if we find out why he converted, we should also find out the deep dirt. Alla: Nora you are doing such an amazing job. ( and Betsy too, of course):o) I only have one very brief comment - not only Snape is the sympathetic one in terms of THAT conflict, but reader does not really DOUBT Snape any more. I mean, Harry is wrong every book, so how many of us do really believe his doubts about Snape any more? Hmmm, I wonder. JMO, Alla From mgrantwich at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 15:30:21 2005 From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:30:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Personal Note Re: [HPforGrownups] Imperius Resistance and Occlumency, was Harry's anger (was Re: Draco's anger.) In-Reply-To: <7CA36D80-7000-11D9-9F71-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: <20050129153021.61181.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123385 We're not allowed to say "I agree" posts on HPFGU (although "I disagree" posts are allowed at least a few dozen times a day; go figure) but I did want to tell you "I AGREE" completely with your post below. Keep posting. Cheers. Magda --- Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > On Thursday, January 27, 2005, at 03:16 am, eggplant9998 wrote: > > > In the case of the Occlumency lessons that was easy because the > > feeling Harry was feeling in his gut was literal not figurative; > they > > actually made him sick as well as weak. I don't know about you > but I > > would need a very good reason to continue doing something like > that; > > "because I said so" just wouldn't do it for me. > > > I was reading OotP to my son last night before bed and he was up to > the > scene in Dumbledore's office before Dumbledore does a runner. It's > a > pretty powerful plea Dumbledore makes to Harry to learn Occlumency! > > Not just a passing mention. Also it follows a scene where > Dumbledore > takes responsibility for the DA in order to keep Harry from being > forced out of Hogwarts. Harry clearly interprets the events as > Dumbledore protecting him, too, so no misunderstanding there. > > His powerful ally/protector who has just made a sacrifice for him > implores him to learn Occlumency in the last moments they have > together. But Harry won't. > > Yes I agree with you that Harry deserved to be told more by the > adults. > He wasn't, so he had to make a decision based on the information > he > had - and he had plenty of resources. This is a kid with brains > and > friends but he won't listen to either. He goes with his gut > (whether > because he's a sulky adolescent or, as others have more charitably > speculated, because LV is manipulating him) and it ends with a > friend > being killed. Let's hope he learns from that. > > Jocelyn > > __________________________________________________ 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 Jan 29 16:44:22 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:44:22 -0000 Subject: Wizards and firearms (Was: Dumbledore's serious errors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123386 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: Not that I feel I have canon to argue your point that it may be harder to kill a witch or wizard, but I think it unlikely that wizards *can't* die due to accident or firearms. Tonks: Wizards can die of accidents. Luna's mother died in a cauldron accident. Tonks_op From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 17:33:39 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:33:39 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's strategy in Year Six, - his Hit List Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123387 Jim Ferer Wrote: > Ron is suggesting that Percy might allow > a relative to be imprisoned *by the Ministry* > if that relative was accused of a crime. > Ron is not suggesting that Percy is a nascent DE. Hermione said: "Percy would never throw any of his family to the dementors," and then Ron responded with "I don't know. If he thought we were standing in the way of his career .. . Percy's really ambitious, you know. ..." It seems clear to me that even as early as book 4 Ron had profound doubts about the ultimate goodness of his brother,he thought he could throw a family member to the dementors to advance his career, and Percy didn't start doing really bad stuff until book 5. > call me dumb, but Percy is a Weasley and > a Gryffindor. That counts for something. Yes Percy is a Weasley but I disagree with Aunt Marge, I don't think blood is everything, sometimes good people can come from bad families and sometimes bad people can come from good families. And yes, Percy is a Gryffindor but I never accused him of being a coward, actually I don't even think he's immoral, he's just amoral. Percy is also ambitious, if he could get ahead by becoming an ally of Dumbledore and the other good guys he would do so, but after book 5 it seems that path is closed to him, so he must try another organization. I can see him pretending to be sorrowful and apologizing to his friends and family so they won't be on their guard around him and then when Harry isn't looking stun him in the back, bind him with ropes and turn him over to the Death Eaters. "I couldn't talk them out of it, they're going to kill you Harry but not before they've tortured you for a few days I'm afraid. It's a real shame, nobody regrets this unfortunate situation more than me but it can't be helped. I was too closely linked to Fudge and now that he has been proven to be disastrously wrong my chance for advancement within the ministry is almost zero, so it's clear that now my best bet is with the Dark Lord's team. Nothing could improve my standing with that organization more than to hand you over to He Who Must Not Be Named. I hope you understand Harry that my leading you to your death wasn't personal; I never had any animosity toward you, in fact I rather liked you but an opportunity like this doesn't come along every day, I couldn't just ignore it now could I. It was strictly a business decision not personal. Well, it looks like the Death Eaters are about ready to start working on you and as I have a rather weak stomach I'd rather not witness that, so I'll leave you now. Goodbye Harry, I don't expect we'll meet again." And then I think Percy is entirely capable of turning around walking away without another word and sleeping soundly the next night. Eggplant From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 17:44:18 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:44:18 -0000 Subject: Wizards and firearms (Was: Dumbledore's serious errors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123388 > Tonks: > Wizards can die of accidents. Luna's mother died in a cauldron > accident. Finwitch: What was in the cauldron? At any case-- a *magical* Potion. Only mundane method of any wizard dying is when someone chopped his head off (and lots of them, apparently. The Headless Hunt, you know...) Finwitch From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 18:01:07 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:01:07 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123389 "justcarol67" wrote: > Dumbledore did not tell "the entire world" > that Snape had been a spy. He told the > Wizengamot in what was probably a closed hearing, He told a lot more people that Snape was a spy than just the Wizengamot, he said it in a "enormous room" with "rows and rows of witches and wizards seated around every wall on what seemed like benches rising in levels". We also know "there were not nearly that many teachers at Hogwarts." There must have been several hundred people there at least when Dumbledore spilled the beans about Snape, and that was not even the first time he'd done it, he said he testified about it before and who knows how many people were there then. The idea that all of them could have kept the secret for well over a decade is not credible. Eggplant From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jan 29 18:31:33 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:31:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123390 Lupinlore: > Granted the Dursleys MIGHT have put Harry out. Yet they didn't > after the Howler nor after being threatened by the Order. Strange > for people who are so ready to kick the boy out. No, until we are > SPECIFICALLY told otherwise the high-hand in the situation seems to > reside with DD, and until we are SPECIFICALLY told about why he did > not use that hand to alleviate Harry's suffering, he remains > complicit. SSSusan: I think you're twisting things here a bit. Yesterday you pointed out that I presented only two options, when there might be another. Today I'd like to respectfully point out that there may be a BALANCE between the two extremes that are being presented here. I have seen no one say that the Dursleys were *ready* to push Harry out. What I suggested, for instance, is that perhaps if DD pushed *too hard* for certain things concerning their behavior & treatment of Harry, they might have been willing to. I suggested that DD, wise as he is, could not *know* in advance how these people would react to threats or bribery and so had to weigh Harry's safety against his comfort. You asked how great might the risk have been that the DEs would have come after Harry if he was kicked out as a child? Pretty great, I would think! The kid didn't even know he was a wizard 'til 11. He wouldn't have had a wand; he wouldn't have been able to defend himself. Look at what the DEs did to Alice & Frank *after* Voldy's fall. What would have given DD any indication that Harry might not meet a similar -- or worse -- fate? But back to my main point, I believe DD offered the Dursleys something -- likely a form of protection for them or Dudley or their home -- as long as Petunia & Vernon continue to allow Harry to live in their home. This would have been a starting point, but with *how delicate* a balance? If the Dursleys routinely beat Harry or refused to allow him to go to school or made him live in squalor [do we see evidence of any of this?], I like to think that would have tipped the balance too far and DD would have appeared to address it. [Perhaps Mrs. Figg served as DD's monitor for these flagrant, very dangerous abuses?] But the Dursleys likely know about the protection their home affords Harry, as well, and so they know DD wouldn't lightly remove Harry -- so in that way, they have the upper hand. They *could* kick him out, albeit [*if* I'm right about a DD offer] potentially at the loss of protection for themselves. But it was always a chance that they might elect to do this. 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 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 21:00:41 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:00:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123391 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > > > > ... even Dumbledore, ..., would agree that he should have gotten > > involved ... to insure better treatment for Harry, but every time > > those doubts and concerns came up, Dumbledore just reminded > > himself that ..., it is still the safest place for Harry. > > > > Also, ... Dumbledore is administering all this from 500 miles > > (fair guess) away over 10 years time, and with a very busy > > schedule. ... > > > > From his distant outpost and with his limted information, > > Dumbledore just keptreminding himself that it was best to keep > > Harry out of the wizard world and under the protection of his > > family's blood. > > > Lupinlore: > > Very good points, Steve. Let me see if I've got your arguments > straight. Essentially you are arguing ... He keeps reminding > himself of the (...) dangers Harry might face in the WW, > and over time let's himself get "used" to the situation. > Finally (say in OOTP) he looks back and says something like "how > did I ever allow things to come to this?" ... > > That is a very believable scenario. Like most such, it explains > without, as you say, excusing. However, like most such scenarios it > falls afoul of the "epitome of goodness" definition that JKR has > laid down for DD. I.E. such neglect does not equal "epitome of > goodness." > > > Lupinlore bboyminn: First, JKR called Dumbledore the Epitome of Goodness, not the Epitome of Perfection. Being the finest example of 'goodness' (in the books) does not make Dumbledore perfect; he makes human mistakes and miscalculations. Next, I think Harry was in a certain degree of isolation from the wizard world. It's not like Dumbledore or Wizarding Social Services was stopping by one or twice a year for tea and a chat. A choice that is logical since the less contact, the less the wizard world would be reminded of Harry and his location. Conceivably this may also have been a condition set down by the Dursleys; 'We'll kept Harry as long as we are assured that there won't be any of those /abnormal/ people lurking about'. Also, let's consider the first 5 years of Harry's life. The Dursleys couldn't have been too cruel to Harry, he survived. Although, they probably gave him limited contact and no affection, he was, none the less, feed, housed, and clothed. The key point here is that short of Harry suffering significant physical injury or blatant abuse, things seem to be going fine; not great but adequately fine. Harry is alive and well. So, in a sense, Dumbledore has 'let it ride' for five long years. During this time, there would have been little to report. The best Mrs. Figg could do was report that Harry was still alive and unharmed, even though those same reports might have pointed out what irredeemable jerks the Dursleys were. Around five, both Dudley and Harry are becoming more self-aware and self-determined. By this time, Harry has become sufficiently developed and sufficiently self-aware, that it would have been painfully clear that he was being treated much much much different than Dudley. This would have also been the time when Dudley was most able to start asserting himself, and joining in the oppression of Harry. At this stage, the best Mrs. Figg's reports could indicate is that Dudley was becoming a mean-spirited, brutish little lout, but none the less, Harry was alive and well. Now Harry is seven, and he and Dudley start school (or whatever age they start school). For large parts of the day, Mrs. Figg would be unable to observe Harry. Although, I suppose on rare occassion she could wander past the school during play time and witness Harry's isolation and/or some of Dudley and the gang's antics. But bad as it may have seemed, Harry was still in school and learning, away from the perils of the wizard world, and alive and well; unpleasantly well, but well none the less. Now Harry is nine or ten, and it's clear that the Dursely are oppressing and dominating Harry in a most unpleasant way. Still Harry has endured this long, and soon he would return to Hogwarts. All he has to do is hold on and endure a little longer. Now, Harry is 11, 12, or 13 and he spends most of his time at school. Certianly a strong boy like Harry can endure a few weeks with the Dursleys during summer holiday. Through it all, when ever Dumbledore had doubts, he just reminded himself that unpleasant as it may be, Harry was safest at the Dursley's. So, yes, the abuse creeps up on DUmbledore. As Harry gets older and more self-determine, he is oppressed to an ever increasing degree. Dumbledore's not 'used' to it, it's just that from a distance, safety always overpowers the idea of a more pleasant living environment. But now Harry is not 'from a distance'; Dumbledore has to face him and what happened to him in an up close and personal way. Now, Dumbledore is tempering what happened with his genuine affection for a real boy that he sees and knows. Now that Harry has become affectionately humanized, and not just a /plan/ to keep him safe, Dumbledore feels the pain and guilt of what Harry endured because of his choices. Now, in hindsight, I'm sure Dumbledore greatly and truly wishes he had done something to make Harry's life a little more pleasant. As Harry gets older (age 1 thru 10), the oppressive environment gets stronger, but Harry also get closer to coming to Hogwarts. Dumbledore is engaged in a delicate balancing act, and from his distant outpost, as I've already said, safety always wins out. Now, as of the latest book (5-OotP), Harry has endured stress, strain, pain, and loss beyond what many many adults have endured in their lifetime. 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. Steve/bboyminn From Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 14:34:28 2005 From: Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com (Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:34:28 -0000 Subject: Wizards and firearms (Was: Dumbledore's serious errors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123392 > > Joan wrote: > > > I always wondered why no one ever thought of going after the > > > DE's or V with firearms. If your body is destroyed to the point > > > that you bleed to death or your organs are destroyed, you can't > > > live or repair yourself no matter how magical you are. > Karen responds: I think (A) Because its a kids' book and (B) Because it's a UK writer and themed book. Where I don't think guns are as accepted as they are in the USA. I could be wrong on this, but it's just the feeling I've gotten from the few UK people I've talked to over the years. Now, if this was a book geared towards adults and not children..I can imagine there being guns involved...hum..If it was an American wizarding school (laughs) hum.... Imagins the last scene in book 7, Harry standing in front of Voldemort point a wand and gun at him going: "You gota ask yourself one question..do you feel lucky Punk...." Sorry, I have a silly since of humor. But I seriously think that it is because it is a children's book and that is why there are no guns involved. But, if I personally was a witch living in that crazy world, I would surly own some sort of gun. Maybe that's why we really haven't seen many American witches/wizards in the story in importaint rolls... (American Witch Puts on Cowboy Hat and 2-6 shooter and Walks up to Professor Snape and says "So, are you a good wizard or a bad wizard?")Hum..I feel a fanfic coming on! Ok, thats enough of my silly ideas. Karen From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 17:17:21 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:17:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050129171721.90459.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123393 ...Meri edited...a lot... Meri: > As for Ted Tonks, he is a Muggle and probably not very interesting, although I have heard speculation that he was one of the news reporters in SS, but I doubt it. Juli: Doesn't Sirius say during OoP while looking at the family tree that Ted Tonks is muggle-born, a wizard yes, but still *mudblood*. Meri: Young people lose their parents to natural causes all the time, though WW convention would seem to indicate much longer life spans. I can't recall the passages in Order off the top of my head, do we have canon as to when they died? Juli: Actually we do have some canon. When Harry arrives at 12GP and meets there Sirius he tells hims the house has been empty for 10 years since his beloved mother died. His father had died before that, we don't know when. Meri:Plus we don't have canon to tell us how old they were when they had their kids, so perhaps they were old to begin with. Juli: But Sirius refers to her as OLD, and by WW standards I guess old is pretty old (like a hundred?) Juli From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 21:43:38 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:43:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-Monitoring the Situation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123394 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > This whole discuss really touches a nerve in me as I know that it > does for others. Let us try to look at this rationally. > > 1. We don't know how much DD knew about Harry's situation. Mrs. Figg > must have kept him informed, but she would not have known all that > much since Petunia tries to keep up appearances and Harry would not > say anything to Mrs. Figg. And Mrs. Figg was probably suppose to > keep an eye out for any sign of LV or DE as her primary duty. I > think that if DD had a better more direct way of monitoring the > Dursley household he would not have needed Mrs. Figg's help. > > ...edited... > > Tonks_op bboyminn: Sorry to cut so much of your excellent post, but I wanted to make a somewhat ironic somewhat tangental point. As I read this, it occurred to me that if Dumbledore had simply thought to mention to the Dursleys that the situation would be monitored, the Dursleys would have been too concerned about 'what people might think' to have risked treating Harry poorly. Even if Dumbledore didn't monitor the situation, just having the Dursleys think they were being monitored would have altered their behavior. Witness how quickly they moved Harry out of the Cupboard Under The Stairs when they realized that the wizard world (Dumbledore) knew that is where Harry was living. Still, while I can't excuse what Dumbledore did, I can understand how it could happen, as can be read in my other post in this thread. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From kempermentor at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 22:00:12 2005 From: kempermentor at yahoo.com (kempermentor) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:00:12 -0000 Subject: Wizards and firearms (Was: Dumbledore's serious errors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123395 Carol asked: So, back to a question I asked ages ago. What besides AK (and being blown to pieces like Benjy Fenwick) can kill a wizard? Kemper's answer: Basilisk's eye to eye contact. I know... magical. Nearly beheadings. Though we don't know if those being nearly beheaded were nealy beheaded using an enchanted blade. Is Gryffindor's sword magical? From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 22:04:48 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:04:48 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: <20050129171721.90459.qmail@web53103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123396 > > Juli: Actually we do have some canon. When Harry > arrives at 12GP and meets there Sirius he tells hims > the house has been empty for 10 years since his > beloved mother died. His father had died before that, > we don't know when. > > Meri:Plus we don't have canon to tell us how old they > were when they had their kids, so perhaps they were > old to begin with. > > Juli: But Sirius refers to her as OLD, and by WW > standards I guess old is pretty old (like a hundred?) Finwitch: I doubt it's as much 'wizard' standard as it is *aged* standard. I mean really, I doubt that say - Nicolas and Perenelle Flamel would consider Dumbledore (at 150 or so, acc. Rowling somewhere) as old (them being 670+ themselves..). Of course, all the students (and even their *parents* for that matter) consider Dumbledore as 'old'. What comes to the lack of er - grandparents - well... 1) Neville's gran is very much alive. 2) I think Albus *could* be someone's grandfather. Or great- grandfather. Or even great-great-grandfather. 3) Natural causes. Remember what Ron commented about the whole 'purity of blood' issue? 'Most are half blood anyway. If we hadn't married Muggles we've had died out'. So at least some of these grandparents DID die, of old age, of cancer, of whatever. Ordinary, Muggle ways. (A car accident, what ever). 4)There was also this Voldemort fellow and his Death Eaters running around killing people just because they LIKED it... 5) Grims? Do wizards *Really* die of fright because they happen to see a big black dog somewhere? If that were true, a *boggart* could kill them! (then again, Hermione's probably wrong. Someone who can't deal with a boggart might think that...) Oh yes, and let's not forget things like Devil's Snare and Mandrakes and basilisks and... how many committed suicide in Azkaban? That done-- I think most people just don't talk about their grandparents... I don't think I ever mentioned mine at school when I was 11-17 or heard anyone else mention grandparents. (Neville's exception because he *lives* with his gran.) We just don't know. Maybe they're judges(auntie!), or examiners (Marchbanks, Tofty...) or Healers or patients at St Mungos- or bartenders or.. Anyway - unless Grandparents Weasley, Granger etc. have something to offer to the story, they probably won't make it there. Hey-- did Mrs Figg get any kids or did Mr Figg die too soon? If she did get kids, what happened to them? Voldemort perhaps? Or some nasty wizard turning them into cats? Finwitch From vmonte at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 22:37:56 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:37:56 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- The Grim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123397 Finwitch wrote: 5) Grims? Do wizards *Really* die of fright because they happen to see a big black dog somewhere? If that were true, a *boggart* could kill them! (then again, Hermione's probably wrong. Someone who can't deal with a boggart might think that...) Oh yes, and let's not forget things like Devil's Snare and Mandrakes and basilisks and... how many committed suicide in Azkaban? vmonte responds: It's not the grim that kills the wizard/witch. The grim portends their death. Basically, it's a bad sign if you see one. Vivian From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 22:45:06 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:45:06 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123398 > Carol responds: > I don't think we reached any real agreement, actually. Another > possibility that was mentioned is that the motorcycle is running wild > in the Forbidden Forest along with the flying Ford Anglia. Nice toys > for little Grawpy if he gets tired of pulling up trees. Finwitch: Well, it could be on a rock beside a hut (invisible). 'How did you get here?' 'Flew'. I think Hagrid flew on the motorcycle. It's probably invisible, too. (Well, it was about moving Harry he got it in the first place!) The roar it makes was covered by thunder. It is possible that.. 1) Hagrid went back there on the boat and flew off with the motorcycle (and the bike MIGHT be in the forest now). 2)Hagrid gave the motorcycle back to Sirius just before Sirius left to save Harry (or he just left it outside 12 Grimmauld Place and Sirius took it). BTW.. I don't recall Hagrid being there in the Ministry. Maybe that's why. Sirius took the bike - and because no one else knew about it, it's still there. Anyway... important question isn't where that bike is NOW, it's where it WILL be in books 6 and 7. So I have 3 places: 1)The rock. 2)the (Forbidden) Forest 3)The Ministry of Magic. Finwitch From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 22:46:56 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:46:56 -0000 Subject: Luna's Mother's Death- Correction (Wizards and firearms ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123399 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > > > > Tonks: > > Wizards can die of accidents. Luna's mother died in a cauldron > > accident. > Finwitch: > What was in the cauldron? > > At any case-- a *magical* Potion. > > Only mundane method of any wizard dying is when someone chopped his > head off (and lots of them, apparently. The Headless Hunt, you > know...) > > Finwitch bboyminn: Hate to be a nitpicker ... no I don't, I love it... but Luna's mother like to test out experimental magic, and was killed by an experimental spell that went badly wrong. On the subject of wizard's susceptibility to death by physical trama, I think they can die by physical trama but are LESS LIKELY to do so. Wizards, as we have seen several times, are very resilient. They can endure trama that mere muggles can't. That combined with the wonders of magical medicine can heal most physical trama that would be a major problem for normal people. So, while a wizard could endure the presents of and recover quickly from a gunshot wound, if that wound, by it's very nature, was a fatal-type wound, I think a wizard would die from it. For example, direct and substantial brain, heart, kidney, liver, or spinal cord/brain stem trama that would be typically classified as a 'fatally tramatic' wound, that wound would indeed kill a wizard. In other words, when you're dead, you're dead. On the other hand, I think a wizard could endure much longer and with a much greater chance of recovery from a *potentially* fatal wound, even if only given first aid or basic muggle medical care. Because wizards are resilient, they would endure longer and fair better. The point I'm making is that the resilience, and ability to endure longer and better, while very real, also has very real and definite limits. Just passing it along. steve/bboyminn From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Sat Jan 29 22:54:06 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:54:06 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Luna's Mother's Death- Correction (Wizards and firearms ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123400 One of the problems I see with guns in the WW is that a simple spell would probably be available to blow them up from a distance, thereby making them more dangerous to a muggle wielder than to the wizard. Or the wizard could just 'accio' or 'expelliarmus' them. They really wouldn't be as useful as they are in the muggle world. Of course massed guns could still have advantages, but even then... imagine a powerful wizard using a spell to blow up every grain of gunpowder in a massed army. Appalling casualties! Jocelyn PS: Thanks Magda! From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat Jan 29 23:01:56 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:01:56 -0000 Subject: The Grim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123401 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > vmonte responds: > It's not the grim that kills the wizard/witch. The grim portends > their death. Basically, it's a bad sign if you see one. Finwitch: You know that - it's what Trelawney tells us. (Having just told Harry he has the Grim -- actually Sirius' animagi-form? That cup - read by Trelawney - had to do a lot with Harry's 5th year. And er - everything else she said, besides giving out her lessonplan - 'is your grandmother well? I wouldn't be so sure'. ( Hermione, however, upon hearing Ron's comment about Uncle Bilius who saw a Grim and died less than a day later... 'you see, everyone's so scared of it they die of fright - it's not an omen of death, it's the cause of it!' (But I don't believe Hermione on this one) Finwitch From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 00:08:38 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:08:38 -0000 Subject: The Grim is getting grimmer... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123405 >vmonte responds: It's not the grim that kills the wizard/witch. The grim portends their death. Basically, it's a bad sign if you see one. >Finwitch: You know that - it's what Trelawney tells us. (Having just told Harry he has the Grim -- actually Sirius' animagi-form? That cup - read by Trelawney - had to do a lot with Harry's 5th year. And er - everything else she said, besides giving out her lessonplan - 'is your grandmother well? I wouldn't be so sure'. ( Hermione, however, upon hearing Ron's comment about Uncle Bilius who saw a Grim and died less than a day later... 'you see, everyone's so scared of it they die of fright - it's not an omen of death, it's the cause of it!' (But I don't believe Hermione on this one) vmonte again: Sorry, Finwitch. I didn't reralize that Hermione had said this. I do remember though watching a TV special once (I cannot remember the name of the show) about Voodoo culture. In that special there were case studies of people who had died of fright because they found out that someone had put a voodoo curse on them. No kidding! The people in this culture are so superstitious, that just finding out you have been cursed is sometimes enough to kill you. I found this online: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/strange/20000209- 1210strange2.html Voodoo curses, explained By Bill Sones and Rich Sones February 2, 2000 Q. If somebody puts a voodoo curse on you, might it kill you? A. If you think it might, it might. "In Essentials of Psychology, Exploration and Application, 6th Ed., Dennis Coon tells of a terrified young woman admitted to a hospital because she believed she was going to die. A midwife had predicted that the woman's two sisters would die on their 16th and 21st birthdays, and that the woman herself would die on her 23rd birthday. Her sisters had died as predicted, and now it was three days before her 23rd birthday. Then the following day the woman was indeed found dead in her hospital bed, "an apparent victim of her own terror." There are other cases of people dying of fright, such as soldiers in particularly savage battles, or of people being stricken at very emotional times, such as Louis Armstrong's widow suffering a heart attack during a memorial concert for her husband just as the final chord of "St. Louis Blues" was played. Such victims may die in one of two ways: Physiologically, the intense arousal causes a sharp rise in blood sugar, the heart beats faster, digestion slows or stops, blood flow to the skin is reduced. These "fight- or-flight" reactions generally increase the chances of survival in an emergency, but in an older person or someone in bad health, they can kill. And if the initial emotion doesn't prove fatal, "parasympathetic rebound" might: Following heightened arousal, the body works to calm all the accelerated processes and, in doing so, may go too far: Even in a young, vigorous person, the counter-slowdown may actually stop the heart." Strange but true, wait, maybe that was the name of the special... Vivian From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 00:22:02 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:22:02 -0000 Subject: Favorite Snape Scenes - He's such a lovely professor, no really. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123406 >>Renee: >That makes me wonder about two things (not for the first time): >1) Why didn't Snape bring the Wolfsbane potion to the Shack, if only for his own safety? I'm sure there are charms to avoid spilling liquid from a cup. >2) is tying up a werewolf sufficient to keep it in check? >And I still don't see why he'd have to *drag* Lupin if he could have levitated him.< Betsy: As to Snape dragging Lupin - he dragged Lupin for the same reason Sirius knocked Snapes head against the roof of the tunnel when they were leaving the shack. These guys do not like each other. At all. (Though I think Lupin may have been trying to extend an olive branch to Snape throughout PoA.) In answer to question number 2 - I doubt it. And to question number 1 - I think Snape was so eager to catch Lupin in wrong doing and *finally* prove to the headmaster that *all* of the Mauraders were untrustworthy he forgot (as Lupin did) about the whole werewolf thing. Which explains the tying of Lupin even though that wouldn't necessarily restrain a werewolf. (Though they were magical ropes, so there may have been some extra restraint built into them.) Betsy From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 00:38:27 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:38:27 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123407 >>Betsy wrote: >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.< >>vmonte responds: >Well, let's go over the other times JKR was shown us events from the past. In Dumbledore's penseive memories we see the Death Eater trials, and we are introduced to Barty Crouch and son. JKR leads us to believe that Crouch Senior is heartless, and that his son may have been innocent. And how about Tom Riddle's diary? JKR also tricks us here by showing us Tom as though he is a wonderful boy who saved Hogwarts from the monster in the chamber. She also makes us believe that Hagrid is responsible for opening the chamber. >We take what Tom Riddle tells Harry at face value. The real clue in that scene is when Dumbledore makes an appearance. He asks Tom whether there is something that he is not telling him--this is the clue to what is really going on in that scene. >So, yes, I do think that she is tricking us again. Snape's memories are only showing us a small part of a larger picture.< Betsy: Yes, JKR does enjoy faints and red herrings. (Though I will say that I never really thought Hagrid was Slytherin's Heir.) But in both of the examples you cite there are hints that things aren't quite what they seem. Crouch looks heartless - but also broken (it set up just how good an actor Crouch Jr. was also), and really - Hagrid as Slytherin's heir? And as you say - past!Dumbledore's suspicion of Tom gives us a hint. 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 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 00:43:06 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:43:06 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123408 Lupinlore: The biggest thing? And just how big is that? I would say enormous. Witness Harry's documented inability to trust others, particularly adults. Betsy: I'd argue that Harry's lack of trust in adults is a strength, especially for a boy whose actions may take down Voldemort. (I see some shades of "Ender's Game" in this.) And Harry does trust his friends. I was actually surprised by how deep his trust in them goes. Alla: First of all, I disagree that it is Harry's strength. As we witnessed through OOP, Harry could not bring himself to fully trust ANY adult, not just Snape and all of that lead to MOM disaster. So, I fail to see how it is his strength. Regardless, though whether it is his strength or weakness, the question was to show effects of abuse and inability to trust adults IS the effect of abuse. I agree that Harry trusts his friends very deeply, but without that plot would not be able to move forward. Just my opinion, Alla From alex51324 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 02:33:00 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex boyd) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 02:33:00 +0000 Subject: James: Paragon? In-Reply-To: <1107003647.11418.25745.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123409 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.) Exactly what, I cannot say.... though I think the person who posited a significant distinction between James's motives and his methods might be on the right track. Alex From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 02:43:28 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 02:43:28 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123410 >>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).< >>Nora: >He follows the end-goals ideas of his ideology while breaking the methodological concerns of the ideology. Bifurcated ideology doesn't invalidate the general existence of said ideology.< Betsy: But it does suggest the imperfect understanding of said ideology. As I've said, in this scene James is a child. He sees someone that his parents have examplified as "not our kind" (wrong vocabulary, wrong magic training) and acts out his sadistic impulses upon that "other". He completely misses the foundation of his ideology which, as per the actions of Dumbledore, shuns might makes right, humiliation of those you've defeated, and most importantly hatred of the "other". That Harry is horrified by his actions speaks to Harry's stronger grasp of their shared ideology. (Harry would *never* ambush Draco in a similar way - not without acknowledging a break with his code of behavior.) >>Nora: >And I'm not sure that JKR is holding anyone to a Kantian level of "means are ends" that I might. Sneaky of me to go meta there, I know, but it's revealing.< Betsy: And yet her depiction of the Crouch family tragedy suggests that she *does* place a strong importance on means. >>Nora: >But it's also only after Snape pulls out "Mudblood" that James seems to get really upset. It's compounded with his annoyance about Lily, but I read that as being one of the primary motivators. I do this, in part, because I suspect that the 'gang of Slytherins' is hanging over this encounter even if they are now currently departed.< Betsy: I disagree with your reading here. The attack on Snape is vicious before Lily gets involved (Snape chokes on the soap James conjures into his mouth - there is already a laughing crowd). James hangs Snape upside down before "Mudblood" is thrown out. And it seems to me that James gets really upset when Lily tells James that he's as bad as Snape is. There's nothing in the text that suggests to me that James is *furious* about the word, or even of its affect on Lily. He's furious that she turned him down and compared him to someone he despises. James is not primarily motivated by Snape's vocabulary - I think he's perfectly honest when he states that his prime motivation is Snape's existence. Which, again, does not fit well with his stated ideology. >>Nora: >There's also the comment that some have been quick to discount, that "James hated the Dark Arts"; easy (if possibly idiotic, and not justified anyways) to see Young!Snape as a representative of such, no? And we know that the Dark Arts, pureblood ideology, and becoming a Death Eater all walk hand in hand in one looped nexus. I admit that I can see a young jerk Vigilante!James coming out of an opposition to all those attitudes. >Just because it's not written out or even fully conscious doesn't mean that it's not operating on a profound level.< Betsy: I don't discount James hating the Dark Arts. I perfectly agree that James sets Snape up in his mind as the epitome of the Dark Arts and therefore feels perfectly justified in torturing him. This does nothing to excuse his behavior, however. Especially in an unprovoked attack in which numbers and surprise are on his side. You spoke of the Slytherin gang, and if Snape had been with the gang at the time, or if there were any hints in the books that Lucius et al had taken on the Mauraders while at Hogwarts, that may have given this scene a different spin. There have been no hints along those lines, however (and honestly, Lucius is too political a beast to so publically state his opposition to the powers that be, IMHO) and I doubt future books will add it in. I could be wrong though. :) >>Nora: >Per interview (hehehehe), Snape is "35 or 36" in GoF. Lucius Malfoy is 41, in OotP. But being as you refuse to use interviews, that source of enlightenment is right out, no? :)< Betsy: Ah, but this is the type of info I will take. :) Basic, doesn't effect the story line, facts are fine. It's when ongoing characters with ambiguous motives are discussed with press and fans that I discount JKR's remarks. (Oh yes, Snape? Perfectly evil - wait 'til book 7 and it will all become clear. Actually - don't bother reading it, I'll just give you the dirt right now.) So a five year difference, which suggests that Lucius (who I'm sure led his own little band of brothers) probably had little to do with the snot-nosed Mauraders. Snape may have been his... I can't recall the term, but an underclassman who becomes a sort of servant to the upperclassmen - if Hogwarts even had such a tradition. >>Betsy: >I'll admit that I find it hard to believe that an eleven year old [Sirius] can have such an altering break. >>Nora: >But at least in JKR's essentialist world, the choice to go into Gryffindor instead of into Slytherin is a very profound one. (We may not *like* that it is, but so far, it just is, end stop.)< >It speaks to an already-formed concept of self and relations that is at odds with that of the family, that far along. Perhaps somewhat like how Harry, even at 11, rejects Draco because he reminds him of Dudley--that's not only a knee-jerk reaction, that's a choice with principles lurking but simply as of yet unstated behind it. (He seems to have pegged canon!Draco quite well from the beginning, as well.)< Betsy: I agree it's a profound choice, I just wonder if Sirius had a full understanding of the repercussions of such a choice. Who knows, maybe he did. He just strikes me as someone who doesn't sit around mulling over the effects his decisions will have. As with James, I think Sirius may have had a good instinct without fully understanding what he was signing on for. >>Nora: >But then you have the problem of accounting for the good ways that people speak of James; the affection of Rosemerta and somewhat from McGonagall, Hagrid telling Harry there's no higher praise, etc. And again, reported hints and snippets about a character are not quite the same thing as what we got--yes, they hinted that the 'James, perfect angel' was not going to turn out--not a hard prediction to have made, if you're paying attention. But there are still a lot of dissonant elements.< Betsy: James in the memory is not the end of that character arc. It ends in GH, and that James is *very* different from the James in the memory. James will grow up. The friendly charm that's displayed before the following cruelty does suggest that there is a goodness to this boy, and so of course, since he improves, he is remembered fondly. And of course, Snape does not come across as a boy people would be quick to sympathize with (even Lily starts to laugh when he's turned upside down). He's ugly and angry and he is steeped in Dark Arts. James would be forgiven fairly easily I would imagine. >>Nora: >Not so much whole new spin, but I think we may get things of either of two classes: Things that seriously complicate what we took as straightforward, or situations that present another scene that is strongly contradictory. As a complete hypothetical, say we get a scene with older Slytherins bullying MWPP and Young!Snape enjoying/joining in/instigating/whatever. (Given Bellatrix's sometimes presence here, it's not TOO far flung.) Doesn't excuse James, no. Does it give some reasons for background? Yep.< Betsy: I doubt we will get such a scene because I don't think it really adds new information. The background is already there. Snape does use Dark Arts, James is against that ideology. That Snape is friendly with Lucius, that he became a Death Eater, is already known. What we might be shown, what I hope we'll learn, is how James grew up and became the man chosen by Lily and fondly remembered by so many. I also hope we'll learn why Snape left the Death Eaters. >>Nora: >There's the ever-intriguing existence line, though. And from a literary perspective, so much more effective to let Harry and us see such a strong one side, before pulling out the other half of the dialectic.< >>Betsy: >A dangerous game though. With so little time and so many characters, will JKR really lead us so far down a false path? And why put all this effort into painting characters such an intriguing shade of grey to end up throwing a can of white paint over your work?< >>Nora: >You misunderstand the nature of dialectic. :) Even with some white paint, it's then going to blend with the black--but yank us towards a synthesis. What has been presented to us cannot be fully reversed at all, nor do I think JKR is going to. It can, however, be profoundly complicated, as we've got a few major events of the past that explication has been promised for.< Betsy: But James has been so white for so long that to negate the black that was added in the memory scene would have the effect of yanking his character back into flat purity. Full out contradiction would not serve the process. No, this black needs to stay. However, we know James changes, and I think by showing us that change, Harry will get his father back, and we will have a larger understanding of the full character of James. >>Nora: >Frankly, it could take very little space and time for us to get enough information to have to re-read that scene at least partially. We still need answers about a number of events. And here I am talking *actual* answers, not reported hearsay. There is a different textual/ontological level of existence for actions that we actually *see*, and actions that we have some cryptic comments about from Snape.< Betsy: It's important to remember that this is Snape's memory - not James'. I doubt that this memory was as important to James as it was to Snape, so I imagine that new information will give us a different spin on Snape rather than James. (I theorize that this is the moment Snape decides to join the Death Eaters, thus the "you wait" said to James. If true, that would throw a new light on the scene but not change the fact that James behaved badly.) >>Nora: >Just sayin'. It's not the sort of thing to inspire grand confidence, and ignoring what has been hinted at as a possible possibility...is not for me, at least. I don't like getting whacked. *waves at all the Vampire!Snape theorists out there*< Betsy: Yes, but JKR can state, "Snape is not a vampire," without ruining the mystery of the character. Actual insight into his character makeup would lessen the mystery, so I doubt she'd shed any light on that subject. And since I do see a lot of ambiguity in her statements on such subjects, I don't take them seriously. IMO of course. >>Betsy: >Actually, I'd say that since James is Harry's hero, and Snape is Harry's nemisis, the most obvious structural parallel would be more dark to light rather than dark to dark.< >>Nora: >But Snape is currently the sympathetic one, in terms of the James/Snape conflict--and if we find out why he converted, we should also find out the deep dirt.< Betsy: Not per Harry, and also not per some folks on this list. (Denial she do run deep.) And I do agree that we will learn about Snape as a Death Eater, and that it won't be pretty. Usually a crisis of conscience occurs when hitting rock bottom. >>Nora: >Okay, don't freak out. I'm just saying here that the interviews can be used as a useful regulation--one has every reason to expect a clarification of the line of reasoning, really. So here's some in- books reasoning for you: it is strongly hinted at the end of CoS that Dumbledore knows Lockhart is a fraud. Given the combination of interview and in-book revelation of Snape's continual application for the position, it seems telling that Dumbledore would hire a worthless egoist for this position over his *trusted* man. The interview provides a nice solution to the 'why?', and a telling one. Betsy: Freak out? Whatever do you mean? *eyes bunny carcass nervously* I do agree that there must a be a strong reason for Dumbledore not to give Snape the DADA job considering some of the DADA professors hired. Even Quirrell, pre-Voldemort, was said to be a fairly weak teacher, and I'm sure that Dumbledore sees this as a very important course. I hope that the answer does give us some greater insight into Snape's character. JKR has said that the next two books should answer a lot of questions raised by the previous five, so I expect we will learn the reason. I just doubt that she'd answer the mystery in an interview. >>Nora: >Even though I'm not a believer in ESE!Snape, you have to admit that it has been set up cleanly to go either way. Hermione could be right (that Dumbledore trusts Snape and we should trust Dumbledore), being as she is usually right. However, Ron could be right (not trusting Snape), as Dumbledore has now been kicked off of his pedestal and shown to be fallible, and it would be very nice for *Ron* to be right and Hermione wrong.< Betsy: Will Dumbledore be *that* fallible though? It'd be a major blow to the Order if their source of Death Eater information is less than trustworthy (which would make for high drama I admit). Plus, if there will be a traitor - which is another running theme - it should be someone unexpected. Snape, as Quirrell pointed out in the beginning, makes a wonderful red herring, swooping about the dungeons, scaring small children, and that in itself may be his best protection against ending up evil. And Ron has been right. He called Lockhart from the get go. :) Betsy, who admits to sailing her own little boat From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Sat Jan 29 13:44:11 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 13:44:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123411 Alla: > But I don't think that he should not use bribery only because his > past experience showed him that it does not work in general, because > contrary to Dumbledore' s experience it could have worked in this > situation. It is a hypothetical only of course, but who knows, maybe > it was another of "old man's mistakes". Yeah, he could have. It was only Harry's life he was risking, so stupid of DD that he did not want to play with that because nice clothes and a decent bedroom are far more important of course. Lupinlore: > Granted the Dursleys MIGHT have put Harry out. Yet they didn't after > the Howler nor after being threatened by the Order. Strange for > people who are so ready to kick the boy out. No, until we are > SPECIFICALLY told otherwise the high-hand in the situation seems to > reside with DD, and until we are SPECIFICALLY told about why he did > not use that hand to alleviate Harry's suffering, he remains complicit. Well, maybe it might make a tiny difference that they would have to put up with him for maybe a whole month before they could pack him off to Hogwarts. Instead of seeing his dear little face every day of the week for the whole year for years and years to come. Gerry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 02:59:36 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 02:59:36 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123412 Nora: But Snape is currently the sympathetic one, in terms of the James/Snape conflict--and if we find out why he converted, we should also find out the deep dirt.< Betsy: Not per Harry, and also not per some folks on this list. Alla: Definitely per Harry Snape does come sympathetic in that scene, because Harry does not feel sorry for James , he feels sorry for Snape. Betsy: (Denial she do run deep.) Alla: I am confused about this part of your statement. Betsy: And I do agree that we will learn about Snape as a Death Eater, and that it won't be pretty. Usually a crisis of conscience occurs when hitting rock bottom. Alla: Yes, this part I agree with. JMO, Alla From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 03:04:26 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 03:04:26 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD knew Moody=Barty Crouch before Polyjuice expired In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123413 Carol, in a truly awesome post, said at one point: *heavily snipped* >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. I think he actually did have Dumbledore's permission. Firstly, because as you point out, if he lied about it Dumbledore would hear about it -- those DADA classes were the talk of the school. Secondly, because (I'm going from memory here) he said that they would be learning about Unforgivable Curses *earlier* than usual (with the implication that they would ordinarily be studying them in later years). Janet Anderson From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 03:25:51 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 03:25:51 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123414 >>Alla: >Nora you are doing such an amazing job. ( and Betsy too, of course):o) I only have one very brief comment - not only Snape is the sympathetic one in terms of THAT conflict, but reader does not really DOUBT Snape any more. I mean, Harry is wrong every book, so how many of us do really believe his doubts about Snape any more?< Betsy: Quite a few judging by reactions in this group to any friendly views of Snape. No, JKR has done a fantastic job keeping Snape ambiguous so only she really knows how he'll come out in the end. Betsy From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Jan 29 23:09:32 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:09:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123415 Snow: > What is it again that Dumbledore subjected Harry to because Harry > shows no scars of the weary battle of abusiveness. If the abusiveness > that you are seeing is so apparent, why hasn't Harry shown any signs > of weakness from it? 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. Snow: > What do you want to see from Dumbledore, the man has already cried > (only time) as a product of what he has been made to put Harry > through. Dumbledore has already apologized for what he was made to > do. What do I want to see from DD? I want to see him pay restitution for making decisions in his infinite wisdom that would have Harry's parents rolling in their graves. I want him to take a time turner and go back to make a better decision now that he knows what Harry is going to go through. I want him to take away the memories of a wasted childhood. I want him to acknowledge that what he did wasn't a *tough* decision, it was a *wrong* decision. The great and wonderful DD crying isn't enough. But DD is never going to do any of those things because he can't. So if were HP I wouldn't want to see anything from DD. Not ever again. Snow: > Yes, Harry was seen to be healthy when he first entered Hogwarts > School of Witchcraft and Wizardly, and he was! Harry does not > display, even now after everything he has gone through, any > lasting affects from his so called abusive days with the Dursley's. Tom Riddle seemed fine when he went to Hogwarts too. He was so fine that he decided that all muggles had to die for what they did to him in the orphanage. The only reason Harry doesn't make that decision is because Harry's the hero. He's made of stronger moral fiber than Riddle. But in a very real way DD *fails*. He creates a system which could have embittered Harry and caused the entire WW to be placed under the thumb of Voldemort. Dumbledore knows the history of Tom Riddle and he makes the exact same mistake with Harry. IMO, that makes DD an idiot who doesn't learn from history. The fact that things don't blow up in his face worse than they do is a testament to Harry and no one else. Phoenixgod2000 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 03:34:42 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 03:34:42 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123416 Alla: Nora you are doing such an amazing job. ( and Betsy too, of course):o) I only have one very brief comment - not only Snape is the sympathetic one in terms of THAT conflict, but reader does not really DOUBT Snape any more. I mean, Harry is wrong every book, so how many of us do really believe his doubts about Snape any more?< Betsy: Quite a few judging by reactions in this group to any friendly views of Snape. No, JKR has done a fantastic job keeping Snape ambiguous so only she really knows how he'll come out in the end. Alla: What I meant is how many of us really believe that Snape will go back to being full blown DE, not whether Snape can be considered an evil person,who is at the same time loyal to Dumbledore, Even I used not to believe in ESE!Snape at all, and even now I don't believe in it on my best days ;o) On my worst days I remember Harry being weakened during Occlumency lessons and start to have them again. JMO, Alla From nrenka at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 03:56:33 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 03:56:33 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123417 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > >>Nora: > >And I'm not sure that JKR is holding anyone to a Kantian level > of "means are ends" that I might. Sneaky of me to go meta there, I > know, but it's revealing. > > Betsy: > And yet her depiction of the Crouch family tragedy suggests that > she *does* place a strong importance on means. I agree that she does--hence the presentation-cum-condemnation of the Slytherin "any means to achieve their ends". (It is decidedly not a good thing to be Slytherin in that way--it's a short step to "...only power".) But I'm not sure that she's going so far to endorse the "means ARE ends" position which is one way of interpreting a strict Kantian approach. Strict Kantian readings condemn breaking rules for a greater good, for example (the famous example of it being immoral to lie to someone who has come to kill your friend, because you must treat every action of means as a perfect end-in-itself)--and I get the feeling that Rowling wholeheartedly endorses Harry et al's breaking of rules in pursuit of what is actually right. > Betsy: > I disagree with your reading here. The attack on Snape is vicious > before Lily gets involved (Snape chokes on the soap James conjures > into his mouth - there is already a laughing crowd). James hangs > Snape upside down before "Mudblood" is thrown out. And it seems to > me that James gets really upset when Lily tells James that he's as > bad as Snape is. There's nothing in the text that suggests to me > that James is *furious* about the word, or even of its affect on > Lily. He's furious that she turned him down and compared him to > someone he despises. James is not primarily motivated by Snape's > vocabulary - I think he's perfectly honest when he states that his > prime motivation is Snape's existence. Which, again, does not fit > well with his stated ideology. "Apologize to Evans!" James roared at Snape, his wand pointed threateningly at him. ... "What?" yelped James. "I'd NEVER call you a --- you-know-what!" The hanging upside down is an immediate reaction to the slash on the face, although it does escalate from there--after Lily's intervention is over. 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. [I also think the Dark Arts thing is important--that's the thing that Sirius and Remus harp upon, when Harry confronts them. Why? Possibly because for they who lived through it, that was one of the most important things; less important to Harry who hasn't had to confront it as directly in daily life through school. That is to say, my hypothesis is that issues like blood purity and the Dark Arts were *more* publicly aired when MWPP were in school, with the rise of Voldemort being something that had public support. In the present, you can't say it anymore; it's present, but less public.] > Betsy: > I don't discount James hating the Dark Arts. I perfectly agree > that James sets Snape up in his mind as the epitome of the Dark > Arts and therefore feels perfectly justified in torturing him. > This does nothing to excuse his behavior, however. Especially in > an unprovoked attack in which numbers and surprise are on his side. Excuse, no. I'm looking for explanations that tap into the cultural circumstances of the time and go deeper than just bullying. That's part of it, but hints suggest it might not be the whole. > You spoke of the Slytherin gang, and if Snape had been with the > gang at the time, or if there were any hints in the books that > Lucius et al had taken on the Mauraders while at Hogwarts, that may > have given this scene a different spin. There have been no hints > along those lines, however (and honestly, Lucius is too political a > beast to so publically state his opposition to the powers that be, > IMHO) and I doubt future books will add it in. I could be wrong > though. :) There's the 'lapdog' comment, which suggests something that happened in the past--a charge designed to sting. There's the mention of the gang as being at least partially contemporaneous. And Lucius is easily the most overrated character in the fandom--smoove he is not, per the evidence. He's the kind of person that everyone *knows* what he is, except those who choose not to (Fudge). > Betsy: > I agree it's a profound choice, I just wonder if Sirius had a full > understanding of the repercussions of such a choice. Who knows, > maybe he did. He just strikes me as someone who doesn't sit around > mulling over the effects his decisions will have. As with James, I > think Sirius may have had a good instinct without fully > understanding what he was signing on for. Repercussions, maybe not...but in this essentialist cosmology, it indicates something deep and lasting about him. And given that JKR is a big fan of Jessica Mitford, she seems wholly approving of the tosing over of your family if they're a bunch of fascists. :) > Betsy: > James in the memory is not the end of that character arc. It ends > in GH, and that James is *very* different from the James in the > memory. James will grow up. The friendly charm that's displayed > before the following cruelty does suggest that there is a goodness > to this boy, and so of course, since he improves, he is remembered > fondly. What I'm objecting to is the caveat that it *must* be the improval that has everyone remebering him so fondly. Instead of a pure diachronic model (James the berk becomes James the great guy), I'm suggesting something more synchronic--that James the great guy was present at the same time as James the berk. > Betsy: > I doubt we will get such a scene because I don't think it really > adds new information. The background is already there. Snape does > use Dark Arts, James is against that ideology. That Snape is > friendly with Lucius, that he became a Death Eater, is already > known. What we might be shown, what I hope we'll learn, is how > James grew up and became the man chosen by Lily and fondly > remembered by so many. I also hope we'll learn why Snape left the > Death Eaters. She's promised an explication of the so-called Prank. It'd be nice to get an accounting of the above-mentioned gang. Oh, no, there's lots of new information to add... > Betsy: > But James has been so white for so long that to negate the black > that was added in the memory scene would have the effect of yanking > his character back into flat purity. Full out contradiction would > not serve the process. No, this black needs to stay. However, we > know James changes, and I think by showing us that change, Harry > will get his father back, and we will have a larger understanding > of the full character of James. But throwing some white paint on him wouldn't negate that--you can't negate it. You can't get rid of that scene, but you can qualify it. He's never going to be pure again in the reader's mind, but the balance can shift. I'm not proposing full-out contradiction. The essence of dialectic is that these things co-exist, and together form a synthesis. Decidedly grey. > Betsy: > Yes, but JKR can state, "Snape is not a vampire," without ruining > the mystery of the character. Actual insight into his character > makeup would lessen the mystery, so I doubt she'd shed any light on > that subject. And since I do see a lot of ambiguity in her > statements on such subjects, I don't take them seriously. IMO of > course. I think her comments can be taken broadly enough to be non- determinative, but she seems intent upon dispelling certain 'insights' into his character. Of course she's playing with us, but I will up and bet you here and now that comments like "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them?" are going to get some very real bearing out. I'd also like to note that the interview comments where she describes Snape asking for DADA and Dumbledore turning him down don't include a great deal of interpretation, but are rather more like the recounting of an event, giving a plain description of Dumbledore's reasoning. She's telling us WHAT happened and a bit of why from DD's perspective. Close enough to fall into the 'just plain fact category?' Good enough to say that postulating a scenario that cannot account for that is likely to end in 'oops'. > Betsy: > I hope that the answer does give us some greater insight into > Snape's character. JKR has said that the next two books should > answer a lot of questions raised by the previous five, so I expect > we will learn the reason. I just doubt that she'd answer the > mystery in an interview. Her answer left the mystery of "What the heck has Snape done to make Dumbledore think that way?" But she's always been pretty explicit in interview that Snape has a skeezy past, which is something that comes out of the books as well. [Side note: perhaps, methinks, we are sometimes quick to go "Well, he changed sides--that makes up for it all, right?" We discount the true horror of what having been a DE likely entailed because it's Snape, and he's interesting, and on the side of the angels now. I think this tendency confuses her, hence the "You forget that Snape was a DE..." etc. things that pop up oh so frequently.] > Betsy: > Will Dumbledore be *that* fallible though? It'd be a major blow to > the Order if their source of Death Eater information is less than > trustworthy (which would make for high drama I admit). Plus, if > there will be a traitor - which is another running theme - it > should be someone unexpected. Snape, as Quirrell pointed out in > the beginning, makes a wonderful red herring, swooping about the > dungeons, scaring small children, and that in itself may be his > best protection against ending up evil. Ah, but you see--it can still work either way perfectly. Option one: Snape isn't evil because he's been set up for us to think of him as evil; it's so obvious that it would never work out. Besides, he's been cleared book after book. Option two: Snape is evil because it's brilliant to have him *really* be evil--he's hiding in plain sight. Everyone thinks it won't happen because it would be too obvious--which makes it the perfect plan! The mistaken suspicions against him book after book are a fabulous setup for the BANG!-y revelation. Same arguments of pro and con go for "Is Snape actually physically spying on Voldemort?" I can argue convicingly for either option. [On request: payment in advance, please.] -Nora hangs out with Faith, taking potshots at the ships in the Bay From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 04:00:20 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 04:00:20 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123418 >>Carol: >Dumbledore did not tell "the entire world" that Snape had been a spy. He told the Wizengamot in what was probably a closed hearing,< >>Eggplant: >He told a lot more people that Snape was a spy than just the Wizengamot, he said it in a "enormous room" with "rows and rows of witches and wizards seated around every wall on what seemed like benches rising in levels". We also know "there were not nearly that many teachers at Hogwarts." >There must have been several hundred people there at least when Dumbledore spilled the beans about Snape, and that was not even the first time he'd done it, he said he testified about it before and who knows how many people were there then. The idea that all of them could have kept the secret for well over a decade is not credible.< Betsy: But the rows and rows of wizards and witches *are* the Wizengamot. They must be, because the WW does *not* know that Snape was a Death Eater. (Parents would not stand for a former Death Eater teaching their children. Rita Skeeter would have listed Snape as one of Dumbledore's mistakes.) Plus, how wise is it to tell the world that someone is a spy before the war was over? As to the crediblity of that amount of people keeping a secret - well they are wizards you know. There is probably a spell to make sure what is spoken of in closed session stays closed. Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 04:07:28 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 04:07:28 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123419 Phoenixgod: snip 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. Alla: Exactly. Snow: What do you want to see from Dumbledore, the man has already cried (only time) as a product of what he has been made to put Harry through. Dumbledore has already apologized for what he was made to do. Phoenixgod: What do I want to see from DD? I want to see him pay restitution for making decisions in his infinite wisdom that would have Harry's parents rolling in their graves. I want him to take a time turner and go back to make a better decision now that he knows what Harry is going to go through. I want him to take away the memories of a wasted childhood. I want him to acknowledge that what he did wasn't a *tough* decision, it was a *wrong* decision. The great and wonderful DD crying isn't enough. But DD is never going to do any of those things because he can't. So if were HP I wouldn't want to see anything from DD. Not ever again. Alla: Excellent rant, Phoenixgod, absolutely excellent. That is exactly what I think of Dumbledore on my bad days. On my good days I am inclined to be a bit more forgiving, IF I imagine that Dumbledore indeed tried to do something for Harry, but was not able to without endangering his physical safety. By the way, I was thinking about Susan's desire to find out whether Dumbledore EVER checked on Harry himself and I am afraid that he is not. Consider this quote, when Dumbledore talks to Harry in the "Lost Prophecy" : " My naswer 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 years ahead" OOP, p.834. SO, Dumbledore had to think about Harry's physical safety at THAT moment, FINE, I understand that. But it seems to me that in the years ahead he did not bother to check not only on how Dursleys treated Harry, but MAYBE, just maybe the situation was NOT as dangerous anymore and maybe Harry can even be removed from Dursleys. I mean most likely not, of course, but how about he would check first? It seems to me that Dumbledore stuck with his original decision without checking that maybe facts have changed. Just my opinion, Alla From alex51324 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 04:25:45 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 04:25:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dursleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123420 I was just re-reading the first chapter of OotP, and noticed that there is a very small bit of evidence that *someone*, at least, has taken a *slightly* more hands-on approach to making sure that Harry is taken care of during the summer. To wit: "Mrs Figg had recently taken to asking him around for tea whenever she saw him in the street" (2, US HC). If this sentence refers to tea-the-meal, rather than tea-the-beverage, then at least some care is being taken to see that Harry gets enough to eat that particular summer, though whether Mrs. Figg is acting on her own initiative or on Dumbledore's orders, we can't say. In either case, it probably would have worked better if someone had clued him in that she wasn't *just* a nutty neighbor--as it is, he goes out of his way to avoid Mrs. Figg and her tea. But, yeah, too little too late. Alex From alex51324 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 04:35:57 2005 From: alex51324 at hotmail.com (Alex Boyd) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 04:35:57 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123421 Betsey wrote: > So a five year difference, which suggests that Lucius (who I'm sure > led his own little band of brothers) probably had little to do with > the snot-nosed Mauraders. Snape may have been his... I can't recall > the term, but an underclassman who becomes a sort of servant to the > upperclassmen - if Hogwarts even had such a tradition. The word you're searching for, Betsey, is...erm....close your eyes if easilly offended...fag. Alex From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Jan 30 06:47:16 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 06:47:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123422 Steve wrote: "Now, > in hindsight, I'm sure Dumbledore greatly and truly wishes he had done > something to make Harry's life a little more pleasant. > I would like to believe this is true. However, until I see more convincing evidence of it, I'm afraid I remain very doubtful. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Jan 30 06:55:54 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 06:55:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123423 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > > You asked how great might the risk have been that the DEs would have > come after Harry if he was kicked out as a child? Pretty great, I > would think! The kid didn't even know he was a wizard 'til 11. He > wouldn't have had a wand; he wouldn't have been able to defend > himself. Look at what the DEs did to Alice & Frank *after* Voldy's > fall. What would have given DD any indication that Harry might not > meet a similar -- or worse -- fate? Well, I think there is rather a sliding scale here. Remember we are talking about an entire ten year period. Initially after Voldemort's fall, I think you are right. But after a couple of years, there is a very different picture. Bellatrix and her cohorts are in jail. There is no sign of Voldemort's return. The Deatheaters who avoided jail, like Malfoy, can be monitored to a large extent. Then I think it becomes much more questionable as to whether Dumbledore can use his fears about the Dursleys kicking Harry out to do *nothing* to alleviate his suffering. > > But back to my main point, I believe DD offered the Dursleys > something -- likely a form of protection for them or Dudley or their > home -- as long as Petunia & Vernon continue to allow Harry to live > in their home. This would have been a starting point, but with *how > delicate* a balance? If the Dursleys routinely beat Harry or > refused to allow him to go to school or made him live in squalor [do > we see evidence of any of this?], I like to think that would have > tipped the balance too far and DD would have appeared to address > it. [Perhaps Mrs. Figg served as DD's monitor for these flagrant, > very dangerous abuses?] But the Dursleys likely know about the > protection their home affords Harry, as well, and so they know DD > wouldn't lightly remove Harry -- so in that way, they have the upper > hand. They *could* kick him out, albeit [*if* I'm right about a DD > offer] potentially at the loss of protection for themselves. But it > was always a chance that they might elect to do this. > > 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. > Interesting and possible, but as with this whole discussion purely hypothetical at the moment. All we can do, ultimately, is hope that JKR will address these issues in some specific way, as opposed to the kind of inference and suggestion she has used to this point. Until she does so, I will have to stand by the circumstantial evidence that we have, and that still makes Dumbledore very complicit in the abuse of Harry by the Dursleys. Lupinlore From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Jan 30 07:02:37 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:02:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123424 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > > What do I want to see from DD? I want to see him pay restitution for > making decisions in his infinite wisdom that would have Harry's > parents rolling in their graves. Well, I'm not sure "restitution" is a word I would use. "Remorse" I definitely want to see and don't believe we've really seen yet (the scene at the end of OOTP probably qualifies but is very ambivalent as it is dealing with SO many things). "Recompense" is another good word perhaps, particularly if it involved DD being much more sensitive to Harry's emotional issues and trying to alleviate some of the damage his mistakes have caused. > > I want him to take a time turner and go back to make a better > decision now that he knows what Harry is going to go through. Good point. > > I want him to take away the memories of a wasted childhood. Hmmm. I don't know that obliviation can be that specific, but good point. > > I want him to acknowledge that what he did wasn't a *tough* > decision, it was a *wrong* decision. Or, perhaps, a string of decisions some of which were questionable and all of which have led to very bad consequences. > > The great and wonderful DD crying isn't enough. THAT, I definitely agree with. > From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Jan 30 07:24:29 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:24:29 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123425 Coming out of the latest in the DD-Harry-Dursley threads, lets talk a little about what we DO and DON'T want to see in the DD-Harry relationshiop in Book VI. For me, I DO want to see: 1) A more open relationship on both sides; 2) A much more specific acknowledgment of the ways in which DD's decisions have caused Harry pain; 3) Much better explanations of those decisions; 4) Harry to build on the close of OOTP by being more assertive and honest about his thoughts and feelings; 5) An at least somewhat realistic period of awkwardness between the two, particularly with regard to Harry trusting DD; 6) An attempt on DD's part to give at least some recompense for the pain of his decisions by being more sensitive to the emotional issues Harry faces as well as the long-term consequences of his decisions about Harry's life. What I DON'T want to see: 1) Harry "bucking up" over the summer in an unrealistic and silly way, leading to him telling DD "It's all OK, now let's take down the Dark Lord!" 2) More of the silly "stiff upper lip" philosophy that has characterized Hogwarts so far 3) Harry becoming a suffering saint who decides to "put his own pain aside for the good of others." 4) Harry being too quick to open up to DD, even to the level he had done so before. 5) The interaction between DD and Harry turning on insipid discussions of "adulthood" and "what's right over what's easy." 6) The issues with Snape NOT being a major bone of contention between Harry and DD. 7) The experiences of OOTP NOT leaving a major mark on Harry's character which would be very evident in his interanctions with DD, Snape, and others. 8) The issues between Harry and DD being resolved quickly and completely 9) No progress being made at all in the issues between Harry and DD Lupinlore From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 07:39:23 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:39:23 -0000 Subject: Luna's Mother's Death- Correction (Wizards and firearms ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123426 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > One of the problems I see with guns in the WW is that a simple spell > would probably be available to blow them up from a distance, thereby > making them more dangerous to a muggle wielder than to the wizard. > ...edited.. > > Jocelyn bboyminn: Of course you are right; a wizard with a wand could defend himself against a muggle with a gun, but only under certain conditions. For examples, the wizard would have to be aware of the presents of the muggle with a gun and aware of his intent to shoot, and would have to respond before the muggle had a chance to shoot him. So, without a doubt, magic can be used as a defense against attack by firearms, but when you are shot, you are shot, and when you are dead, you are dead, and no magic can completely undo that. So, I'm not saying wizards are defenseless against guns, just that they are susceptable to physical harm; far more resilient that muggles, but still susceptable to gun shot wounds. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 30 07:46:21 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:46:21 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123427 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: Lupinlore: > 2) More of the silly "stiff upper lip" philosophy that has > characterized Hogwarts so far Geoff: You may consider it silly, but it has been an integral part of British culture for many years; I was brought up in that way - though I sometimes regret it - and it still plays quite a strong part in our tradition. So, whatever you may think of it, Hogwarts is characterising an essentially English approach. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 08:39:37 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 08:39:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore, the Dursleys, & Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123428 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alex Boyd" wrote: > > I was just re-reading the first chapter of OotP, and noticed that > there is a very small bit of evidence that *someone*, at least, has > taken a *slightly* more hands-on approach to making sure that Harry > is taken care of during the summer. To wit: > > "Mrs Figg had recently taken to asking him around for tea whenever > she saw him in the street" (2, US HC). > > ...edited... whether Mrs. Figg is acting on her own initiative or on > Dumbledore's orders, we can't say. In either case, it probably > would have worked better if someone had clued him in that she > wasn't *just* a nutty neighbor--as it is, he goes out of his way to > avoid Mrs. Figg and her tea. > > But, yeah, too little too late. > > Alex bboyminn: This was one of the immensely frustrating parts of OotP. How hard would it have been to tell Harry that Mrs. Figg was an ally, or even better, to let Harry know that Mrs. Figg was a friend of Dumbledore's and was in contact with the wizard world? She may not have been able to tell Harry any more than he was getting from anyone else, but it would have been someone to talk to. Certainly, if Harry knew who she was he would have dropped over for tea. Mrs. Figg place would have also make a nice safe haven at which Harry could visit and have tea with other people like Ron and Hermione, or Sirius and Remus. Certainly Sirius could have apparated to Mrs. Figg's and done so without notice. That company, the mere presents of friends and allies, would have eased Harry frustration greatly, and even more importantly made the job of guarding him easier. Most likely, knowing who Mrs. Figg was would have meant Harry would have spend most of his time at her place instead of randomly wandering around the neighborhood. Dumbledore seems a great man when it comes to the big picture, but he frequently overlooks simple little details like this. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 09:20:07 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:20:07 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123430 >Betsy wrote: Yes, JKR does enjoy faints and red herrings. (Though I will say that I never really thought Hagrid was Slytherin's Heir.) But in both of the examples you cite there are hints that things aren't quite what they seem. Crouch looks heartless - but also broken (it set up just how good an actor Crouch Jr. was also), and really - Hagrid as Slytherin's heir? And as you say - past!Dumbledore's suspicion of Tom gives us a hint. 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. vmonte responds: You are right that there is no excuse for what James and Sirius did to Snape when they hung him upside down. Even if there is more to the story than we saw, and Snape previously did something to instigate this attack, I still think that it was wrong. What I did like though, was that it showed how compassionate Harry is. He is like his mother. This is an important trait, and JKR makes us aware of it by showing Harry's horrified reaction. It means that Harry can put aside his personal feelings for someone, and do what is right. I think that Snape, James, and Sirius have/had trouble in this area. I hope that Lily taught James an important lesson during that penseive scene. I hope this was the reason why he later saved Snape from Sirius's stupidity. (And I liked Sirius, but let's face it what he did was wrong and would have hurt Lupin as well.) Unfortunately, I don't believe that James did what he did to save Snape. I think that he saved Snape because he realized that Lupin would get in serious trouble (just MO). Harry is not like James, not emotionally anyway. I think that if Snape and Draco were in danger, Harry would save them, regardless of what he feels for them; this is just my opinion though. >Betsy wrote: 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. vmonte responds: I agree on the idea, but I don't think this is what JKR was pointing out to us in this scene. Snape is a deeply horrible person! He has so much hatred inside of him that he cannot even accept help from Lily. And please don't say that he was just embarrassed and lashed out, this is a cop-out answer. 'Mind your own business' would have sufficed, right? Instead he calls her a foul name. (IMO he hates her in much the same way he shows contempt for Hermione. It's interesting that both happen to have muggle parents.) Vivian From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 10:04:06 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:04:06 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123431 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Steph: > > > I was just wondering whether or not anyone ever figured out what > > > happened to Sirius' motorbike (the one Hagrid rode on that Halloween > > > night to deliver Harry to the Dursleys'.) > > > > Tonks here: > > I think that everyone here decided that it probably made it way to > > Arthur Weasley's home. > > > > Carol responds: > I don't think we reached any real agreement, actually. Another > possibility that was mentioned is that the motorcycle is running wild > in the Forbidden Forest along with the flying Ford Anglia. Nice toys > for little Grawpy if he gets tired of pulling up trees. > Since JKR said that we should have figured this out... I always thought it ended up *inside* the Ford Anglia - making it a flying Ford Anglia. Naama From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 10:40:20 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:40:20 -0000 Subject: The attack on the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123432 Betsy: But the rows and rows of wizards and witches *are* the Wizengamot. They must be, because the WW does *not* know that Snape was a Death Eater. (Parents would not stand for a former Death Eater teaching their children. Rita Skeeter would have listed Snape as one of Dumbledore's mistakes.) Plus, how wise is it to tell the world that someone is a spy before the war was over? As to the crediblity of that amount of people keeping a secret - well they are wizards you know. There is probably a spell to make sure what is spoken of in closed session stays closed. vmonte responds: I doubt that a spell was used to keep people quiet. I do however have a problem with Dumbledore using Snape as a spy. I realize that Dumbledore is a "strategist," and that it is important for him to use whatever means he can to destroy Voldemort; but it still doesn't make me feel good about Snape being let off for his past wrongs. It kind of reminds me of how the U.S. prosecution system makes deals with criminals in order to get worse criminals put behind bars. Mafia hit men can get a new identity and life, in exchange for spying and collecting information about their boss. But what about the fact that these people will never be punished for all the murders they have committed? Snape's situation is even worse in that he is responsible for hurting "good" people, not other criminals. I really hope that Snape wasn't one of the people responsible for torturing Neville's parents-- I just have a bad feeling about this--although no proof. This incident happened after Voldemort disappeared, and Dumbledore makes a point of telling Harry that the information about the attackers was gotten out of the Longbottoms who were not exactly in their right mind. Page 603, U.S. edition GoF "The Longbottoms were very popular," said Dumbledore. "The attacks on them came after Voldemort's fall from power, just when everyone thought they were safe. Those attacks caused a fury such as I have never known. The Ministry was under great pressure to catch those who had done it. Unfortunately, the Longbottoms' evidence--given their condition--none too reliable." "Then Mr. Crouch's son might not have been involved?" said Harry slowly. Dumbledore shook his head. "As to that, I have no idea." vmonte: So, Dumbledore does not know who was there that night. Crouch Jr. was there, could Snape have also been there? The GoF staircase scene with Harry and the egg would take new meaning wouldn't it? I'm talking about the moment between Crouch Jr. (as Fake! Moody) and Snape, where they both look at each other for a few minutes without speaking. Was there a kind of "aha" moment there?! Was Snape the person who heard the prophecy? Did Snape and Lucius think that the prophecy was about Neville? A pureblood? The section on the DE trials is very difficult reading. The DEs aren't petty criminals; they are torturing, and killing entire families--children included. JKR makes us know exactly what kinds of things were happening, and what kinds of people could do this. It could very well be that Snape has reformed; I still think he should accept punishment for his crimes. At least as much jail time as Sirius, who was innocent! Vivian From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 10:58:07 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 10:58:07 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123434 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > >Betsy wrote: > 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. > > vmonte responds: > I hope that Lily taught James an important lesson during that > penseive scene. I hope this was the reason why he later saved Snape > from Sirius's stupidity. (And I liked Sirius, but let's face it what he did was wrong and would have hurt Lupin as well.) Unfortunately, I don't believe that James did what he did to save Snape. I think that he saved Snape because he realized that Lupin would get in serious trouble (just MO). > Valky: Hi Vivian, I know it's only your opinion, sorry to bicker, but I don't fully agree wth you on that. While I agree that James is not likely to have been motivated entirely by selfless compassion like Harry or Lily might, I don't in all honesty believe that James only thought of the consequences to those close to him before he rushed in to save young Severus from the werewolf. Just to validate my point I will bring the second task back to the fray and have another look at it to explain. A lot of us have posed the question Why did Harry save everyone? Why did he feel the need to save these people who probably didn't actually need to be saved? I argue that it is this particular thing in Harry, which *is* James. Lily would have thought it through as we do, Lily would have come to the conclusion that DD was not actually allowing helpless children to be in true mortal danger. And it is James who would not. Now, time for just my own humble opinion, we have all peiced together amigious and shadow characters in our readerships some of us have gone into great depth in it. Characters such as Bertha Jorkins, Ludo Bagman, Sevvie of course, pre OOtP Arabella Figg, lets not forget Florence... my obsession is James. My canon James is based on a flowthrough of absolutely *everything* ever penned about him, so forgive me if I do not cite all the canon behind each conclusion and rather just posit my view, which I believe can speak for itself anyway. Back to the point, I was saying James saving Severus and Remus and Sirius from their respective consequences that night so long ago, was the same as Harry saving everyone in the lake. He thought about it all: If Snape reaches Remus Snape will probably die. If Snape gets hurt Remus will suffer. If anyone ever finds out its goodnight Sirius' chance at future happiness. If anyone ever finds out Dumbledore is righteously scr***ed for letting a werewolf eat a student...... Ifs ifs ifs.... take a look at Harry in the lake and you'll see the exact same thing.. and the conclusion that they both came to.... *I* am the *only* one who can save them. Duty, gallantry, honour, and of course the saving people thing. Expect it to be canonised James in HBP... a paragon of virtue? a saint?... in a sense, yes, absolutely. Remember, James risked his life for all of them, it *was* an act of selfless endangerment. I agree that it was not motivated by compassion so much, but by a sense of duty to Remus but extend James sense of duty and knightly qualities were a part of everything he does. > > vmonte responds: > I agree on the idea, but I don't think this is what JKR was pointing out to us in this scene. Snape is a deeply horrible person! He has so much hatred inside of him that he cannot even accept help from Lily. And please don't say that he was just embarrassed and lashed out, this is a cop-out answer. 'Mind your own business' would have sufficed, right? Instead he calls her a foul name. (IMO he hates her in much the same way he shows contempt for Hermione. It's interesting that both happen to have muggle parents.) > Valky: That's a very bold statement Vivian. And I agree. :D Love him or hate him, Snape is not nice. Its the inner struggle that fascinates, not the question of whether its there, for me. From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 11:08:33 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:08:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123435 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: > > 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. I agree that an action shouldn't be judged in retrospect, with the knowledge of actual outcome, but according to the knowledge the actor had at the time and the moral considerations on which he based his decision. > > 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. None of us are in the specific danger that Harry was. The only explanation that is provided in canon is the one that DD gives - he put Harry with the Dursleys becuase it was the safest place he could make for him. Tortured and dead by the age of two, or alive and emotionally damaged by the age of eleven? That's the choice (*according to canon*) that DD faced - not an enviable place to find yourself in, by any means. Naama From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 11:55:01 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:55:01 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123437 >Valky wrote: My canon James is based on a flowthrough of absolutely *everything* ever penned about him, so forgive me if I do not cite all the canon behind each conclusion and rather just posit my view, which I believe can speak for itself anyway. Back to the point, I was saying James saving Severus and Remus and Sirius from their respective consequences that night so long ago, was the same as Harry saving everyone in the lake. He thought about it all: If Snape reaches Remus Snape will probably die. If Snape gets hurt Remus will suffer. If anyone ever finds out its goodnight Sirius' chance at future happiness. If anyone ever finds out Dumbledore is righteously scr***ed for letting a werewolf eat a student...... Ifs ifs ifs.... take a look at Harry in the lake and you'll see the exact same thing.. and the conclusion that they both came to.... *I* am the *only* one who can save them. Duty, gallantry, honour, and of course the saving people thing. Expect it to be canonised James in HBP... a paragon of virtue? a saint?... in a sense, yes, absolutely. Remember, James risked his life for all of them, it *was* an act of selfless endangerment. vmonte responds: 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. I don't see James as a thinker in the Snape penseive scene. He lashes out at Snape infront of the school, in broad daylight. Did it ever cross his mind that he might be expelled? No, I don't think so. I, on the other hand, see Lily as the "strategist," the one who would think everything through. She is afterall the mastermind behind Harry's survival, isn't she? This is also an act of selfless endangerment, right? > vmonte responds: I agree on the idea, but I don't think this is what JKR was pointing out to us in this scene. Snape is a deeply horrible person! He has so much hatred inside of him that he cannot even accept help from Lily. And please don't say that he was just embarrassed and lashed out, this is a cop-out answer. 'Mind your own business' would have sufficed, right? Instead he calls her a foul name. (IMO he hates her in much the same way he shows contempt for Hermione. It's interesting that both happen to have muggle parents.) >Valky: That's a very bold statement Vivian. And I agree. :D Love him or hate him, Snape is not nice. Its the inner struggle that fascinates, not the question of whether its there, for me. vmonte: Yes, it's the inner struggle that fascinates all right. :) Vivian From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 11:58:00 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 11:58:00 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123438 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > Coming out of the latest in the DD-Harry-Dursley threads, lets talk a > little about what we DO and DON'T want to see in the DD-Harry > relationshiop in Book VI. Just in general here. DD apologizes to Harry for withholding the prophecy information from him, thereby being the indirect cause of Sirius' death. He is not (as far as I understand) apologizing for his original decision to put him with the Dursleys. Since DD is the story's main voice-of-wisdom and explicator, for me this says that *JKR* doesn't intend to make the Dursleys something that DD needs to apologize for. In fact, I'm pretty sure that DD's explanation is all we're going to hear about this issue. We have received an acount of the circumstances and reasons for placing Harry there - and I really think that, as far as the author is concerned, this subject is closed. It seems to me, therfore, redundant to keep on and on questioning DD's motives, when the author clearly (IMO) doesn't. I think definitely that Harry will go through a period of feeling angry and disillusioned with DD. However, these feelings will arise because of the Sirius debacle, not because of the Dursleys. Further prediction? Harry will forgive DD for being fallible as soon as he forgives himself for his mistakes (of course, first he has to accept responsibility for his part in the tragedy). Naama From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 12:08:15 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:08:15 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI. The Dursleys or the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123439 Geoff wrote: You may consider it silly, but it has been an integral part of British culture for many years; I was brought up in that way - though I sometimes regret it - and it still plays quite a strong part in our tradition. So, whatever you may think of it, Hogwarts is characterising an essentially English approach. vmonte responds: There is also something else that people are forgetting. Dumbledore placed Harry in Petunia's home because he felt he had no choice. He needed Petunia's blood protection, and he needed to keep Harry away from the WW until he was old enough to defend himself. I personally don't think that Harry would have been safe anywhere else. I think that Voldemort's defeat at GH created a kind of Harry "myth" (of epic proportions!). Harry became someone to be feared by the DEs, and respected by the rest of the WW. The fact that the WW did not see Harry for 11 years also helped with creating the Harry "mythology." If Harry had been living in the WW, how long would it have taken for somebody to realize that Harry was just a cute little baby, and nothing to fear? How long before someone realized that "there was nothing special nor important" about Harry at all. Lucius would have eventually paid the new parents a visit, don't you think? And how difficult would it have been to toss baby Harry into a lake do you suppose? I think that Dumbledore needed to keep Harry away from the WW-- Period. Although, it makes me sad to think of a child (thank God it's just a story) living with people like the Dursley's. I do however think that his experience with them made him tough and strong willed. These are important traits necessary to beat Voldemort IMO. I hope that Lily's spell also had the ability to make Harry feel that he was somehow loved, despite the Dursleys. Vivian From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 12:18:50 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:18:50 -0000 Subject: The Magic Formula? WAS Wizard Chess .... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123440 > > Valky: > > I agree with that, I think you know I was using the Wizard Chess > > metaphor in terms of plot construction, and cracking the code of > > PS/SS to see the foreshadowings of the next books, ...edited..... > > I guess I'll have to create a new theory about the > > under the trapdoor foreshadowings called JMO (JKR Mixed the > > Order). ;D Where there's a will..... > > Finwitch: > > -- I think it's quite true... Mixing the Order. I mean, ALL books must be in it somehow. The troll (already done with) represents the first book, of course... > > After all, leaving them for the first time, Harry didn't quite know > where he was going... > > Oh well, I'll leave it to you to explain Devil's Snare, Flying Keys > and the rest are supposed to be. > Valky again: Thanks Finwitch, I guess I will have to now I committed to it won't I.. :D Actually I do have an explaination. The plot construction puzzle is this: Everything under the trapdoor is in each and every book. And can be found scattered throughout the whole series. The Three-Headed-Dog: The guard Always encountered before you embark on your journey; the Dursleys usually, we always have to go through them to get to the story underneath. Fluffy = Muggles The Devils Snare: Leading down the garden path usually done at the beginning of the story. The more you struggle with it the tighter it grips you. The Winged Key: the elusive good old fashioned nugget concealed in thosuands of clues, opens the door to the ...... Wizard Chess Room: Which is of course, the architecture of the tale. The Troll - Something quite formidable but fortunately, has been dealt with - as in the wand brothers in GOF, the Timeturner in POA. We get the full story early in the game but we don't see it. The Logic Puzzle: is the elements of the twist in the tale - In Cos the Diary, the spiders etc in POA the Map , Lupins Boggart etc.. And finally the Mirror; you come to at the end only to discover that what you came for is right there in your hot little hands, already. Now all I have to do is translate that to the series. Isolate the elements of the Logic puzzle snatch the *right* winged key out of the many like it (remembering its a bit broken like someone before me had handled it roughly) and open the door to the chess room, while of course avoiding the garden path and Identifying the troll which has been dealt with sometime early in the peice and not worrying too much about playing the music to the three headed dog..... and voila JKR may never need write book seven! ;D Then again maybe not. It's as simple as that.... we get to book seven and see ourselves in the mirror holding the answer we sought, already. > Of course, in the 4th book, Harry's facing a bit of repetition - yet another series of obstacles. He has 3 tasks (3 books left). > > Pass a dragon/saving people who aren't truly in danger/maze. > > Seems like that mid-task presented the 5th book... > > Finwitch Thanks for noting that repitition Finwitch. That's what got me thinking about taking this tack... so I guess I should visit TBAY and christen a new enterprise... :D Let's see the HP Sleuth's Bible? That's not too presumptious is it? ;D |*| |\ |_____|\_______ \___H.P.S.B___/ | | | | Anyone got a clue about HBP? Stand up and be counted.. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Prophecy_Orb/ * * * | | | | _Signum Orbis_ From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 13:11:58 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:11:58 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123441 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vmonte" wrote: > > >Valky wrote: > Duty, gallantry, honour, and of course the saving people thing. > Expect it to be canonised James in HBP... a paragon of virtue? a > saint?... in a sense, yes, absolutely. > Remember, James risked his life for all of them, it *was* an act of > selfless endangerment. > > vmonte responds: > 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. Valky replies: Sorry bout the snip. I agree James didn't really choose his friends all that wisely, and hence not so much a thinker in that respect. I attribute that flaw to another knightly quality, ego. This is something that James and Snape shared. Part of their fearlessness comes from a sense of outright superiority of the foe, invincibility if you please. Harry, is slightly less proud and arrogant than his father, but nevertheless he has it too. aside: (I am wondering if Jen Reese is enjoying this much :D Some of your Arthurian legend expertise would be great here Jen!) In a sense James didn't choose his *friends* so much as he chose his allies and his foes. He *was* arrogant, as Snape accuses, but his choices define his sense of highness. His choice was not power, but right. Leading the front, faith in the ultimate truth and a touch of mercy, that's the deep James... Just my opinion, BTW. On the surface in the Pensieve we see a young James head-filled with emotive principles such as 'An eye for an eye' 'Danger gleams like sunshine to a brave man's eyes' 'The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.' ...... But with the same proud, arrogant but noble heart. So to sum it up, I'd say you're right and Lily did put James head straight on a few things. OTOH he had the heart of a knight and Lily changed nothing about that, because that is what she fell in love with. Vmonte: > I, on the other hand, see Lily as the "strategist," the one who would think everything through. She is afterall the mastermind behind Harry's survival, isn't she? This is also an act of selfless > endangerment, right? > Valky replies: Yes 100% agreed. Lily was different to James, she was infinitely merciful and compassionate with just that little tiny touch of steel. Yes she was very smart and brave but she was less concious of these things about herself. Conciously, she was selfless, an altogether epitome of motherliness. But there will be minor flaws to her character, she will become 3D and human soon, count on it. :D Personally, I think this will be the redemption of James in Harry's eyes, and not the Prank. I think Harry will find out just how much his mother needed, trusted and loved his father and the absolute bottom line why. > >Valky: > That's a very bold statement Vivian. And I agree. :D > Love him or hate him, Snape is not nice. Its the inner struggle that fascinates, not the question of whether its there, for me. > > vmonte: > > Yes, it's the inner struggle that fascinates all right. :) > Valky: About Snapes inner struggle, we'll find out, I am sure, why Lily could never love Snape and vice versa. Or maybe "mudblood" *is* the encapsulation of that. OTOH I can't wait to find out who *did* love Snape, if anybody. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 14:15:47 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:15:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville and stuff (Was: In Defense of Snape) References: Message-ID: <00b901c506d6$322c28d0$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 123442 > Gerry replied: >> > Well, maybe because he has a different character? Had different > parents, so a different genetic make-up, in which fear genes do not > play such a big part? >> > Carol responds: > I agree with Magda about the difference between Harry and Neville, but > I don't see how this difference leads to a fear of Snape. 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. And, Gerry, I'm not sure that Neville inherited any "fear > genes" (innate timidity?). Both his parents were aurors. 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? > > Let's say that you were a child born in the 1930s whose parents had > been seized by the Nazis when you were too young to understand or > remember, but you now know at age eleven who the Nazis are and what > they do to their victims. Your timidity would be understandable, and > you might fear stern authority figures as a mask for the much more > terrible people who had stolen and tortured your parents and might at > any time take you? > Charme: I think that as we mature, our worst "fears" change over time. Some fears get conquered by the individual just as a part fo growing up. I also think Carol's point about "displacement" (the fear of stern authority figures) is a good one - if Neville has never seen a DE or a Crucio curse performed by one, how would that translate into a boggart? Remember, Neville's experience with the boggart takes place in PoA - he doesn't see any of these things until later books. Charme From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 14:20:21 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:20:21 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123443 Valky replies: Sorry bout the snip. I agree James didn't really choose his friends all that wisely, and hence not so much a thinker in that respect. I attribute that flaw to another knightly quality, ego. This is something that James and Snape shared. Part of their fearlessness comes from a sense of outright superiority of the foe, invincibility if you please. Harry, is slightly less proud and arrogant than his father, but nevertheless he has it too. He *was* arrogant, as Snape accuses, but his choices define his sense of highness. His choice was not power, but right. Leading the front, faith in the ultimate truth and a touch of mercy, that's the deep James... Just my opinion, BTW. On the surface in the Pensieve we see a young James head-filled with emotive principles such as 'An eye for an eye' 'Danger gleams like sunshine to a brave man's eyes' 'The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.' ...... But with the same proud, arrogant but noble heart. So to sum it up, I'd say you're right and Lily did put James head straight on a few things. OTOH he had the heart of a knight and Lily changed nothing about that, because that is what she fell in love with. vmonte responds: Don't misunderstand me, I do think that James was brave; I just don't think that he was the "heart" of the J&L partnership. I think that Lily realized that the only way Harry could survive was if she somehow died and imparted a lasting protection on him. This is thinking things through to the end, in my opinion. Lily had the ability to make long-term plans. I do think however that if James was to know, in retrospect, that his actions would eventually lead to Snape loathing and tormenting Harry, he would not have done what he did during the penseive scene. Unfortunately, doesn't Sirius or Lupin tell Harry in OOTP that James continued to hex Snape behind Lily's back? This is James, Sirius, and Snape's weakness IMO. They just cannot let go of things. Harry and Lily are different. I still believe that Harry's reaction to the penseive scene points to how he is very much like his mother. This is Lily's gift to Harry-- what he has inherited from her. I also think however, that James has left Harry a gift that may eventually help him to conquer Voldemort. There has to be some connection between Voldemort and the dementors we are not yet aware of. Is Voldemort a form of dementor? Is this why they listen to him? What did he do to become immortal? Perhaps there will be a point in time that Harry will call on his patronus and it will push Voldemort through the veil. I know I've mentioned this before but I like the idea of Lily saving Harry (the protection spell) at the beginning of the series, and James protecting Harry (the inherited patronus) at the end of the series. Then again, knowing James, maybe it will push Snape into the veil. Vivian From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 04:00:10 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:00:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore & Dursleys-Abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050130040010.88396.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123444 I seem to be counting the days for the realease of HBP (perhaps I'm not the only one), anyway, since there's been this whole discussion on whether the Dursleys are abusive or not I found this quote: 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. Though, in possibly a less obvious way. What they are doing to him is inept, really. I think children recognize that. Poor Dudley. He's not being prepared for the world at all, in any reasonable or compassionate way, so I feel sorry for him. But there's something funny about him, also. The pig's tail was irresistible.` www.hpandthehalfbloodprince.org (emphasis of mine) She clearly says that Dudley is just as abused as Harry, which can only mean that she thinks Harry is abused. The thing is I've never thought of it as abuse, just as less than perfect conditions. Well, I guess I'm wrong, if JKR says it's abuse, then it's abuse. Juli __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com From easimm at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 00:45:19 2005 From: easimm at yahoo.com (curlyhornedsnorkack) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:45:19 -0000 Subject: Harry's Seclusion and the Weasley Suspicion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123445 Jay wrote: > This may be just my own Hufflepuff paranoia, but I have a strong > feeling that Harry's seclusion into the comfort of Gryffindor and the > Weasly boy's suspicion and immediate distaste of anyone better than > them may come back and bite them on the butt later on. >... > My next problem is with the Weasleys. Now the parent's seems nice > enough, I'd certainly love to get to know Arthur and Molly. The older > siblings seem very open to meeting new people as well. We know since > Charlie works with dragons outdoors, he must meet all kinds of > people. The same goes for Bill working as a treasure hunter. But what > about the twins and Ron? Justin Finch-Fletchley innocently mentions > that he likes Lockhart and is immediately dubbed an idiot by Ron > (again, I forget the exact words). He was simply stating that he > liked an energetic, albeit bumbling and stupid, teacher. Ron unjustly > jumped to conclusions just because his ideas didn't mesh with > Justin's. > As soon as Cedric Diggory beats the Gryffindors at Quidditch he's an > idiot/ "pretty boy" to Fred and George, probably Ron too. Did > jealousy play a part? Maybe it's just my psychology classes finally > taking root, but as soon as Oliver Wood mentions Cedric's name, the > three female chasers burst into giggles. Maybe there's some feeling > of inadequacy on the twin's part when they're up against Cedric. They > seem comfortable enough around girls, so perhaps the immediate > distate is something deeper. > There are unsavory things about the Weasleys, their curious callousness and so on, but they might just be what's normal for the wizarding world. Sometimes the Weasleys and the WW folk remind me of the family in the movie "Rosemary's Baby", where all these helpful people who strike slightly the wrong note have a secret nasty agenda. (I won't go into whether spells and magic mean the WW are un-Christian or un-any-other-religion since it's no fun and IMO magic is pretty much just a plot device.) I wonder if this "wrongness", for want of a better word, will rub off on Harry. Here's a list of things I can recall at this moment that could be warning signs or corrupting influences (laugh a little if you like): -The treatment of gnomes, who are flung and tossed. -the treatment of the mandrakes, social creatures who like to party, but are killed for the WW's benefit. -The willingness to submit Muggles to constant memory modification for the sake of a useless game (Quidditch), even though memory modification can be damaging. -The brutal game of Quidditch itself. (Read Quidditch Through the Ages.) -The cruel treatment of mother dragons and their eggs for the sake of fun. -The enslavement of intelligent beings, the elves. (Mrs. Weasley wants an elf, even though she must know that would mean having a slave.) -the lack of concience of the Twins who happily perform dangerous experiments on students. (Remember Angela's bloody nose?) -Ron's cruelty towards Lockhart who had been rendered helpless. (Ron kicks him in the shins after he learns that Lockhart is helpless.) -Dumbledore's decision to keep a 3-headed dog in the school - and he's not fired by the school board! -Dumbledore agreement to a wizarding contest that admits a lot of strangers to Hogwarts when he knows his top job is to protect Harry - and he's not fired by the school board! -Dumbledore's decision to hire a known deatheater as a teacher- and he's not fired by the school board! -The existence of easily located shops, just a little ways away from the high street (or main street, for you Americans) that sell items such as cursed necklaces, poisonous candles and shrunken heads, presumably human. (Whose heads are they, mmm? And why does the shop keeper have the right to sell them?) Mrs. Weasley goes along with a lot of things, such as the craze over Lockhart and the condemnation of Hermione by The Prophet. Perhaps we'll learn through Mrs. Weasley that human sacrifice is needed to revive the WW's supply of Magic, and it's all right with her! Gulp! Rowling wouldn't do something like that, would she? -Snorky. > 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. ... Good point. It's hard to know from the book just how many people are suspicious of Harry. But some should be. It's interesting that Rowling didn't write of a MOM investigation centering on Harry's part in Cedric's death since the MOM is trying to discredit him. -Snorky From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 07:34:53 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:34:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123446 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Hmmm. I don't know that obliviation can be that specific, but good point. I wasn't speaking of literally removing Harry's memories. DD can't do that without leaving Harry a vegetable. I was speaking in more ethereal terms about the simple joys of having childhood memories that you can revisit with friends and family. Harry is never going to have those because DD left him with family who didn't want him and made his upbringing truly terrible. My point was that he will live with those memories forever and no matter how high he rises or the great things he'll do, he'll never have something that people like Ron or even Draco take for granted. Thats a loss worth mourning IMO Phoenixgod2000 From valerie.flowe at verizon.net Sun Jan 30 11:01:12 2005 From: valerie.flowe at verizon.net (Valerie Flowe) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 06:01:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco or Snape?? In-Reply-To: <1107071197.4940.16731.m25@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123447 Just curious; who would you rather see Harry become allies, or at least, come to a grudging respect, with, in the end? Draco or Snape? I think it will be Snape. JKR has given us some depth into his character, with the whole pensieve thing. Even the most insensitive reader would have to cringe a little at the scene of Snape floating upside down with dirty underwear while all are laughing...horrible!!! So, I'm feeling more for Snape, than I am for Draco. Even though Draco is obviously just a product of his wealthy, bigoted upbringing. Can he really help how he turned out? But his character has not developed at all, at least in canon. In the latest movie, POA, they portrayed him as a real sissy, which bothered me, because that is not in canon. He really is not nearly as intriguing a character as Snape, is he? Sort of a one-dimensional adversary, IMO. From valerie.flowe at verizon.net Sun Jan 30 10:39:17 2005 From: valerie.flowe at verizon.net (Valerie Flowe) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 05:39:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Digest Number 5709 In-Reply-To: <1107071197.4940.16731.m25@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123448 Betsy: > I'd argue that Harry's lack of trust in adults is a strength, > especially for a boy whose actions may take down Voldemort. (I see > some shades of "Ender's Game" in this.) And Harry does trust his > friends. I was actually surprised by how deep his trust in them > goes. Alla: > First of all, I disagree that it is Harry's strength. As we > witnessed through OOP, Harry could not bring himself to fully trust > ANY adult, not just Snape and all of that lead to MOM disaster. > > So, I fail to see how it is his strength. Regardless, though whether > it is his strength or weakness, the question was to show effects of > abuse and inability to trust adults IS the effect of abuse. > > I agree that Harry trusts his friends very deeply, but without that > plot would not be able to move forward. Ah, but Harry trusts Sirius, doesn't he? At first, he is obviously mistrusting, as he thinks Black is out to kill him! But he quickly buys the story that Lupin tells him about Peter being the bad guy, not Sirius. In OotP, he is rather devastated to learn through the pensieve that his father and his godfather have a mean streak in them. And he even starts to feel a bit sorry for Snape...which you would think would be impossible considering how much Snape verbally abuses him. But then he is so quick to run to Sirius's rescue when he thinks he is being killed by the snake at the MoM. Sad, really. He grew up so unloved, that he is just craving "parental" acceptance, even from someone as unconventional and depressed and borderline psychotic as Sirius Black! Don't get me wrong...JKR somehow has me totally infatuated with Sirius. Even though he is unnecessarily cruel to Snape and very insensitive to poor Harry. I think Sirius is (was) the kind of guy that people (particularly girls!?) were drawn to, even though he was aloof and cold. Maybe Harry is caught up in the inexplicable charisma too? Though I think it is more the desire for "god"-parental love. Really fascinating the way JKR has developed Harry's character, isn't it? It must be wonderful as an author to be able to take the time (through five and a half books so far!) to fully develop and then continue to evolve a character like Harry. Sometimes I wonder if she is sick to death of Harry and Hogwarts and the wizarding world. If she feels "trapped" into finishing a story that she started so long ago, and may have outgrown. Ya know??? But fans like us wouldn't let her get away with not finishing the series. Strange, really, that she predetermined that it would be 7 books. I mean, what author does that, in advance? Is it really true that she had the story all figured out in her head, from start to finish, from day one? I've heard the "details" have changed and evolved as she went along. But did she really have the fate of Harry vs. Voldemort all figured out? How it would all end? And has she told ANYONE the ending, I wonder? Her editor, perhaps? Or is she the secret-keeper of the mystery of Harry Potter? And while I'm digressing horribly (sorry! it's late, I can't sleep!), why does the Harry Potter series grab some people (kids and adults alike, like me!) and draw them into the HP "universe" (as Cuaron constantly calls it?!) My husband thinks I am insane to be so obsessed with a "kids book". He obviously isn't getting it, right?! It just keeps getting deeper and deeper and more interesting to me...I couldn't not read it to the end, if I tried! OK, I'm signing off! If you've read to the end of my super-long monologue, thanks! :-) Val From valerie.flowe at verizon.net Sun Jan 30 11:35:20 2005 From: valerie.flowe at verizon.net (Valerie Flowe) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 06:35:20 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: <1107071197.4940.16731.m25@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123449 Alex: > I was just re-reading the first chapter of OotP, and noticed that > there is a very small bit of evidence that *someone*, at least, has > taken a *slightly* more hands-on approach to making sure that Harry is > taken care of during the summer. To wit: > > "Mrs Figg had recently taken to asking him around for tea whenever she > saw him in the street" (2, US HC). > > If this sentence refers to tea-the-meal, rather than tea-the-beverage, > then at least some care is being taken to see that Harry gets enough > to eat that particular summer, though whether Mrs. Figg is acting on > her own initiative or on Dumbledore's orders, we can't say. In either > case, it probably would have worked better if someone had clued him in > that she wasn't *just* a nutty neighbor--as it is, he goes out of his > way to avoid Mrs. Figg and her tea. Yes, it is implied that Harry was constantly observed, if not by DD, then by Figg and her "husband", was it? The irresponsible one who runs off and gives the Dementors a chance to swoop in on Harry and Dudley? So, I guess that as long as Harry wasn't being physically abused to the point of hospitalization, then DD figured that was still the only place he could be assured that Harry was safe from Voldemort? It still seems like gross negligence to me. Is that because in this day and age we are so conscious of children's emotional wellbeing? Maybe DD was old school and thought "Hey, the kid's gotta toughen up. Maybe the Dursleys evil antics will somehow prepare Harry for his eventual battle with the most evil one of all? Who knows what DD thinks? He's a strange bird. One minute he's all sensitive and grandfatherly. The next he's putting Harry in harm's way AT HOGWARTS, which they are constantly saying is one of the safest places in the wizarding world to be (with charms and spells guarding the place and all). I don't understand why DD does this. In fact, it really bugs me. If Harry is so important to the future of the wizarding world, where is DD when Harry gets into all of his "grand finale of the books" scrapes? He always shows up at the end to philosophize. But is he really concerned about Harry's safety? And should Harry be allowed to attend Hogwarts at all, considering that every year, he almost loses his life??? (trolls; Voldemore/Quirrel; huge man-eating spiders; basilisks; supposed escaped convicts on the loose). I know in Book 2, DD was kicked out, thanks to Lucius's intimidation tactics, but if he arguably the most powerful wizard in the world, wouldn't he have some sort of powers to know when Harry is in danger, and come to his rescue? Gee, I suppose he did sent Fawkes with the Griffyndor sword, end of Book 2. But that's the only example, isn't it? Why didn't DD go rescue Sirius from the tower? Why send some 13 year old kids to tangle with a supposed rabid hippogriff and potentially murderous werewolf? Why DOES DD hire such bizarre volatile folks to teach the DADA class? Quirrel was a joke, as was Lockhart. Lupin, we presume is a brilliant wizard, as he coaches Harry to reach his full potential with the patronus. But, for heaven's sake; he's a werewolf! Is anyone other than the crazy tree guarding the student body and Hogsmeade from the potential danger of an escaped werewolf?! I mean, I love Lupin, as does everyone, but come on! That IS a rather irresponsible choice of teacher. I don't think I'd like my kids to be taught by a werewolf either! And Mad-eye...well, he's just insane. Totally out to lunch! But then again, we don't really get a true picture of Mad-Eye, because he is in effect, Crouch, Jr. But he's still portrayed as a paranoid freak. Snape seems rather acceptable by all of those standards. But for whatever reason, as yet unknown, that DD trusts Snape, I think he still fears that Snape is just too close to his Dark Side roots. That it wouldn't take much for him to get sucked back in. Though he does trust him to report back on any Voldemort/Death-Eater activity. But not to influence the kids...hmmmm. But, then again, Potions could dispense very powerful evil. Could he not insinuate his potential evil to the kids through that practice? He implies it at the beginning of the series when he goes on about "ensnaring the senses; putting a stopper on death, etc", while looking at Draco, who Snape surely knows is evil, as he is his house leader, and knows his father as the evil bastard that he is. So. to sum it up, DD must deep down, not trust Snape. Else why would he "diss" him so bad, year after year? I'm sure this has all been discussed previously. But thought I'd throw my thoughts in... Val From gwhlevy at sbcglobal.net Sun Jan 30 06:19:34 2005 From: gwhlevy at sbcglobal.net (Grant Levy) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 06:19:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123450 "Alex Boyd" wrote: "Mrs Figg had recently taken to asking him around for tea whenever she saw him in the street" (2, US HC). "If this sentence refers to tea-the-meal, rather than tea-the-beverage..." It refers to "tea-the-meal". Its a light meal served around 4 p.m. in the afternoon. Grantham MacGregor From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 09:22:08 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:22:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050130092208.81860.qmail@web61203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123451 SSusan wrote: > 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. Lupinlore: Interesting and possible, but as with this whole discussion purely hypothetical at the moment. All we can do, ultimately, is hope that JKR will address these issues in some specific way, as opposed to the kind of inference and suggestion she has used to this point. Until she does so, I will have to stand by the circumstantial evidence that we have, and that still makes Dumbledore very complicit in the abuse of Harry by the Dursleys. Lupinlore, What about the strong possibility that Petunia hasn't been totally honest with her husband or Dudley? We already know that Petunia knows a lot more about the WW than she ever let on in the beginning, where did she get this information? I believe that it goes back to the parental mystery surrounding Petunia and Lily. She is honestly in fear of elements in the WW, and a letter from DD would not be enough for her to be that fearful, especially of DEs. I don't believe that their parents were muggles, not after some of the responses from Petunia and comments that she has made in OOP. As to what made her not kick out Harry...it was something big, not just protection. DD has something over her, something huge that she doesn't want to come out, perhaps it's because she is a squib, but there is something there. "Pyros Wife" From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 00:34:06 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:34:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050130003406.85441.qmail@web61201.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123452 Meri: Lily and Petunia's parents were Muggles, and it is possible (and I know that there has been speculation about this) that LV killed them for some reason and that this is why Petunia hates the WW so much. Also, I always got the impression (even before the medium that shall not be named reinforced this by casting the roles this way) that Unlce Vernon and Aunt Petunia were a good piece older than James and Lily, so the Dursley parents could well be dead of natural causes as well. I would like to ask a question here, that seems to be driving me knuts, no where that I have been able to find has there been any statement that says that Lily's parents were muggles. I have been looking, for all clues involved and even been reading some of the supplement books to find all of the clues that I may have missed for this particular question. I believe FIRMLY that Lily and Petunia's parents were both wizards! Petunia must be a squib, it explains her contempt for anything magical....ANYTHING! Not to mention that she is the older sister and "Our parents were so proud, there is a witch in the family." It's quite possible that with all of the LV stuff going on, they were keeping their heads down as to not let themselves become a target, afterall, we don't know for sure WHY LV killed the people that he did, or even what were the Deatheater's motivations either. If I find anything else out, I will definately post. "Pyros Wife" --------------------------------- 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 Jan 30 15:31:00 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:31:00 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123453 Valky replies: Sorry bout the snip. I agree James didn't really choose his friends all that wisely, and hence not so much a thinker in that respect. I attribute that flaw to another knightly quality, ego. This is something that James and Snape shared. Part of their fearlessness comes from a sense of outright superiority of the foe, invincibility if you please. Harry, is slightly less proud and arrogant than his father, but nevertheless he has it too. vmonte again: I like your chess game inferences by the way. But Harry plays the Bishop, not the Knight in chess. I like the scene in OOTP where Harry notices that Ron is behaving very much like his father did in the penseive. Page 704, GoF U.S. edition "I thought--you can do this! And I had about a second to decide which way to fly, you know, because he looked like he was aiming for the right goal hoop--my right, obviously, his left--but I had a funny feeling that he was feinting, and so I took the chance and flew left-- his right, I mean--and--well--you know what happened," he concluded modestly, sweeping his hair back quite unnecessarily so that it looked interestingly windswept and glancing around to see whether the people nearest to them--a bunch of gossiping third-year Hufflepuffs-- had heard him... ... The truth was that Ron had just reminded Harry forcibly of another Gryffindor Quidditch player who had once sat rumpling his hair under this very tree. Ron is the Knight, not Harry. Vivian "Those who don't play chess may tend to think of it as a tedious game best suited to idle eccentrics and the elderly - people with vast patience and plenty of time to waste. This is only partly true, for chess also requires uncommon energy and childlike mental vivacity. If players are sometimes portrayed as old men with furrowed brows, that is merely a symbolic depiction of an activity that consumes days, years, and even lifetimes in a single, unquenchable flame. Players relish the paradoxical compensation: time is forever frozen in a loop of the eternal present, while life away from the board comes to seem unbearably fast-paced. They therefore constantly seek to rediscover that state of grace, that nebulous yet limpid condition of dominion that comes from concentrating the mind on the game. Boredom? The chess player doesn't know the meaning of the word." ? Paolo Maurensig From vmonte at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 16:28:12 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:28:12 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: <20050130003406.85441.qmail@web61201.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123455 Pyros Wife wrote: I would like to ask a question here, that seems to be driving me knuts, no where that I have been able to find has there been any statement that says that Lily's parents were muggles. I have been looking, for all clues involved and even been reading some of the supplement books to find all of the clues that I may have missed for this particular question. I believe FIRMLY that Lily and Petunia's parents were both wizards! Petunia must be a squib, it explains her contempt for anything magical....ANYTHING! Not to mention that she is the older sister and "Our parents were so proud, there is a witch in the family." It's quite possible that with all of the LV stuff going on, they were keeping their heads down as to not let themselves become a target, afterall, we don't know for sure WHY LV killed the people that he did, or even what were the Deatheater's motivations either. If I find anything else out, I will definately post. vmonte responds: Sorry, but it's mention in several books that their parents were muggles. Snape even calls Lily a mu--lood during the penseive scene in OOTP. see also the Lexicon: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/lily.html I don't think that Petunia is a squib, she is also a witch. JKR mentioned that there would be a witch or wizard that would gain magical powers late in life under stressful circumstances. It's definitely Petunia. And it serves her right! Vivian From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 17:07:13 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:07:13 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123456 "horridporrid03" wrote: > But the rows and rows of wizards and > witches *are* the Wizengamot. The full Wizengamot in OoP sure didn't seem to contain anywhere near the hundreds of people we're talking about, but it doesn't really matter because we are still talking about hundreds of people and I'm not very impressed with the quality of the people (Umbridge) on the Wizengamot. There is no way that many people could keep a secret for over a decade. > There is probably a spell to make sure what > is spoken of in closed session stays closed. There is not a hint of that in the books, you're just inventing magic out of thin air to make your theory fit. There is no theory however ridiculous that I can not make fit the facts if you just allow me to create the right magic spell. But what fun is that? > the WW does *not* know that Snape was a > Death Eater. (Parents would not stand > for a former Death Eater teaching their children. The book says that about werewolfs not "former" death eaters like the Malfoy family who still have respect in the wizard world; in fact I have a hunch that many, perhaps most, of those parents you're talking about were themselves former Death Eaters or at least sympathizers. Besides Snape later acted the hero as a spy. > Plus, how wise is it to tell the world that > someone is a spy before the war was over? It's not wise at all unless the spy's cover had already been blown. Eggplant From bob.oliver at cox.net Sun Jan 30 17:38:09 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:38:09 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123457 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" wrote: > > > > Just in general here. DD apologizes to Harry for withholding the > prophecy information from him, thereby being the indirect cause of > Sirius' death. He is not (as far as I understand) apologizing for his > original decision to put him with the Dursleys. > Since DD is the story's main voice-of-wisdom and explicator, for me > this says that *JKR* doesn't intend to make the Dursleys something > that DD needs to apologize for. In fact, I'm pretty sure that DD's > explanation is all we're going to hear about this issue. We have > received an acount of the circumstances and reasons for placing Harry > there - and I really think that, as far as the author is concerned, > this subject is closed. It seems to me, therfore, redundant to keep > on and on questioning DD's motives, when the author clearly (IMO) > doesn't. > That may very well be the case. At which point I will regard JKR as having failed very badly as a writer. But, there will be a million different opinions on that one. Lupinlore From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Jan 30 18:07:38 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:07:38 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: <20050130003406.85441.qmail@web61201.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123458 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pyros Wife wrote: > I would like to ask a question here, that seems to be driving me knuts, no where that I have been able to find has there been any statement that says that Lily's parents were muggles. I have been looking, for all clues involved and even been reading some of the supplement books to find all of the clues that I may have missed for this particular question. I believe FIRMLY that Lily and Petunia's parents were both wizards! Petunia must be a squib, it explains her contempt for anything magical....ANYTHING! Hickengruendler: Petunia is not a Squib. JKR was asked this and she denied it. She specifically said that Petunia is not a Squib, although there is something more about her. Besides, Lily is muggleborn, therefore her parents can't be wizards. And I think Petunia's contempt for anything magical can be explained very easily. She was the sister who was left out of the wonderful world. Lily could participate and Petunia couldn't, which made her bitter and angry. I think it is completely unimportant if she is a muggle or a squib, the important point is that Lily could do magic and she couldn't. Hickengruendler, who disagrees with the popular opinion that Petunia is the one who will do magic and still puts all his money on Filch From bleckybecs at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 17:22:00 2005 From: bleckybecs at yahoo.com (bleckybecs) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:22:00 -0000 Subject: Luna's Mother's Death- Correction (Wizards and firearms ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123459 bboyminn: a wizard with a wand could defend himself against a muggle with a gun, but only under certain conditions. For examples, the wizard would have to be aware of the presents of the muggle with a gun and aware of his intent to shoot, and would have to respond before the muggle had a chance to shoot him. Becky: I agree with all that's been said. I just want to add a further complication to wizards defending themselves against firearms. It is quite clear that most wizards don't know what a gun is. PoA - 'Muggles have been told that Black is carrying a gun (a kind of metal wand which Muggles use to kill each other)' and in OotP we see Kinglsey refer to 'firelegs' which Arthur corrects him should be 'firearms'. Seems to me that it would make it much harder for a wizard to defend himself against the un-known. If a Muggle pointed a gun at them, would they even know how dangerous that could be? Would they know to defend themselves? Becky From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 18:24:10 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:24:10 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore, the Dursleys, & Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123460 bboymin at yahoo.com wondered: >This was one of the immensely frustrating parts of OotP. How hard >would it have been to tell Harry that Mrs. Figg was an ally, or even >better, to let Harry know that Mrs. Figg was a friend of Dumbledore's >and was in contact with the wizard world? She may not have been able >to tell Harry any more than he was getting from anyone else, but it >would have been someone to talk to. I wondered quite a lot about that too, but I thought of two reasons, one of which has canon: Mrs. Figg says that if, in his early years, the Dursleys had thought he liked spending time with Mrs. Figg they would not have sent him there. (We may disagree about Dumbledore, but I think we can all agree that the Dursleys are pond scum.) So if he had started going there for tea, he'd have had to do so without the Dursleys' knowledge or permission -- and remember she lives quite close to the Dursleys' and in a very nosy, gossipy neighborhood. Another reason might be that Mrs. Figg is a Squib, and that if Harry started spending too much time with her it might be dangerous to *her.* Remember, Harry's protection only works when he's inside the Dursley house, and Mrs. Figg's only protection appears to be that most of the WW doesn't know she exists. >Certainly, if Harry knew who she was he would have dropped over for >tea. Mrs. Figg place would have also make a nice safe haven at which >Harry could visit and have tea with other people like Ron and >Hermione, or Sirius and Remus. Certainly Sirius could have apparated >to Mrs. Figg's and done so without notice. I think that would have been a bad idea, attracting attention to Mrs. Figg -- especially Apparating, which is a noticeable act of magic. The people at Harry's trial said that the area had been closely monitored, and the Ministry of Magic definitely notices when magic is done in the area. (Although they can't tell house-elf magic from wizard magic, and apparently failed to notice Mundungus Fletcher Apparating away ...) Janet Anderson From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 18:46:36 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:46:36 -0000 Subject: underage magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123461 I know we have discussed this before. But I don't remember if we ever came to any conclusion. Forgive me if this thought is a repeat. It has been discussed and questioned "how is it that Hermione and Ron can practice Magic before they go to Hogwarts when it is again the WW laws". When magic happens at the Dursleys the MoM knows. (This is probably because they are watching that house closely as a protection measure for Harry. But they probably also are at least aware of other people and places too.) Think about all of the involuntary magic that kids did when they were young. Wandless magic. That never got anyone in trouble either, not even Harry. I suggest that the *something* that changes things and then makes it wrong begins with their entrance into Hogwarts. The entrance for first time students is the beginning of their responsibility for their actions. Before that they are just little children who don't know any better. Tonks_op From margdean at erols.com Sun Jan 30 19:45:15 2005 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:45:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? References: Message-ID: <41FD394B.57EB9733@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123462 Alex Boyd wrote: > > Betsey wrote: > > > So a five year difference, which suggests that Lucius (who I'm sure > > led his own little band of brothers) probably had little to do with > > the snot-nosed Mauraders. Snape may have been his... I can't recall > > the term, but an underclassman who becomes a sort of servant to the > > upperclassmen - if Hogwarts even had such a tradition. > > The word you're searching for, Betsey, is...erm....close your eyes if > easilly offended...fag. And to continue this thought: no, we don't see any indication in the books of the practice Betsey described, which is called "fagging." --Margaret Dean From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 20:56:34 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:56:34 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories again. Was: Harry's anger Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123463 ms_luna_knows Wrote: > My understanding of why Snape removed > his memories was to keep LV from accessing > them through Harry. So of all the things in Snape's memory the one he judges would be most important and useful to Voldemort and thus the memory most deserving of protection was the time he was bullied in the schoolyard 20 years ago when he was a little kid. I don't think so. He was just embarrassed by the incident and didn't want anybody to know about it, but he didn't mind one bit if he learned of embarrassing memories that Harry had. Snape was a coward, I don't know how else to read it, but it shouldn't come as a huge surprise, he is after all, not a Gryffindor. Eggplant From Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 21:02:38 2005 From: Agent_Maxine_is at hotmail.com (Brenda M.) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:02:38 -0000 Subject: Tree-talking Madness of Crouch (was DD knew Moody=Barty Crouch before...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123464 >>>Steve wrote: >[snip] > Listen to these bit and pieces that Harry tells Dumbledore... > > --GOF, Am Ed, HB, pg 558-- > > "What did Mr. Crouch say, Harry?" said Dumbledore... > > "Said he wants to warn you... > ...said he's done something terrible... > ...HE MENTIONED HIS SON... (my emphasis) > ...and Bertha Jorkins... > .-- and Voldemort... > ... something about Voldemort getting stronger..." >[snip] Brenda now: Excellent point, Steve! I had forgotten about the madness of Barty Crouch... but then I've been severely deprived of Harry Potter over the past 6 months *cries* Is it only me, or did anyone else find this whole chapter quite confusing? When Crouch Sr is seen in the forest, he seems to be playing 2 roles: normal Ministry worker!Crouch and weak, under- pressure Crouch. He was looking up at the tree when telling Weatherby what to do, then looked Harry during his 'breakdown', then up to the tree, normal again. I expected to find Percy under Invisibility Cloak sitting on the branch. Or *someone else* near the tree. I found no evidence to support this later on. Am I alone in wondering WHY Crouch Sr did the whole 2-person role? Siriusly intrigued Brenda From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 18:51:20 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:51:20 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI. The Dursleys or the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123465 > > vmonte responds: > There is also something else that people are forgetting. Dumbledore > placed Harry in Petunia's home because he felt he had no choice. He > needed Petunia's blood protection, and he needed to keep Harry away > from the WW until he was old enough to defend himself. I personally > don't think that Harry would have been safe anywhere else. I think > that Voldemort's defeat at GH created a kind of Harry "myth" (of epic > proportions!). Harry became someone to be feared by the DEs, and > respected by the rest of the WW. The fact that the WW did not see > Harry for 11 years also helped with creating the Harry "mythology." Kill Harry off. No one knew what happened at GH so DD could have simply transfigured something into Dead!Harry and smuggled the real Harry out of England. He could have sent him to Mainland Europe or the US or some other magical center and given him to lightside wizards there. I'm sure DD knows a few wizarding families he trusts implicitly. Based on the reactions of the two foreign champions Voldemort never made it off the island since Harry didn't seem like a very big deal to them so I doubt there are very many nonEnglish DEs. Harry could have grown up without a big head or pressure and Dumbledore could have told him some things when he got a little older. No blood protection and no dursleys. Hell, maybe even no voldemort since he wouldn't have Harry's blood to rebuild his body. 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. My problem with that is Cinderella never included her godfather falling through the veil of death as an example of 'real' senseless tragedy. Phoenixgod2000 From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 21:24:06 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:24:06 -0000 Subject: Godric Gryffindor the HBP? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123466 As far as I know the only quotation from Half Blood Prince is: "(He) looked rather like an old lion. There were streaks of grey in his mane of tawny hair and his bushy eyebrows; he had keen yellowish eyes behind a pair of wire-rimmed spectacles and a certain rangy, loping grace even though he walked with a slight limp." When I first read this I immediately thought it must be referring to Godric Gryffindor and he is the Half Blood Prince. I'm not sure why I thought this, maybe it's the "old lion" part and we know the symbol of Gryffindor, and it doesn't seem like the description of a villain. But before anybody else pokes a hole in my theory let me do it first, spectacles have been around for 500 years but not a thousand. So I guess I could sum up everything I wrote with 3 words, I don't know. Eggplant From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 21:35:01 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:35:01 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123467 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: >Snape was a coward, I don't know how else to read it, but > it shouldn't come as a huge surprise, he is after all, not a >Gryffindor. > Eggplant "K": Does that mean Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw students are also cowards? Just wondering if one has to belong to the great and mighty Gryffindor house to be brave. From meriaugust at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 21:45:39 2005 From: meriaugust at yahoo.com (meriaugust) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:45:39 -0000 Subject: A Fully Realized World (Was: Re: Harry's Seclusion and the Weasley Suspicion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123468 Snorky wrote: > There are unsavory things about the Weasleys, their curious > callousness and so on, but they might just be what's normal for the > wizarding world. snip > Here's a list of things I can recall at this moment that could be > warning signs or corrupting influences (laugh a little if you like): > -The treatment of gnomes, who are flung and tossed. Meri now, jumping in: 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. > -the treatment of the mandrakes, social creatures who like to party, > but are killed for the WW's benefit. Meri: This 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. > -The willingness to submit Muggles to constant memory modification for > the sake of a useless game (Quidditch), even though memory > modification can be damaging. > -The brutal game of Quidditch itself. (Read Quidditch Through the > Ages.) Meri: These are fair points, but then again, RW sports are damaging and brutal, too: boxing, football, rugby, soccer, even basketball and baseball can be physical and cause lasting injuries and sometimes even death. That's just the nature of sport, isn't it? 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. > -The cruel treatment of mother dragons and their eggs for the sake of > fun. > -The enslavement of intelligent beings, the elves. (Mrs. Weasley wants > an elf, even though she must know that would mean having a slave.) Meri: Again, fair points, but also again these both have RW parallels: circus animals and slavery, respectively. Although I am not opening up another house elf debate here !-) > -the lack of concience of the Twins who happily perform dangerous > experiments on students. (Remember Angela's bloody nose?) Meri: Angelina's bloody nose was a Quidditch injury exacerbated by a legitimate mistake on the twins' part; they accidentally gave her the wrong end of a nougat. The twins also gave fair warning on their poster to anyone who took their skiving snackboxes that they were experimental and could not be held responsible for injury sustained. The subjects took these of their own free will and were compensated (I think the going rate was a couple Galleons), much like modern voluntary medical studies, ads for which can be found all over the Boston subways. > -Ron's cruelty towards Lockhart who had been rendered helpless. (Ron > kicks him in the shins after he learns that Lockhart is helpless.) Meri: But remember, the only reason Lockhart was incapacitated in the first place was because he was trying to attack and memory charm Harry and Ron, and thereby was fully willing to let Ginny die (and as a result return a form of LV to full power). Ron has good reason to be ticked at Lockhart. > -Dumbledore's decision to keep a 3-headed dog in the school - and he's > not fired by the school board! > -Dumbledore agreement to a wizarding contest that admits a lot of > strangers to Hogwarts when he knows his top job is to protect Harry - > and he's not fired by the school board! > -Dumbledore's decision to hire a known deatheater as a teacher- and > he's not fired by the school board! Meri: DD does things his own way and always has. Whether that is an acceptable explanation or not, I'm not sure. The board of governors has acted against DD in COS, but to be fair they were bribed by Malfoy, Sr. to vote him out of the job. Regarding Fluffy, the dog was kept behind a locked door and students were warned about not trespassing in the third floor corridor on penalty of "a most painful death". HRH and Neville were out of bounds and shouldn't have been there and as far as we know no other students ever crossed Fluffy's path that year. Regarding the TT, it was an international effort to bring the tournament back to life, and the "strangers" being admitted to the school were students (an unlikely group of people to be conspiring with LV) and Mme. Maxime and Karkarof. Admittedly the latter was a former DE, but one who had named too many names to be in LV's good graces, and Mme. Maxime was an old colleague of DD's. And remember, the one person who mattered to LV's plan, Crouch!Moody, might have been at the school anyway. And regarding the hiring of Snape, DD vouched for him and his word is enough for the WW. > -The existence of easily located shops, just a little ways away from > the high street (or main street, for you Americans) that sell items > such as cursed necklaces, poisonous candles and shrunken heads, > presumably human. (Whose heads are they, mmm? And why does the shop > keeper have the right to sell them?) Meri: There are all kinds of stores that, in the RW, we might not like to go in to, or our children for that matter, but its a free comecial market, isn't it? We might not like stores that sell guns or knives or other questionable material, but we can't deny that there is a market for that kind of thing. (And I hope this doesn't sound like I am condoning drug trafficing, because I think that is a little different.) Anyway, all of these examples serve to make the WW more like our RW. Instead of the WW being a utopian fairy land it is real, gritty, has good sides and bad sides (and also unspeakable terrible sides), just like the RW. It has things to be proud of and things to be ashamed of. IMHO that is why we as readers feel we can jump into the WW at any time: we understand the Weasley's frustration with garden pests and sports injuries. Anyway, just a few knuts. Meri - who has begun to see the WW a bit differently now that she has read Don Quijote. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 21:45:29 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:45:29 -0000 Subject: Is Harry arrogant? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123469 >From several different people and in several different threads I have heard the accusation that Harry is arrogant, well, perhaps I'm a little dim but I've read the books many times and can't think of one incident that I can unaquivelantly point to and say, that is arrogance. And although it probably says more about me than Harry, if I had accomplished one tenth what Harry had I be screaming my glory to high heaven. If you really are better at something than other people it's not arrogance to acknowledge that in your mind, it is reality. Eggplant From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 21:51:04 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:51:04 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123470 "koinonia02" wrote: > Does that mean Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw > students are also cowards? No, it means that if you are a Gryffindor then you are not a coward, and it means that if you are not a Gryffindor then you may or may not be a coward. In Snape's case he is a coward. Eggplant From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Sun Jan 30 21:59:58 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:59:58 -0000 Subject: The Cemetery at Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123471 As JKR interviews are treated as canon by this group I believe it is appropriate to bring this up here. It was just pointed out to me earlier today that in an interview on the DVD of PoA JKR reveals that there is a cemetery somewhere on the grounds of Hogwarts. I watched the interview, and sure enough, there she is, affirming just that. There have been several discussions here about what sort of rituals there are in the WW around death. There have been questions about why Harry has never been shown the graves of James and Lilly. I do not recall seeing any discussion of this relatively new, and I think substantial, bit of information. (I did do a bit of a search and did not find anything specifically about this) The context is that the director of the movie wanted to put a cemetery in the movie, he wanted that to be where the trio is when they watch what they believe to be Buckbeak's execution. Alfonso says that Jo said no, because "that is not where the graveyard is it is in another part of the castle (or grounds?) and it will play ." OK, I put that in quotes, but it is a paraphrase. But he does end with "it is gonna play .." and leaves that hanging heavy in the air. So, what do people make of this? --Barmaid From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Sun Jan 30 22:15:38 2005 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Bee Chase) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:15:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Godric Gryffindor the HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050130221539.74335.qmail@web52004.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123472 eggplant9998 wrote: As far as I know the only quotation from Half Blood Prince is: "(He) looked rather like an old lion. There were streaks of grey in his mane of tawny hair and his bushy eyebrows; he had keen yellowish eyes behind a pair of wire-rimmed spectacles and a certain rangy, loping grace even though he walked with a slight limp." When I first read this I immediately thought it must be referring to Godric Gryffindor and he is the Half Blood Prince. I'm not sure why I thought this, maybe it's the "old lion" part and we know the symbol of Gryffindor, and it doesn't seem like the description of a villain. But before anybody else pokes a hole in my theory let me do it first, spectacles have been around for 500 years but not a thousand. So I guess I could sum up everything I wrote with 3 words, I don't know. Eggplant Luckdragon: I'm more inclined to think this description applies to Lupin. 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 eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 22:15:17 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:15:17 -0000 Subject: The Cemetery at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123473 I have heard there are a number of very small changes JKR insisted on in the movies, nothing big, nothing that seemed to matter much if you had only read books one through five. I would really love to read a list of those "very small" changes but unfortunately that's Top Secret. Eggplant From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 22:18:19 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:18:19 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123474 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" Message 123470 wrote: > No, it means that if you are a Gryffindor then you are not a >coward, and it means that if you are not a Gryffindor then you may >or may not be a coward. > Eggplant "K": I see. All those who have ever been in Gryffindor have been brave. That's not necessarily a compliment, is it? People have been known to perform brave but evil deeds. Eggplant: >In Snape's case he is a coward. "K": Yes, I know you believe that. I think I must have read that fifty times this week. I'm afraid we'll just have to disagree on that episode. On a side note, I just wonder if there are still members of this board who prefer to discuss conspiracy or any other theories. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 22:30:57 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:30:57 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123475 "koinonia02" wrote: > I see. All those who have ever been > in Gryffindor have been brave. Yes. > That's not necessarily a compliment, is it? No, it's not necessarily a compliment. > People have been known to perform > brave but evil deeds. Yes, the slime who piloted the airliners into the World Trade Center were very brave and also very evil. Eggplant From gbannister10 at aol.com Sun Jan 30 22:51:47 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:51:47 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI. The Dursleys or the WW? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123476 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" wrote: Phoenixgod2000: > Kill Harry off. No one knew what happened at GH so DD could have > simply transfigured something into Dead!Harry and smuggled the real > Harry out of England. He could have sent him to Mainland Europe or > the US or some other magical center and given him to lightside > wizards there. I'm sure DD knows a few wizarding families he trusts > implicitly. Geoff: I think that scenario could have caused a whole heap of problems when the time came for Harry to come out of the woodwork. There would be disbelief that he was the real Harry and there is still the prophecy to contend with. It might perhaps wrong-foot Voldemort... No. I think Harry going into obscurity for 10 years was probably best although I feel that Dumbledore could have applied more pressure to the Dursleys to look after him better and I still think there's a lot about Petunia which needs to be revealed which might have a bearing on this. From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 22:56:34 2005 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (chrisnlorrie) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:56:34 -0000 Subject: Tree-talking Madness of Crouch In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123477 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brenda M." > Brenda now: > Am I alone in wondering WHY Crouch Sr did the whole 2-person role? > > > Siriusly intrigued Brenda Brenda, I assumed this behavior was part of Crouch slipping in and out from under the imperius curse, with Crouch being lucid when he was rambling. But I am willing to admit I am wrong.... ;) Alora From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 22:57:04 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:57:04 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123478 >>Betsy: >And yet her depiction of the Crouch family tragedy suggests that she *does* place a strong importance on means.< >>Nora: >I agree that she does--hence the presentation-cum-condemnation of the Slytherin "any means to achieve their ends". (It is decidedly not a good thing to be Slytherin in that way--it's a short step to "...only power".) But I'm not sure that she's going so far to endorse the "means ARE ends" position which is one way of interpreting a strict Kantian approach. Strict Kantian readings condemn breaking rules for a greater good, for example (the famous example of it being immoral to lie to someone who has come to kill your friend, because you must treat every action of means as a perfect end-in-itself)--and I get the feeling that Rowling wholeheartedly endorses Harry et al's breaking of rules in pursuit of what is actually right.< Betsy: Rowling definitely feels that some rules are not to be followed, but she places rather high importance on the rules she *does* think should be followed, loyalty, courage of conviction, etc. Harry breaks rules that get in the *way* of his ideological code (the Norbert incident in PS/SS for example) but James broke the rules *of* his ideological code with the excuse that since Snape did not follow the code he was not protected by said code. In other words, James broke the rules to do something wrong with the excuse that Snape broke them first. Not good behavior as per the books. >>Betsy: >I disagree with your reading here. The attack on Snape is vicious before Lily gets involved (Snape chokes on the soap James conjures into his mouth - there is already a laughing crowd). James hangs Snape upside down before "Mudblood" is thrown out. And it seems to me that James gets really upset when Lily tells James that he's as bad as Snape is. There's nothing in the text that suggests to me that James is *furious* about the word, or even of its affect on Lily. He's furious that she turned him down and compared him to someone he despises. James is not primarily motivated by Snape's vocabulary - I think he's perfectly honest when he states that his prime motivation is Snape's existence. Which, again, does not fit well with his stated ideology.< >>Nora: >"Apologize to Evans!" James roared at Snape, his wand pointed threateningly at him.< > ... >"What?" yelped James. "I'd NEVER call you a --- you-know-what!"< Betsy: James is a performer. I read the roaring disapproval as his acting out the role of righteous rage - but it is acting. When he yelps (distinctly unmanly reaction) James is reacting honestly to a spoken truth. His behavior is not righteous, no matter how neatly he dresses it up, no matter how Snape behaves under his wand. >>Nora: >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. [I also think the Dark Arts thing is important--that's the thing that Sirius and Remus harp upon, when Harry confronts them. Why? Possibly because for they who lived through it, that was one of the most important things; less important to Harry who hasn't had to confront it as directly in daily life through school. That is to say, my hypothesis is that issues like blood purity and the Dark Arts were *more* publicly aired when MWPP were in school, with the rise of Voldemort being something that had public support. In the present, you can't say it anymore; it's present, but less public.]< Betsy: I fully agree that the Dark Arts thing is the motive. I just question the idea that it's a *good enough* motive for such sadistic behavior. As I believe Alex pointed out in a related post, James treats Snape exactly as the Death Eaters treated the Muggles in the beginning of GoF. Rowling did not choose this parallel lightly. This is not the first time JKR has suggested that merely being on the correct side of a war is not enough - behavior counts. (I think of how the French treated those they suspected of collaborating with the Nazies, becoming as tainted as those they fought.) >>Betsy: >I don't discount James hating the Dark Arts. I perfectly agree that James sets Snape up in his mind as the epitome of the Dark Arts and therefore feels perfectly justified in torturing him. This does nothing to excuse his behavior, however. Especially in an unprovoked attack in which numbers and surprise are on his side.< >>Nora: >Excuse, no. I'm looking for explanations that tap into the cultural circumstances of the time and go deeper than just bullying. That's part of it, but hints suggest it might not be the whole.< Betsy: But I think readers *are* aware of the cultural circumstances. JKR doesn't hide the ball on that. Snape uses dark magic, he calls Lily a mudblood. And as you pointed out earlier, Sirius and Lupin keep to the same theme. But it isn't enough. That James had it in him to act in such a manner is what brings the realization that he isn't a paragon of virtue (to cleverly bring in the title of the thread :)). And that's what shocks and dismays Harry. >>Nora: >There's the 'lapdog' comment, which suggests something that happened in the past--a charge designed to sting. There's the mention of the gang as being at least partially contemporaneous. And Lucius is easily the most overrated character in the fandom--smoove he is not, per the evidence. He's the kind of person that everyone *knows* what he is, except those who choose not to (Fudge).< Betsy: If Snape was indeed Lucius's fag (thanks, Alex!) I can see Sirius making the "labdog" dig. And I'm sure that the older Slytherins would provide a protection of sorts to Snape. I haven't seen anything in the books, though, that suggests that James and Sirius were targeted by the Slytherins. And again, we pull different things from the books. 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. (Bellatrix is a different story of course.) >>Betsy: >I agree it's a profound choice, I just wonder if Sirius had a full understanding of the repercussions of such a choice. >>Nora: >Repercussions, maybe not...but in this essentialist cosmology, it indicates something deep and lasting about him. And given that JKR is a big fan of Jessica Mitford, she seems wholly approving of the tosing over of your family if they're a bunch of fascists. :)< Betsy: Again, I don't think this one memory throws James and Sirius out with the bathwater. But it does show that both boys did not fully grasp the ideology they claimed to follow and therefore still had some growing to do. >>Nora: >What I'm objecting to is the caveat that it *must* be the improval that has everyone remebering him so fondly. Instead of a pure diachronic model (James the berk becomes James the great guy), I'm suggesting something more synchronic--that James the great guy was present at the same time as James the berk.< Betsy: Present maybe, but kept hidden in a corner. :) I'm sure James was a good guy to those he labeled as part of his group. His acceptence of Lupin despite the general beliefs of the WW does show that James wasn't completely awful. But he did have something awful in him - something that Voldemort would have recognized and encouraged. Something that enabled him to accept the rather disturbing enthrallment Peter displayed as his due. >>Nora: >She's promised an explication of the so-called Prank. It'd be nice to get an accounting of the above-mentioned gang. Oh, no, there's lots of new information to add...< Betsy: There is more information desired, yes, but I don't think JKR will spend too much time in the past. I think she'll hit the big stuff (the Prank, Snape leaving the Death Eaters, reason he's not DADA prof.) and then move on. Unless the Slytherin gang is involved in any of those events, I doubt we'll see much of them. Could be wrong of course! >>Betsy: >But James has been so white for so long that to negate the black that was added in the memory scene would have the effect of yanking his character back into flat purity. Full out contradiction would not serve the process. No, this black needs to stay. However, we know James changes, and I think by showing us that change, Harry will get his father back, and we will have a larger understanding of the full character of James.< >>Nora: >But throwing some white paint on him wouldn't negate that--you can't negate it. You can't get rid of that scene, but you can qualify it. He's never going to be pure again in the reader's mind, but the balance can shift. I'm not proposing full-out contradiction. The essence of dialectic is that these things co-exist, and together form a synthesis. Decidedly grey.< Betsy: I imagine the way this might be accomplished will be to show Snape as a Death Eater. Perhaps an understanding of his dark side will shed some understanding on why James et al were so disgusted by him. (Though it's hard to think of a fifteen year old boy as deserving of such treatment.) I doubt we're going to see anything predating this particular memory though. JMO, of course. >>Nora: >I'd also like to note that the interview comments where she describes Snape asking for DADA and Dumbledore turning him down don't include a great deal of interpretation, but are rather more like the recounting of an event, giving a plain description of Dumbledore's reasoning. She's telling us WHAT happened and a bit of why from DD's perspective. Close enough to fall into the 'just plain fact category?' Good enough to say that postulating a scenario that cannot account for that is likely to end in 'oops'.< Betsy: If it's the interview I'm thinking of, we don't really learn anything new. As per the books, Snape has wanted the DADA position for years, and for years Dumbledore has turned him down (Snape made this clear while being questioned by Umbridge in OotP). I don't think she's told us *why* Dumbledore's made this decision. And I would hope she wouldn't tell us about it in an interview. So no - not a plain fact, more of a familiar tap-dance where she appears to say more than she does. >>Nora: >Her answer left the mystery of "What the heck has Snape done to make Dumbledore think that way?" But she's always been pretty explicit in interview that Snape has a skeezy past, which is something that comes out of the books as well. [Side note: perhaps, methinks, we are sometimes quick to go "Well, he changed sides--that makes up for it all, right?" We discount the true horror of what having been a DE likely entailed because it's Snape, and he's interesting, and on the side of the angels now. I think this tendency confuses her, hence the "You forget that Snape was a DE..." etc. things that pop up oh so frequently.]< Betsy: Again, she's not saying anything we don't already know. We do know that Snape was DE. I myself doubt that he was merely responsible for keeping Voldemort in shampoo. Fanon likes to have Snape as one of Voldemort's most trusted lieutenants, but I'm not sure if the books will bare that out. He's a popular character - which makes sense, because he is one of the main characters - 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*. Betsy From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Sun Jan 30 23:02:48 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:02:48 -0000 Subject: The Cemetery at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123479 wrote: > > I have heard there are a number of very small changes JKR insisted on > in the movies, nothing big, nothing that seemed to matter much if you > had only read books one through five. I would really love to read a > list of those "very small" changes but unfortunately that's Top Secret. > > Eggplant Barmaid now: Just to be clear I am not trying to start a conversation about the movies or about what is different between the movies and the books or what JKR allowed or did not allow in the movies. That would not be appropriate to this board. I AM trying to start a conversation about what people believe this piece of new canon information about the presence of a graveyard at Hogwarts could mean for the story. Where could it be? What role will it play in the story? Why is it significant? From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Sun Jan 30 23:06:03 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:06:03 -0500 Subject: What very Bad Thing Does Harry Do in HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501301806820.SM01056@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 123480 Please excuse me if this is incorrect, but I think someone in here posted a recent quote from JKR, to the effect that Harry does something very bad in book six. Assuming that is a quote from JKR (and therefore canon), it has occurred to me that IF SS is indeed a double agent for DD, pretending to be a DE, Harry could discover part of SS's activities, wrongly assume that means he is still a DE, and either betray SS directly, blowing his cover, or else completely mess up whatever SS is trying to do for DD at the time. It would almost certainly cause someone's death to be as serious as the quote suggests, but I don't think that someone would be SS -- there is too much tension in their relationship to resolve before book 7. (Gasp -- what if it indirectly causes DD's death? What a beautiful plot situation that would create.) I still don't like SS as a double agent, for reasons over-dwelt upon here, but if he is, doesn't that make an interesting theory? Vivamus From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 23:27:27 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:27:27 -0000 Subject: Is Harry arrogant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" wrote: > > From several different people and in several different threads I have heard the accusation that Harry is arrogant, well, perhaps I'm a > little dim but I've read the books many times and can't think of one incident that I can unaquivelantly point to and say, that is arrogance. ..... edited..... If you really are better at something than other people it's > not arrogance to acknowledge that in your mind, it is reality. > > Eggplant Valky *puts her hand up* "guilty." *looks sheepish*: I agree with what you say eggplant, but nevertheless Harry purposefully takes on bigger and more advanced scary foes than he should be able to handle, he doesn't think twice about that they might be too much for him to handle, so hence he has a faint sense of arrogance about him, like a soldier - a bulletproof mentality. I don't really think he is arrogant in the way you define it though, at all, so therefore I agree with you. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 23:32:52 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:32:52 -0000 Subject: The Cemetery at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123482 > As JKR interviews are treated as canon by this group I believe it > is appropriate to bring this up here. > > It was just pointed out to me earlier today that in an interview > on the DVD of PoA JKR reveals that there is a cemetery somewhere > on the grounds of Hogwarts. I watched the interview, and sure > enough, there she is, affirming just that. > > The context is that the director of the movie wanted to put a > cemetery in the movie, he wanted that to be where the trio is when > they watch what they believe to be Buckbeak's execution. Alfonso > says that Jo said no, because "that is not where the graveyard is > it is in another part of the castle (or grounds?) and it will > play ." OK, I put that in quotes, but it is a paraphrase. But > he does end with "it is gonna play .." and leaves that hanging > heavy in the air. > > So, what do people make of this? > Dungrollin: I suppose it could be where the school founders are buried - didn't it get mentioned as appearing in book 6 rather than book 7? Which could mean that the HBP plotline cut from CoS is related to Godric Gryffindor. I have another suggestion... but those with high blood pressure might be advised to read no further. I've been toying with this thought for a while, ever since I heard about this supposed graveyard, though I can't make it work unless what Voldy did to make himself immortal was to mess around with AKs. So it would go: The AK that bounced off Harry had the same effect on Harry as whatever Voldy's successful experiment had on Voldy. Harry will now become Vapour!Potter if somebody AKs him. If somebody AKs Harry, the only way to get Harry a body back so that he can defeat Voldy for good would be by using the same Dark Magic that Voldy used (since the Philosopher's stone has been destroyed). So he'd need: bone of the father (if this graveyard is where James is buried), blood of an enemy (Malfoy? Crabbe? Goyle? Snape?) and flesh of a servant (Dobby?). Means and ends, again. How dark is Dark Magic? Is it worth besmirching one's soul to save the world? If intention is the important thing when using magic, would using Dark Magic with the intention of saving the world count as using Dark Magic? When presented with a choice between two evils, should one choose the lesser? Or should one rather save one's own soul than the lives of countless innocents? It would present an interesting moral dilemma for the heros to get their teeth into, at least. Dungrollin From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 23:47:19 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:47:19 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123483 > Valky: >> I attribute that flaw to another knightly quality, ego. This is > something that James and Snape shared. Part of their fearlessness > comes from a sense of outright superiority of the foe,invincibility > if you please. Harry, is slightly less proud and arrogant than his > father, but nevertheless he has it too. > > vmonte again: > I like your chess game inferences by the way. But Harry plays the > Bishop, not the Knight in chess. I like the scene in OOTP where Harry notices that Ron is behaving very much like his father did in the penseive. Valky: Good point Vivian. let me revise, it should say above that Harry is *much* less proud than his father but has a similar arrogance. He is definitely Bishop-like, all in all and a fair bit like his mother, so far. I can't help being reminded of the early chapter of OOtP, especially, when Harry begins taunting Dudley. In my comparison, he seems at first, like Lily in the pensieve when Snape calls her a mudblood, then he seems to take a bit more James in the pensieve approach and throws in some extra points that seem fairly righteous *to Harry* but from the objective point of view, it is a *bit far*. I think it is uncanny that it is at this moment, while he is feeling very James... that the dementors come and he sets aside all thoughts of what Dudley has coming to him, and just does the saving thing. I kind of read that as a foreshadowing of James, but I could be fooling myself, and James is not that bighearted really. Well actually I don't for a second believe that disclaimer/apology at all. Fact is, James behaviour towards Snape was entirely reprehensible. But IMHO it doesn't mean he wasn't on a deeper level exactly the good person that Sirius, Remus, Macgonagall and Dumbledore painted him to be. Oh sorry vivian I am off on a tangent again, thats not really directed at your post is it.. Basically I should have incorporated a more fair reasoning of the Bishop into that post, you're right. Suffice to say that the is noted for being the chess personification of holiness, but it is a very formidable piece. One of the warriors? definitely. OTOH I think that your noting of knightly Ron is entirely accurate. Hermione was the kings side castle, I would be surprised if that was not Lilys position also, and if her sacrifice for Harry in Godrics Hollow was not some parrallel to castling... Cheers Valky From dontask2much at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 00:23:44 2005 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Charme) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:23:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What very Bad Thing Does Harry Do in HBP? References: <200501301806820.SM01056@devbox> Message-ID: <010a01c5072b$20106260$6701a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 123484 From: "Vivamus" > > Please excuse me if this is incorrect, but I think someone in here posted > a > recent quote from JKR, to the effect that Harry does something very bad in > book six. > > Assuming that is a quote from JKR (and therefore canon), it has occurred > to > me that IF SS is indeed a double agent for DD, pretending to be a DE, > Harry > could discover part of SS's activities, wrongly assume that means he is > still a DE, and either betray SS directly, blowing his cover, or else > completely mess up whatever SS is trying to do for DD at the time. It > would > almost certainly cause someone's death to be as serious as the quote > suggests, but I don't think that someone would be SS -- there is too much > tension in their relationship to resolve before book 7. (Gasp -- what if > it > indirectly causes DD's death? What a beautiful plot situation that would > create.) > > I still don't like SS as a double agent, for reasons over-dwelt upon here, > but if he is, doesn't that make an interesting theory? > > Vivamus Charme: I don't think there's a quote regarding Harry doing some very bad thing in Book Six (if there is, I haven't found it, maybe someone can or knows) - although JKR does say Harry will have to master his feelings to be useful. Charme From snow15145 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 00:34:33 2005 From: snow15145 at yahoo.com (snow15145) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:34:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's bit of Voldy (apologies to Snow) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123485 Lazily floating along in her little boat accepting that there must be small leaks somewhere in her vestal, but just can't seem to find the source, for every once in a while the boat seemed to take in water. As the captain peered out onto the calm blue waters pondering the reason her boat was wet on the inside, despite the fact there didn't seem to be a hole of any kind, she spied an inner tube from an old tire approaching, and yes there seemed to be a person clinging to it, she thought to herself. I wonder if she would like to board my small but rather sound vestal even though it has a superficial leak at the moment. But as the captain neared the inner tube to get a better look, her own boat started to rock as if she had been hit by something. No, she wasn't hit but it came close enough to rock the small vestal causing a small intake of water. It appeared the source of the blow was coming from the inner tube. Aha the captain said I do not have a leak at all! But it does appear the person in that inner tube is trying to sink my small ship by rocking her hard enough to tip her over. Who is it though oh that isn't a person; it seems to be some type of remote control device attached to the side of the inner tube. The captain questioningly looking around for the devises controller and spied Dung at the high water mark off shore. ****************** Dungrollin: I know, that's what I meant, sorry for not being very clear... I was trying to anticipate the argument that Crouch Jnr, being a creep, would have given Voldy credit for things that Wormtail did under orders, but after all the "my master did this" and "my master did that" he doesn't try to give credit to Voldy for capturing Moody, he says "Wormtail and I did it." So when Crouch says "My father was placed under the Imperius curse *by my master*", I don't see any reason to think that it was anybody other than Voldy!baby holding the wand. Wormtail and Voldy arrive at the Crouch house after the Quidditch World Cup and before Moody is captured, and there is no mention of Harry's scar hurting at this time. Snow: I think you have a valid point that if this is the scenario that actually played out and, of course, we didn't see Harry having a problem with his scar at all during that period, you are right and my ship has sunk. But (you knew that was coming, right?) I would have to believe what Crouch Jr. said under Veritaserum and I'm not quite sure I want to believe everything is, as it seems with his statements. It very well may be but I have to consider the source, and his master, even under Veritaserum, which was the only time that we have seen the effect and don't have anything to compare it to. It would also be an assumption that the Veritaserum was real if you believe Snape as a good guy (still up on the fence on that one but leaning to good), which we also do not know for certain. There are so many other variables that could affect the believability of any one character. Junior, who was under orders from Voldemort to set up the kidnapping and realistically could have been caught so, therefore, may have had some protection from giving actual true statements, even under Veritaserum; that is brewed by former deatheater Snape. It is like the set-up in GOF where we are told that Crouch Jr. died in Azkaban, no one suspected him because they read canon as a given. Some people still are not convinced that Jr. was a deatheater when he was first imprisoned. I am totally uncertain about this character that was said to be good and got 12 owls but turned bad and tortured the Longbottoms; he was supposedly dead but turned out to be alive; he was supposedly sole sucked by the dementors but the dementors are allies to Voldemort, was he really kissed? Voldemort speaks of Crouch in the graveyard as his loyal servant who will be honored; do you think that it could be at all possible that Crouch Jr. is still alive? There are just too many variables to believe in this particular instance for me to take down my sail, go to shore and burn my boat. At least for now. Dungrollin: Such a handsome little boat... Dungrollin fires the canon and waits to see whether it will hit, miss or be deflected in mid-air by Snow's canon... Snow: Yes, she is a rather sweet vestal isn't she though most defiantly has taken in a bit of water due to the rocking affect from that last hit but her captain is making an admiral attempt at stabilizing her although will be unable to use her canon to fire with until the next refill of bombs sometime in July! Thanks, Dung! Snow From bob.oliver at cox.net Mon Jan 31 01:16:20 2005 From: bob.oliver at cox.net (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:16:20 -0000 Subject: Wizard Tears Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123486 In a recent post, Snow said, referring to DD's tears at the end of OOTP: What do you want to see from Dumbledore, the man has already cried (only time) as a product of what he has been made to put Harry through. Now, I've seen many different interpretations of DD's tears. Some hold with Snow, others that they are in regard to the prefect situation, the loss of Sirius, etc. Others still think they are crocodile tears. I wonder what we are to make of DD's tears? And what are we to make of the fact that they come at that particular point in the conversation and are linked to whole prefect thing? Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 01:18:19 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:18:19 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123487 Lupinlore: Coming out of the latest in the DD-Harry-Dursley threads, lets talk little about what we DO and DON'T want to see in the DD-Harry relationshiop in Book VI. snip. What I DON'T want to see: 1) Harry "bucking up" over the summer in an unrealistic and silly way, leading to him telling DD "It's all OK, now let's take down the Dark Lord!" 2) More of the silly "stiff upper lip" philosophy that has characterized Hogwarts so far 3) Harry becoming a suffering saint who decides to "put his own pain aside for the good of others." 4) Harry being too quick to open up to DD, even to the level he had done so before. 5) The interaction between DD and Harry turning on insipid discussions of "adulthood" and "what's right over what's easy." 6) The issues with Snape NOT being a major bone of contention between Harry and DD. 7) The experiences of OOTP NOT leaving a major mark on Harry's character which would be very evident in his interanctions with DD, Snape, and others. 8) The issues between Harry and DD being resolved quickly and completely 9) No progress being made at all in the issues between Harry and DD Alla: Well, I agree with all you want to see, so I snipped it. I am torn on some of the issues you don't want to see. Because some of them to me represent the major qualities of Harry character. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it will be realistic at all if Harry decides over the summer "Everything is OK, let's go and fight Voldemort" I would hate that, BUT I think that Harry will decide that reasonably soon in terms of book pages of HBP. I am betting on ... say chapter 10 of the book. :o) After all, he does have a heroic side. I don't know whether I am happy about it or not, to tell you the truth, because to me it does not come even close to realistic portrayal of the emotions of sixteen year oild, who had been through hell and still decides to go and fight Voldemort. Again, I will take what I can get, so I will be happy if Rowling at least portrays some struggle on Harry's part. I am also afraid that Harry WILL put his sufferings aside for the sake of others eventually,again, I at least want to see him conflicted before he does that. And, yes, of course, I would LOVE Harry to take Dumbledore to task as to dear Snape, if he is not going take Snape to one, till Voldemort is gone. Pippin hypothecised once that if Harry asked Dumbledore would have hired another Potion master, well I doubt it, but I would LOVE to see Harry say something like that to Dumbledore. "Headmaster, I cannot take my Potion lessons with Snape anymore and I am not the only one." Hmmm, I wonder how Dumbledore will take that? :o) JMO, Alla From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Mon Jan 31 01:25:21 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:25:21 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Luna's Mother's Death- Correction (Wizards and firearms ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123488 On Sunday, January 30, 2005, at 06:39 pm, Steve wrote: > So, without a doubt, magic can be used as a defense against attack by > firearms, but when you are shot, you are shot, and when you are dead, > you are dead, and no magic can completely undo that. > Yes I agree with that. I think guns kill wizards (er..people with guns can kill wizards? *G*). I hadn't thought about sneak attack - I was thinking about the hypothesised war between muggles and the WW more in terms of armies. I think I've been watching too many historical documentaries over the summer. If I see one more uphill charge against a shield wall my mind may snap! On Monday, January 31, 2005, at 04:22 am, bleckybecs wrote: > > I agree with all that's been said. I just want to add a further > complication to wizards defending themselves against firearms. It is > quite clear that most wizards don't know what a gun is. PoA - > 'Muggles have been told that Black is carrying a gun (a kind of > metal wand which Muggles use to kill each other)' and in OotP we see > Kinglsey refer to 'firelegs' which Arthur corrects him should > be 'firearms'. Seems to me that it would make it much harder for a > wizard to defend himself against the un-known. If a Muggle pointed a > gun at them, would they even know how dangerous that could be? Would > they know to defend themselves? Good point! I guess if it came to war, they would learn pretty quickly, though! Jocelyn From vmonte at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 01:39:57 2005 From: vmonte at yahoo.com (vmonte) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:39:57 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Snape, a paragon of virtue? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123489 Valky wrote: I can't help being reminded of the early chapter of OOtP, especially, when Harry begins taunting Dudley. In my comparison, he seems at first, like Lily in the pensieve when Snape calls her a mudblood, then he seems to take a bit more James in the pensieve approach and throws in some extra points that seem fairly righteous *to Harry* but from the objective point of view, it is a *bit far*. I think it is uncanny that it is at this moment, while he is feeling very James... that the dementors come and he sets aside all thoughts of what Dudley has coming to him, and just does the saving thing. I kind of read that as a foreshadowing of James... vmonte responds: Yes, Harry does look bad here. If someone did not know Harry and were watching this scene through a penseive, they would think that Harry was a bully. And I agree with you that there is more to Snape's penseive memory than what we are told. There is a reason for why the marauders did what they did to Snape; I just don't believe that vengeance solves anything. That sort of behavior is not very appealing, nor mature. I do hope you are right about James though. Vivian From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Mon Jan 31 01:42:14 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:42:14 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Fully Realized World (Was: Re: Harry's Seclusion and the Weasley Suspicion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <55420D83-7329-11D9-A79F-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 123490 Meri - Thanks for tackling the full list; something I was unwilling to do, I confess! I did want to comment on this one though: Snorky wrote >> -Dumbledore agreement to a wizarding contest that admits a lot of >> strangers to Hogwarts when he knows his top job is to protect Harry >> I think that the whole tournament was an attempt to bring about some of that unity the WW is apparently so in need of at the moment. And in some ways it obviously succeeded. Hermione is still writing to Krum, Hagrid and Madame are friends and she is actively participating in the efforts against LV & Blondie is doing work experience in Britain (is she dating a Weasley or was that someone's speculation?) DD has told the top students from the other schools that they are always welcome at Hogwarts. Like so much in these books, things didn't go to plan. But the intentions, and some of the results were good! Jocelyn 'We must all hang together or we will surely all hang separately" From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sun Jan 30 21:40:53 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:40:53 -0000 Subject: Godric Gryffindor the HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123491 Eggplant: > When I first read this I immediately thought it must be referring to > Godric Gryffindor and he is the Half Blood Prince. I'm not sure why I > thought this, maybe it's the "old lion" part and we know the symbol of > Gryffindor, and it doesn't seem like the description of a villain. > > But before anybody else pokes a hole in my theory let me do it first, > spectacles have been around for 500 years but not a thousand. So I > guess I could sum up everything I wrote with 3 words, I don't know. I personally think thats the description of the new DADA teacher. I think we're about due for another good one and he certainly looks competent. phoenixgod2000 From kjones at telus.net Sun Jan 30 22:02:59 2005 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:02:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41FD5993.8090406@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 123492 "koinonia02" wrote: > > > Does that mean Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw > > students are also cowards? > Eggplant wrote: > No, it means that if you are a Gryffindor then you are not a coward, > and it means that if you are not a Gryffindor then you may or may not > be a coward. In Snape's case he is a coward. Hold on, Pettigrew, who was apparently as much a Gryffindor as the rest of them, was not what I would call the epitome of courage. Cedric, a Hufflepuff, showed as much courage as Harry in the maze and just as much willingness to make an honourable sacrifice as Harry. I see nothing in canon that characterizes Snape as a coward. KJ From Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com Sun Jan 30 23:46:54 2005 From: Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com (Unicorn_72 at yahoo.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:46:54 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123493 Eggplant wrote: > > Yes, the slime who piloted the airliners into the World Trade Center > were very brave and also very evil. > Karen's reply: Brave.humm..I don't know how it can be considered brave to hold the controls of a airplain to fly into a building and vaporize yourself and a bunch of other people. To me that is not being brave...I would consider that being an idiot...I guess it just depends on what a person considers being brave. But I can not give those people that did that any notion of being brave...its just not possible for me to consider them brave at all. If we're talking about the character of the book though, Professor Snape. I can give a lot of reasons to why he might have taken out those memories in the occlumency lessons. I can't really say I would not have done the same thing. If you can imagin yourself being humiliated in front of a whole group of people. Its hard to really say hay he's a coward because he didn't want Harry to see the event. Being afraid doesn't always mean your a coward. Now I know I'm give a defence to Snape, and we don't know what happened at the end of that memory since Harry was pulled out by the older version of Snape, so we have no idea how far the humiliation when, or if Snape got out of it and attacked back..we just don't know, That is probably the major problem here we don't know. I'm more on the side of feeling a bit sorry for Snape as EVEN Harry felt bad about the situation, though his was more that he was let down by his father and friends actions. But I can't really say from my own point of view and my own experience that he was a coward. Being made fun of by people is one thing, being humiliated can be considered far worse. And given the situation, I can see that in some way Snape was just trying to protect himself from further humiliation. Imagin if Harry went around and actually told that memory to all the school...which I imagin Snape assumes he will. We all know Harry will not because we are reading the story and know his Character, but the character of Snape does not have the option of reading the truth, misguided as he is about Harry. This is his failing I think. But, I think all of us at one time or another have misjudge people...so...I'd rather keep somewhat of an open mind about all the characters really. Now most of us, the people that feel sorry for Snape, or wonder about his character or even might not like him at all are hoping that in the end he will see the light. Though some of us are blinded by what we read and try to see only good in the character of Snape. I for one can see he can be a nasty guy, who has an attitude...and needs an attitude adjustment. I dont' think anyone would really argue his a pillar of angelic behavior. I really don't know if its an American thing..or just something that happens when we get older. I think its the case of the anti-hero. A lot of us have gotten to the point that Superman is...somewhat...lacking. We want a hero who has a bit more depth to him...in imperfection we find perfection. We want a Picassso, not a Michaelangelo. Through struggle and hardship we find ourselves..all that poetic stuff. But mostly I think its the not knowing, the mystery that drives us to all wonder about this Character and why he is the way he is. Most of us don't wonder about the evil of Voldemort...ok..maybe some of us do. But I don't think Voldemort ever tried to save Harry's life...Snape has...so we are confused. Go Figure...(laughs) But, if you want to use the 911 people as examples, at some point in there determination to kill people they could have stopped at any time and made a different choice on what they wanted to do....As far as a fictional character goes, its not up to them, its up to the writer to make that choice for them. I imagin its why there are so many fanfics about these HP characters...minus the..really strange stuff. Cause I think we all know what thats about (haha) So I suppose Dumbledore was right, its the choices we make in life. Odviously we can judge from what we've read that Professor Snape makes a lot of wrong choices in his life...We don't know all the reasons and hows and whys to the character. In the end, maybe he'll be good...maybe he'll be bad. We just don't know. Now, if you've read all that your head is probably spinning cause I make a lot of twists and turns in my thinking. I hope I didn't confuse everyone too much. Karen From arynnoctavia at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 00:07:21 2005 From: arynnoctavia at yahoo.com (Arynn Octavia) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:07:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] WW Cultural bias re clothes and cupboard? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050131000721.146.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123494 Pippin says: Y'know, all we can really point to, besides the lack of love, which even DD couldn't do anything about, is the clothes and the cupboard. But would the wizards recognize those as mistreatment? Ditto for the cupboard. Where do the Slytherin kids sleep? In a windowless dungeon, for heavens sake. Arthur Weasley's office doesn't have a window either. Bog-standard for wizards, it seems. Arynn replies, It's not that the "room" had no windows, it's that the "room" was so small. It's not even big enough for Harry to stand upright in. I don't know how it is in other countries, but in America, if people keep their animals in conditions like that, they loose thier animals. I know wizards can magically expand small spaces, but as Harry is underaged, he would get in trouble for that. My question is why didn't Dumbledore do it? --Arynn Octavia (A Lupin Lover) --------------------------------- From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 00:07:23 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (tayla_gangrel) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:07:23 -0000 Subject: The Cemetery at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123495 Barmaid: Just to be clear I am not trying to start a conversation about the movies or about what is different between the movies and the books or what JKR allowed or did not allow in the movies. That would not be appropriate to this board. I AM trying to start a conversation about what people believe this piece of new canon information about the presence of a graveyard at Hogwarts could mean for the story. Where could it be? What role will it play in the story? Why is it significant? Tayla: If there is one thing that I am discovering while reading the books for probably the 6th time, because I keep finding stuff that I missed is that when it comes to JKR, even the little things matter. If she is hiding something, she will interrupt herself or not complete the sentence. She set the stage for that one in the very first book. After going back and reading it again, Harry was sitting on the lawn and watched an owl flying by. Doesn't seem very important, does it? However, you can speculate that THAT owl was the very owl that was calling Dumbledore away from Hogwarts. This makes a simple description relevant. If she says in an interview that there is a cemetary on the grounds, you can bet it is going to come up somewhere. Perhaps it has to do with the Bloody Baron, or any other of the Hogwarts ghosts? From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 00:35:34 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (tayla_gangrel) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:35:34 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123496 While it isn't a wise idea to give up the identity of your double agent, I have to say that SS's cover is already blown. LV specifically stated in GOF that one of his DEs were lost to him, and that he will die. The question that I have is this, how is SS still able to perform his duties that he has "in the past" when he already knows that his cover is blown to LV? Could he be using Legimens? If so, who is the target? From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 01:08:37 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:08:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050131010837.58185.qmail@web61203.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123497 Lupinlore: IMO you are setting up a false set of choices, Susan. That is, you seem to be implying that Albus' only choices are to leave Harry at the Dursleys and not interfere, or else remove him from the Dursleys and place him in the WW. 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. Living in the US, I cannot say anything about UK rules and regulations reguarding orphans, but here in the US, I know for a fact that certain laws are in place that if an incident happens where both parents die and no will is made out, then the law steps in and dictates that the child be placed with blood relatives before becoming a ward of the state *shudder*. Given that there are paralells in the WW and the RW, and there is nothing stated thus far by JKR saying that wizards do not adhere to the laws of the RW. Therefore, legally, Harry would either have to be placed with Petunia, or become a ward of the state, at which time he could be adopted out to whomever. Better to have some control, if not total control over where the child be placed. Tayla From va32h at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 01:36:35 2005 From: va32h at yahoo.com (va32h) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:36:35 -0000 Subject: Wizard Tears In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Now, I've seen many different interpretations of DD's tears. Some > hold with Snow, others that they are in regard to the prefect > situation, the loss of Sirius, etc. Others still think they are > crocodile tears. I wonder what we are to make of DD's tears? And > what are we to make of the fact that they come at that particular > point in the conversation and are linked to whole prefect thing? > I think Dumbledore was crying because he has a genuine affection for Harry. He knows that he has just given Harry an incredible burden. At an age when other boys are excited at the responsibility of being a school prefect, Harry is given the responsibility to save the world. I thought that whole passage was very touching, and teared up a bit myself. "va32h" From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 01:59:49 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:59:49 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Harry arrogant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123499 Aisbelmon at hotmail.com said: >I agree with what you say eggplant, but nevertheless Harry >purposefully takes on bigger and more advanced scary foes than he >should be able to handle, he doesn't think twice about that they >might be too much for him to handle, so hence he has a faint sense >of arrogance about him, like a soldier - a bulletproof mentality. I would say this was an advanced example of the famous Gryffindor courage. Possibly combined with the teenage feeling of immortality. And also, even when it occurs to him that he might (or probably will) lose, he maintains that he has to try to at least do *something* rather than run away, pretend nothing's wrong (like Fudge) or surrender to the other side (like Peter Pettigrew). Remember when he told Ron and Hermione that he might die fighting Voldemort over the Sorcerer's Stone or hiding in Privet Drive, but either way he would never go over to the Dark Side? Janet Anderson From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Mon Jan 31 02:01:37 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:01:37 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0A4AA62C-732C-11D9-A79F-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 123500 On Monday, January 31, 2005, at 11:35 am, tayla_gangrel wrote: > While it isn't a wise idea to give up the identity of your double > agent, I have to say that SS's cover is already blown. A lot of LV's supporters lied about their behaviour after LV disappeared. They said they had been acting under the Imperius curse (Malfoy) or didn't know that they were helping the DEs (Fudge). Why wouldn't the DEs assume that Snape's story of being a spy was the same sort of skin-saving behaviour? No-one would mention it (unless they had remember-the-good-old-days parties at Lucius' manor) but they would all assume that Snape had had the good sense and luck to get out of trouble with a good story, just as they had. It was not until LV returned that Snape would have to prove himself one way or the other. Since then he must have been treading a fine line if he has indeed kept his cover intact. Jocelyn From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 02:15:55 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:15:55 -0000 Subject: The Cemetery at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123501 > Barmaid: > > Just to be clear I am not trying to start a conversation about the > movies or about what is different between the movies and the books > or what JKR allowed or did not allow in the movies. That would not > be appropriate to this board. > > I AM trying to start a conversation about what people believe this > piece of new canon information about the presence of a graveyard at > Hogwarts could mean for the story. Where could it be? What role > will it play in the story? Why is it significant? > > Tayla: > > If there is one thing that I am discovering while reading the books > for probably the 6th time, because I keep finding stuff that I > missed is that when it comes to JKR, even the little things matter. > If she is hiding something, she will interrupt herself or not > complete the sentence. She set the stage for that one in the very > first book. After going back and reading it again, Harry was > sitting on the lawn and watched an owl flying by. Doesn't seem very > important, does it? However, you can speculate that THAT owl was > the very owl that was calling Dumbledore away from Hogwarts. This > makes a simple description relevant. If she says in an interview > that there is a cemetary on the grounds, you can bet it is going to > come up somewhere. Perhaps it has to do with the Bloody Baron, or > any other of the Hogwarts ghosts? Barmaid again: There is no question in my mind, after seeing the interview, that the cemetery will play an important role at some point in the remaining story. Here are a couple of things I would speculate could be involved... some are mutually exclusive... 1) James and Lilly are buried there. Seeing their graves is an emotionally significant event for Harry. 2) Only people that work at Hogwarts are buried there... so someone, a teacher, a headmaster, a Filch... will die and be buried there. 3) It is an ancient and long forgotten place. The founders and maybe a couple other people are buried there. The trio stumbles upon it while on some adventure. Information gained by finding these graves changes some basic assumptions about... I don't know... maybe the houses, or the various divisions in the WW, or relations between the WW and the non-magic world and forces some sort of realignment. Other ideas??? From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 02:36:51 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:36:51 -0000 Subject: The Cemetery at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123502 Barmaid wrote: > > > As JKR interviews are treated as canon by this group I believe it > > is appropriate to bring this up here. > > > > It was just pointed out to me earlier today that in an interview > > on the DVD of PoA JKR reveals that there is a cemetery somewhere > > on the grounds of Hogwarts. I watched the interview, and sure > > enough, there she is, affirming just that. > > > > > The context is that the director of the movie wanted to put a > > cemetery in the movie, he wanted that to be where the trio is when > > they watch what they believe to be Buckbeak's execution. Alfonso > > says that Jo said no, because "that is not where the graveyard is > > it is in another part of the castle (or grounds?) and it will > > play ." OK, I put that in quotes, but it is a paraphrase. But > > he does end with "it is gonna play .." and leaves that hanging > > heavy in the air. > > > > So, what do people make of this? Dungrollin: I suppose it could be where the school founders are buried - didn't it get mentioned as appearing in book 6 rather than book 7? Which could mean that the HBP plotline cut from CoS is related to Godric Gryffindor. Barmaid again: The interview I saw did not say anything about which book it would show up in. I do not know if there is some sort of extended version, or if she talks about it elsewhere. Dungrollin: I have another suggestion... but those with high blood pressure might be advised to read no further. I've been toying with this thought for a while, ever since I heard about this supposed graveyard, though I can't make it work unless what Voldy did to make himself immortal was to mess around with AKs. So it would go: The AK that bounced off Harry had the same effect on Harry as whatever Voldy's successful experiment had on Voldy. Harry will now become Vapour!Potter if somebody AKs him. If somebody AKs Harry, the only way to get Harry a body back so that he can defeat Voldy for good would be by using the same Dark Magic that Voldy used (since the Philosopher's stone has been destroyed). So he'd need: bone of the father (if this graveyard is where James is buried), blood of an enemy (Malfoy? Crabbe? Goyle? Snape?) and flesh of a servant (Dobby?). Means and ends, again. How dark is Dark Magic? Is it worth besmirching one's soul to save the world? If intention is the important thing when using magic, would using Dark Magic with the intention of saving the world count as using Dark Magic? When presented with a choice between two evils, should one choose the lesser? Or should one rather save one's own soul than the lives of countless innocents? It would present an interesting moral dilemma for the heros to get their teeth into, at least. Dungrollin Barmaid again: Yicks. I do like the idea of our heroes having to tackle some sort of hard moral dilemmas. And certainly one can not think of a graveyard in the Harry Potter context without thinking of LV's rebirthing scene. This does not seem very likely to me, but it is certainly interesting. Perhaps there is some other, some less dark magic, that would also require some of the elements found in a cemetery. The cemetery in GoF is a Muggle cemetery. What would we imagine to be different, if anything, in a WW cemetery? I could certainly imagine there being some objects or plants or something with particular magical properties that could maybe only be found in a WW cemetery. I could imagine the good guys having to do some rare magic that requires these things. I guess I would rather it be something new, that we have not seen before, rather than a repeat of the rebirth spell.... Barmaid -- who rather likes a good cemetery... you can learn a lot about people by observing what they do with their dead. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 31 02:40:44 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:40:44 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123503 Lupinlore wrote, in the category of what he does not want to see: > > 2) More of the silly "stiff upper lip" philosophy that has > > characterized Hogwarts so far Geoff replied: > You may consider it silly, but it has been an integral part of > British culture for many years; I was brought up in that way - > though I sometimes regret it - and it still plays quite a strong > part in our tradition. > > So, whatever you may think of it, Hogwarts is characterising an > essentially English approach. Lupinlore also listed: > > 3) Harry becoming a suffering saint who decides to "put his own > > pain aside for the good of others." > > 5) The interaction between DD and Harry turning on insipid > > discussions of "adulthood" and "what's right over what's easy." SSSusan now, very briefly: I find it amusing that you use the very *loaded* words "silly" and "insipid" and a clearly sarcastic tone with "suffering saint" when you list the things you do not want to see. Why are they so silly & insipid? What's so horrible about putting others before you in desperate times? They may not be what you want to see, but they're part of what JKR has given us so far, so I can't quite see why you'd expect to see no more of them. I mean, if the "choosing what's right over what's easy" discussion is insipid, then I wonder if you'll really want to keep on reading ol' JKR's work? I mean, that notion seems pretty central to what she's written so far! Siriusly Snapey Susan, *happy* to see more silliness & insipidity if this is what goes into those categories. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 02:47:17 2005 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:47:17 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123504 >>Nora: >But Snape is currently the sympathetic one, in terms of the James/Snape conflict--and if we find out why he converted, we should also find out the deep dirt.< >>Betsy: >Not per Harry, and also not per some folks on this list.< >>Alla: >Definitely per Harry Snape does come sympathetic in that scene, because Harry does not feel sorry for James , he feels sorry for Snape.< 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. >>Betsy: (Denial she do run deep.)< >>Alla: I am confused about this part of your statement.< Betsy: Sorry, I was being tongue in cheek there. It's a colloquialism to compare the word "denial" with the Nile river in Egypt ('cause it rhymes I guess), so I was suggesting that those who don't like Snape are in deep denial. In my head, it was funny. :) Betsy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 02:56:45 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:56:45 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123505 Lupinlore also listed: 3) Harry becoming a suffering saint who decides to "put his own pain aside for the good of others." 5) The interaction between DD and Harry turning on insipid discussions of "adulthood" and "what's right over what's easy." SSSusan now, very briefly: I find it amusing that you use the very *loaded* words "silly" and "insipid" and a clearly sarcastic tone with "suffering saint" when you list the things you do not want to see. Why are they so silly & insipid? What's so horrible about putting others before you in desperate times? They may not be what you want to see, but they're part of what JKR has given us so far, so I can't quite see why you'd expect to see no more of them. > > I mean, if the "choosing what's right over what's easy" discussion > is insipid, then I wonder if you'll really want to keep on reading > ol' JKR's work? I mean, that notion seems pretty central to what > she's written so far! > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, *happy* to see more silliness & insipidity if > this is what goes into those categories. Alla: I will definitely NOT speak for Lupinlore,especially since I think this is one of those rare times that we differ a bit. :o) Again, I DON'T want Harry to stop being a hero, because then he will not be Harry we all know and love ( or at least I know and love), but I am afraid we are back to Harry "the hero" v "close to realism" portrayal of Harry JKR seems to be doing in OOP. I DON'T find it realistic in the slightest ( and yes, I know that this is the book about magic, I am only speaking about Harry emotional development) that after all that Harry had been through he will be concerned about saving the world. After OOP he has SO MANY issues to work through starting with Sirius' death. I disagree that WW well being would be the first thing on his mind. Am I confusing , Susan? If those were the books NOT in the fantasy genre, I would say that I expect years for Harry to come to more or less normal emotional state. I understand that JKR does not have a book space or time to do something like that, but I HOPE that she will at least NOT drop all those issues right away and again I am thinking about the "mastering his emotions in order to be useful". It makes me scared. Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 03:01:34 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 03:01:34 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123506 Alla: Definitely per Harry Snape does come sympathetic in that scene, because Harry does not feel sorry for James , he feels sorry for Snape. 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. Alla: Yes, don't you think it speaks a lot about Harry that he was able to feel sympathy for Snape at all? And as I argued many times, I don't find Harry's anger at the end of OOP to be irrational. But that it is just me of course. Betsy: (Denial she do run deep.) Alla earlier: I am confused about this part of your statement.< Betsy: Sorry, I was being tongue in cheek there. It's a colloquialism to compare the word "denial" with the Nile river in Egypt ('cause it rhymes I guess), so I was suggesting that those who don't like Snape are in deep denial. In my head, it was funny. :) Alla: Thank you for your explanation. From juli17 at aol.com Mon Jan 31 03:06:12 2005 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:06:12 EST Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards Message-ID: <156.49a07c1c.2f2efaa4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123507 "koinonia02" wrote: >I see. All those who have ever been >in Gryffindor have been brave. eggplant replied: > Yes. > Julie says: No, they haven't. Peter Pettigrew is one example. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From norek_archives2 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 03:35:51 2005 From: norek_archives2 at hotmail.com (Janet Anderson) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 03:35:51 +0000 Subject: I'd like feedback on this theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123508 It has been said repeatedly that during the first Voldemort incursion, it was very difficult to know who to trust. That was part of the tragedy that killed the Potters and separated their friends from each other. In that case, a well-placed spy was the culprit. Many people have put forth the theory that there is or will be a well-placed and unsuspected spy in this incursion as well. Ideas as to who it could be are varied. Some of the people suspected are Snape (of course), Lupin, Percy (some people think he's a spy for Dumbledore et al now; some think he'll work for Voldemort in the future), Filch ... the list is endless. But as far as I know, none of the theorists have mentioned the person I suspect: Mundungus Fletcher. Mundungus Fletcher first appears as a name in Chamber of Secrets: when Mr. Weasley comes home after a hard night at work, he says that in the course of his duties Mundungus Fletcher tried to jinx him when his back was turned. The next thing we hear about him is in Goblet of Fire: he is trying to defraud the Ministry. Mr. Weasley (I think) says that after the Death Eater incident at the Quiddich World Cup, in which many people lost tents and property, Mundungus put in a voucher for a fancy replacement tent with all the luxuries. "But I happen to know that he'd been sleeping under a cloak propped up with two sticks," he says. We see quite a lot of him in Order of the Phoenix. Two or three things about him make me dislike and distrust him intensely and suspect that he is at best a weak link in the Order. One: He deserts his post guarding Harry, disobeying orders and without any plausible excuse. Note that this gives the Dementors a shot at Harry. Two: He is, or trying to be, a corrupting influence on Fred and George. On the surface, his stories may be funny, but as Molly instinctively realizes, those two are the most likely to absorb Mundungus's unethical ways because they don't take very many things seriously; cheating someone would just be a game to them. Three: He steals silver from Grimmauld Place, which means he is either stealing from Molly (another Order member) or from Sirius (another Order member *and his host*). This, to my mind, proves that he has no honor. He was in the first Order of the Phoenix, and may well have been loyal then. But I suspect he may be willing to sell *anything.* Stolen goods are, after all, his specialty -- see his excuse as to why he wasn't on duty, and his stories to Fred and George. To him, it may well be, anything is for sale, including himself, his loyalties, and the other members of the Order. Or maybe he sees everyone as a mark, and loyalties are just conveniences. He may well be the double agent everyone thinks Snape is. Or Voldemort may offer the better payment. When I posted this theory on another list, some people said Mundungus was just *too* obvious and therefore probably wasn't any more than he appeared. Yeah, right. "Hide in plain sight" is one of JKR's mottoes. And "comic relief" is almost as good a way to hide things -- look at Scabbers -- (or, possibly, Ludo Bagman?). Please discuss. Janet Anderson From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Jan 31 03:51:48 2005 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:51:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What very Bad Thing Does Harry Do in HBP? In-Reply-To: <200501301806820.SM01056@devbox> Message-ID: <003701c50748$318a8ad0$0400a8c0@pensive> No: HPFGUIDX 123509 Please excuse me if this is incorrect, but I think someone in here posted a recent quote from JKR, to the effect that Harry does something very bad in book six. Assuming that is a quote from JKR (and therefore canon), it has occurred to me that IF SS is indeed a double agent for DD, pretending to be a DE, Harry could discover part of SS's activities, wrongly assume that means he is still a DE, and either betray SS directly, blowing his cover, or else completely mess up whatever SS is trying to do for DD at the time. It would almost certainly cause someone's death to be as serious as the quote suggests, but I don't think that someone would be SS -- there is too much tension in their relationship to resolve before book 7. (Gasp -- what if it indirectly causes DD's death? What a beautiful plot situation that would create.) I still don't like SS as a double agent, for reasons over-dwelt upon here, but if he is, doesn't that make an interesting theory? Vivamus Sherry now: I haven't read this, but if it is true, it would seem to be a kind of stale plot device now. After all, Harry already feels guilty for Cedric and Sirius. Whether or not we the readers believe he is guilty--which I certainly do not--he thinks he is. How many innocent lives can one teenage boy feel responsibility for losing? That would be too much to bare without cracking up, I'd think. Besides, guilty Harry is getting a little boring. I want to shake him already and say, come on, kid, lay the guilt where it belongs, with Voldemort. But that's not how he's made. Sherry From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 02:47:42 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:47:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: <0A4AA62C-732C-11D9-A79F-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: <20050131024742.8219.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123510 --- Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > A lot of LV's supporters lied about their behaviour > after LV disappeared. They said they had been acting > under the Imperius curse (Malfoy) or didn't know that > they were helping the DEs (Fudge). Juli: Where does it say that Fudge was helping LV??? From tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 02:25:11 2005 From: tayla_gangrel at yahoo.com (Pyros Wife) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:25:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: <0A4AA62C-732C-11D9-A79F-0050E4FA3637@labyrinth.net.au> Message-ID: <20050131022511.58554.qmail@web61205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123511 Tayla Wrote: > ...I have to say that SS's cover is already blown. Jocelyn Wrote: > A lot of LV's supporters lied about their behaviour after LV > disappeared. Why wouldn't the DEs assume that Snape's > story of being a spy was the same sort of skin-saving behaviour? > > It was not until LV returned that Snape would have to prove > himself one way or the other. Since then he must have been > treading a fine line if he has indeed kept his cover intact. Tayla: GOF, Chapter 33, page 651 US He had reached the largest gap of all, and he stood surveying it with his blank, red eyes, as though he could see people standing there. "And here we have six missing Death Eaters...three dead in my service. One, too cowardly to return [Karkaroff]...he will pay. One, who I believe has left me forever [Snape]...he will be killed, of course...and one, who remains my most faithful servant, and who is already reentered my service. [Crouch, Jr.] It really wouldn't take LV much to inform the DEs exactly which ones he is talking about, as a matter of fact, Lucius would probably do that anyway. Judging from what LV said, he knows about Snape and has already marked him for death. So my question remains, HOW? Tayla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 04:10:49 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:10:49 -0000 Subject: What very Bad Thing Does Harry Do in HBP? In-Reply-To: <003701c50748$318a8ad0$0400a8c0@pensive> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123512 Vivamus: Please excuse me if this is incorrect, but I think someone in here posted a recent quote from JKR, to the effect that Harry does something very bad in book six. Sherry now: I haven't read this, but if it is true, it would seem to be a kind of stale plot device now. After all, Harry already feels guilty for Cedric and Sirius. Whether or not we the readers believe he is guilty--which I certainly do not--he thinks he is. How many innocent lives can one teenage boy feel responsibility for losing? That would be too much to bare without cracking up, I'd think. Besides, guilty Harry is getting a little boring. I want to shake him already and say, come on, kid, lay the guilt where it belongs, with Voldemort. But that's not how he's made. Alla: Oh, yes. I'd say if Jo will throw a little bit more gult on Harry, I will be even more suprised if he won't go crazy. He will have enough to deal with over his guilt in Sirius' death, I think. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible. We can have dead Dumbledore, Snape, Ron, Hermione,etc and Harry feeling guilty over any one of those deaths. I think that feeling guilt where guilt is really with Voldemort and his minions is an essential part of Harry's character. Vivamus, I haven't read it either. Could you provide the link, please? JMO, Alla From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 04:14:17 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:14:17 -0000 Subject: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: <20050131024742.8219.qmail@web53101.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123513 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: > > --- Jocelyn Grunow wrote: > > A lot of LV's supporters lied about their behaviour > > after LV disappeared. They said they had been acting > > under the Imperius curse (Malfoy) or didn't know that > > they were helping the DEs (Fudge). > > Juli: > Where does it say that Fudge was helping LV??? I think that's an Oops, right Jocelyn? Probably should read: didn't know they were helping the DEs (Bagman). Correct me if I am wrong there Jocelyn.. :D Valky From nrenka at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 04:16:16 2005 From: nrenka at yahoo.com (nrenka) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:16:16 -0000 Subject: James, a paragon of virtue? Was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123514 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy: > If it's the interview I'm thinking of, we don't really learn > anything new. As per the books, Snape has wanted the DADA position > for years, and for years Dumbledore has turned him down (Snape made > this clear while being questioned by Umbridge in OotP). I don't > think she's told us *why* Dumbledore's made this decision. 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. > And I would hope she wouldn't tell us about it in an interview. So > no - not a plain fact, more of a familiar tap-dance where she > appears to say more than she does. "Bringing out the worst" could be a tap-dance, but I don't think so. Especially if we're talking about a Snape who has done Very Bad Things. > 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*. 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. Snape is *something* enough that Dumbledore won't let him teach DADA. The question is, what how and why? -Nora goes off to stretch her legs and clean the snow out of her bindings From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 04:20:18 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:20:18 -0000 Subject: What very Bad Thing Does Harry Do in HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123515 > Vivamus: > Please excuse me if this is incorrect, but I think someone in here > posted a recent quote from JKR, to the effect that Harry does > something very bad in book six. > > > Sherry now: > > I haven't read this, but if it is true, it would seem to be a kind > of stale plot device now. > > Alla: > Vivamus, I haven't read it either. Could you provide the link, > please? > Valky: I could be wrong, but this might actually be a residual of the Mooseming posts excitement over christmas. I recall a mooseming thread that was revived in which Jo (Sturgess) posited that Harry would do something very bad in HBP, it came up at the time when speculation was high that these posts might be canon. That's quite possibly what Vivamus is remembering. Sorry to burst the bubble. Ouch Valky (back to earth since Jo.sturgess, revealed her true identity recently.) :D From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 04:31:06 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:31:06 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: <156.49a07c1c.2f2efaa4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123516 > wrote: > > >I see. All those who have ever been > >in Gryffindor have been brave. > > eggplant replied: > > > Yes. > > > Julie says: > > No, they haven't. Peter Pettigrew is one example. > > Valky: Oh my, I *do* get irritated when I am reminded of this one. It's such a niggling itch that won't go away. How the hell was snivelling cowardly Peter Pettigrew *ever* a Gryffindor? The numero uno prereq for a Gryff student is bravery, so whatever did the sorting hat see in Peter that could be called brave? There has to be something? Perhaps the sorting hat offered him Slytherin by virtue of his propensity to do what it takes to be on the winning team. But he was afraid of Slytherin and asked the hat not to put him there. But then still again WHY Gryffindor? the sorting hat might have seen something deep deep deep deep deeeeeeep inside him, maybe that we just can't see? Gosh I just loathe this question, it makes no sense whatsoever. (not meaning to offend with my ranting, sorry Julie and Koinonia and eggplant) From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 04:35:41 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:35:41 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123517 > > > Lupinlore also listed: > 3) Harry becoming a suffering saint who decides to "put his own > pain aside for the good of others." > > 5) The interaction between DD and Harry turning on insipid > discussions of "adulthood" and "what's right over what's easy." > > > SSSusan now, very briefly: > I find it amusing that you use the very *loaded* words "silly" > and "insipid" and a clearly sarcastic tone with "suffering saint" > when you list the things you do not want to see. Why are they so > silly & insipid? What's so horrible about putting others before you > in desperate times? They may not be what you want to see, but > they're part of what JKR has given us so far, so I can't quite see > why you'd expect to see no more of them. > > > > I mean, if the "choosing what's right over what's easy" discussion is insipid, then I wonder if you'll really want to keep on reading ol' JKR's work? I mean, that notion seems pretty central to what she's written so far! > > > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, *happy* to see more silliness & insipidity > if this is what goes into those categories. > > > > Alla: > > I will definitely NOT speak for Lupinlore,especially since I think > this is one of those rare times that we differ a bit. :o) > > Again, I DON'T want Harry to stop being a hero, because then he will not be Harry we all know and love ( or at least I know and love), but I am afraid we are back to Harry "the hero" v "close to realism" portrayal of Harry JKR seems to be doing in OOP. > > I DON'T find it realistic in the slightest ( and yes, I know that > this is the book about magic, I am only speaking about Harry > emotional development) that after all that Harry had been through he will be concerned about saving the world. > > After OOP he has SO MANY issues to work through starting with > Sirius' death. I disagree that WW well being would be the first > thing on his mind. > > Am I confusing , Susan? If those were the books NOT in the fantasy > genre, I would say that I expect years for Harry to come to more or > less normal emotional state. > > I understand that JKR does not have a book space or time to do > something like that, but I HOPE that she will at least NOT drop all > those issues right away and again I am thinking about > the "mastering his emotions in order to be useful". It makes me > scared. > > > Just my opinion, > > Alla Barmaid now: Why are these either/or kinds of issues? Why does Harry have to *either* deal with all his grief *or* step up and do his part to "save the world"????? I find it particularly puzzling that the camp of "Harry having to take time to deal with his personal troubles" is often portrayed as *realism* while the "step up and fulfill his role in the world" view is slated as the *fantasy* or fairytale nature of the story. It seems to me that in *reality* people rarely have the luxury of just disengaging from their responsibilities and sorting out their *issues*... at least in my little corner of so called reality this seems to be true. I think we will see a complex blend of *silliness & insipidity* (well said SSSusan!) and some heart wrenching hard times for our hero. I think Alla is right that it may well take Harry years to deal with all his grief, and we will never see most of those years from JKR's perspective (thank god for fan fiction!). But while he is working all of that out he will still have to fulfill his role in the world. Please know I am saying all of this with a smile on my face and with no malice for any opinion that differs from mine. Really. --The Barmaid From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 04:58:51 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:58:51 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123518 Barmaid now: Why are these either/or kinds of issues? Why does Harry have to *either* deal with all his grief *or* step up and do his part to "save the world"????? I find it particularly puzzling that the camp of "Harry having to take time to deal with his personal troubles" is often portrayed as *realism* while the "step up and fulfill his role in the world" view is slated as the *fantasy* or fairytale nature of the story. It seems to me that in *reality* people rarely have the luxury of just disengaging from their responsibilities and sorting out their *issues*... at least in my little corner of so called reality this seems to be true. I think we will see a complex blend of *silliness & insipidity* (well said SSSusan!) and some heart wrenching hard times for our hero. I think Alla is right that it may well take Harry years to deal with all his grief, and we will never see most of those years from JKR's perspective (thank god for fan fiction!). But while he is working all of that out he will still have to fulfill his role in the world. Please know I am saying all of this with a smile on my face and with no malice for any opinion that differs from mine. Really. Alla: Hi, Barmaid. I actually find your outlook to be very interesting perspective and you may very well be right, BUT I think I was a bit unclear. That is true that in RL many of us don't have a luxury to sort out our "issues" while we have to deal with pressing business at hand and yes, as long as Harry is WORKING on them, I am interested in the "saving the world business". What I WILL find very unrealistic if JKR decides to FORGET about all these issues which Harry has and make him merrily go to fight Voldie. Am I confusing? I just don't think that with such tremendous grief,stress, hurt, Harry should feel.... well in HBP. I don't find it realistic, if Harry will be in a mental, emotional condition where he is READY to go save the world. Sorry, if I am being unclear. JMO, Alla From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 05:13:43 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:13:43 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123519 > Barmaid now: > > Why are these either/or kinds of issues? Why does Harry have to > *either* deal with all his grief *or* step up and do his part > to "save the world"????? I find it particularly puzzling that the > camp of "Harry having to take time to deal with his personal > troubles" is often portrayed as *realism* while the "step up and > fulfill his role in the world" view is slated as the *fantasy* or > fairytale nature of the story. It seems to me that in *reality* > people rarely have the luxury of just disengaging from their > responsibilities and sorting out their *issues*... at least in my > little corner of so called reality this seems to be true. I think > we will see a complex blend of *silliness & insipidity* (well said > SSSusan!) and some heart wrenching hard times for our hero. I think > Alla is right that it may well take Harry years to deal with all his > grief, and we will never see most of those years from JKR's > perspective (thank god for fan fiction!). But while he is working > all of that out he will still have to fulfill his role in the world. > > Please know I am saying all of this with a smile on my face and with > no malice for any opinion that differs from mine. Really. > > > > Alla: > > Hi, Barmaid. I actually find your outlook to be very interesting > perspective and you may very well be right, BUT I think I was a bit > unclear. That is true that in RL many of us don't have a luxury to > sort out our "issues" while we have to deal with pressing business > at hand and yes, as long as Harry is WORKING on them, I am > interested in the "saving the world business". > > What I WILL find very unrealistic if JKR decides to FORGET about all > these issues which Harry has and make him merrily go to fight Voldie. > > Am I confusing? I just don't think that with such tremendous > grief,stress, hurt, Harry should feel.... well in HBP. I don't find > it realistic, if Harry will be in a mental, emotional condition > where he is READY to go save the world. > > Sorry, if I am being unclear. > > JMO, > > Alla Barmaid again: I think you are being clear Alla! And I agree that it would be disappointing if Harry was suddenly just fine, as if nothing bad has happened. I also think this is very unlikely. Harry was not *just fine* in OotP. He was brooding and cranky and often unpleasant. At the same time we may see him have to rise above his personal pain and shoulder forward. And, if that does happen, I do not think that it will mean that his pain is being glossed over. And I will not be disapointed in JKR if she does this, in fact everything in the books so far seems to suggest to me that this *is* what she will do. I think she is very capable of making a complex situation where Harry continues to move forward, and continues to have hard emotions to deal with. I am sorry if *I* am bing unclear. It is very easy to be misunderstood here!!! :-) -- Barmaid From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 05:24:41 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:24:41 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123520 Barmaid again: I think you are being clear Alla! And I agree that it would be disappointing if Harry was suddenly just fine, as if nothing bad has happened. I also think this is very unlikely. Harry was not *just fine* in OotP. He was brooding and cranky and often unpleasant. At the same time we may see him have to rise above his personal pain and shoulder forward. And, if that does happen, I do not think that it will mean that his pain is being glossed over. And I will not be disapointed in JKR if she does this, in fact everything in the books so far seems to suggest to me that this *is* what she will do. I think she is very capable of making a complex situation where Harry continues to move forward, and continues to have hard emotions to deal with. > I am sorry if *I* am bing unclear. It is very easy to be > misunderstood here!!! :-) Alla: No, I think you are being clear too. :o) I think our differences in opinion is in your sentence that if Harry will rise above his personal pain, you don't think that his pain is being glossed over. I am afraid that to me it could mean exactly that. Not necessarily, I think JKR CAN write it believably, but I am nervous. I want Harry to get at least SOME help ( reasonably long in the book space), BEFORE he moves to saving the world. I think it will be wierd, if he starts doing it right away. JMO, Alla From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 05:36:47 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:36:47 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123521 Barmaid again: I think you are being clear Alla! And I agree that it would be disappointing if Harry was suddenly just fine, as if nothing bad has happened. I also think this is very unlikely. Harry was not *just fine* in OotP. He was brooding and cranky and often unpleasant. At the same time we may see him have to rise above his personal pain and shoulder forward. And, if that does happen, I do not think that it will mean that his pain is being glossed over. And I will not be disapointed in JKR if she does this, in fact everything in the books so far seems to suggest to me that this *is* what she will do. I think she is very capable of making a complex situation where Harry continues to move forward, and continues to have hard emotions to deal with. I am sorry if *I* am bing unclear. It is very easy to be misunderstood here!!! :-) Alla: No, I think you are being clear too. :o) I think our differences in opinion is in your sentence that if Harry will rise above his personal pain, you don't think that his pain is being glossed over. I am afraid that to me it could mean exactly that. Not necessarily, I think JKR CAN write it believably, but I am nervous. I want Harry to get at least SOME help ( reasonably long in the book space), BEFORE he moves to saving the world. I think it will be wierd, if he starts doing it right away. JMO, Alla Barmaid: I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I think all of this can happen simultaneously. I think part of what maked Harry a believable hero is that he is forced to act in the midst of his flaws and his very human difficulties... just like the rest of us. We will just have to wait and see what JKR has done! And fortunatly we will not have to wait too much longer! --Barmaid From aandj at labyrinth.net.au Mon Jan 31 06:04:14 2005 From: aandj at labyrinth.net.au (Jocelyn Grunow) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:04:14 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Occlumency -THE REAL STORY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123522 YUP! Thanks Valky! DEFINITELY meant Bagman! Ooops. (Now you know how poorly my subconscious rates Fudge! *BG*) Jocelyn On Monday, January 31, 2005, at 03:14 pm, M.Clifford wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Juli wrote: >> >> --- Jocelyn Grunow wrote: >>> A lot of LV's supporters lied about their behaviour >>> after LV disappeared. They said they had been acting >>> under the Imperius curse (Malfoy) or didn't know that >>> they were helping the DEs (Fudge). >> >> Juli: >> Where does it say that Fudge was helping LV??? > > I think that's an Oops, right Jocelyn? Probably should read: didn't > know they were helping the DEs (Bagman). > Correct me if I am wrong there Jocelyn.. :D > Valky From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jan 31 06:07:43 2005 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:07:43 -0000 Subject: Who would Harry save? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123523 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "moondance241" wrote: << Harry does have morals and values, though where he learned them is a mystery! I believe it's the same inherent character that gives Harry these morals which enabled him to survive the Dursleys with an ability to sympathize and care for others. It's this inherent characater that drives him to want to help/save others. >> Moondance's post is #123243 of 123521, and I'm *trying* to read all the posts before I post, but I can't resist this appeal to my Lily obsession: Yes. And I have a theory. I think I think Lily was able, with her magic, to put an image of herself in her baby's mind, that would be like an 'imaginary mum' (by analogy with 'imaginary friend') who would cuddle Harry and tell him that he's a good kid who doesn't deserve Dursley abuse and tell him about how decent people behave, thus being that one caring adult said to be necessary to even a 'resilient' child's survival of serious abuse, and an example of goodness he could learn from. I kind of think Lily used her last magic to put this image in his head intentionally, instead of using her last magic in one last attempt to escape Voldemort. That is the heroic self-sacrifce that canon credits her, accepting her own death because it was more important to her to give this protection (from abusive Dursleys) of her love. I don't know why she would do that if she really believed that he would be dead seconds after she was, so I am left sympathetic to the theories that Harry survived AK because of some magic that had been done on him (presumably by Lily) or that he had been born with. When Harry resisted the Imperius Curse, the Curse's Moody-voice in his head told him to jump up on the desk, and "another voice had awoken in the back of his brain. Stupid to do, really, said the voice." I believe that that other voice is what's left of the image-Lily after all these years; she doesn't appear often, she appears as Harry's voice instead of her own, but she still is caring for Harry -- and still has free will. In addition, so far we've always seen Harry wondering and trying to find out about his father, and not about his mother. Some say that's a plot device because JKR is saving some big surprise about Lily, and some say it's normal because Harry is 11 to 15 so far, puberty and adolescence, and much more concerned about a male image to identify with. But *I* say that he doesn't search so much for Lily because, unknown to himself, he already has her with him. From ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 31 06:34:06 2005 From: ibotsjfvxfst at yahoo.co.uk (=?iso-8859-1?q?Hans=20Andr=E9a?=) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:34:06 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Character Discussion: Peter Pettigrew Message-ID: <20050131063406.1500.qmail@web25103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123524 Who is the main character in Harry Potter? "What?!" you all shout with amazement, "What an idiotic question!" May I humbly venture to suggest that it's not Harry? No, dear reader, the main character in Harry Potter is never mentioned. Because it's YOU! The next most important character is Harry. Harry Potter is a road map to the path of alchemical liberation, written for you and me. Every character, event and magic object or power is a force or influence that we will encounter if we go this path in actual practice. When we go the Path we must have Lily in the heart and James must be driving us to seek for liberation. These are the requirements, and if we allow James to woo Lily and marry her, a most amazing and powerful influence will begin to steer our life in a new direction; in the opposite direction in fact. This new influence is a new soul that will grow within us and spread its influence throughout our four bodies. However, as we know, there are also influences within us which resist the new soul. Harry has powerful enemies! The most powerful one of all is Voldemort, the microcosmic (or "higher") self. He personifies the power of our past incarnations and especially the fallen state of our microcosm. He is situated around our aura and we don't feel his influence until Harry is born in God's little valley, the heart. There is another influence that initially co-operates with Lily and James, but is actually a close ally of Voldemort! When the microcosm is preparing for a new incarnation it seeks a foetus that is karmically suited for the new personality. As I've described previously, the microcosmic self pours its energy into the foetus to enable it to carry on where the previous tenant of the microcosm left off because of death. One of the most important aspects that the microcosmic self bestows on the new personality is the ego. The ego is vitally necessary for the new personality, because it is the force which gives the personality the instinct to survive. I'm sure you will all be aware of your ego. Just observe yourself when somebody insults you. Did you feel that spasm in the solar plexus? Or when you're sitting on a plane and it gives a very hard, unexpected lurch. Ouch! Panic in the solar plexus (sometimes known as "the pit of your stomach"). What happens when somebody treats you unjustly? The boxer in your belly comes out, fists ready. And who takes over your life when you're faced with a do or die situation? For example when an enemy invades your country and threatens the health and well-being of you and your children? The naked ape appears with the club, ready to defend at all costs. Or if you're in a dance hall and the place catches fire? Who's there to scream in panic and trample others to death in a blind panic to get out? May I present to you: Peter Pettigrew! The dirty rat! Friends, every time again I am astounded to the core of my being at the accuracy and the intelligence with which Jo has created a coherent and gripping story out of the facts surrounding the Path of Liberation*. As I have stated many times, Ron symbolises the old personality, the mortal soul. Of course Peter, otherwise known as Scabbers, sits snuggled up against Ron's body! That's where he belongs. That's his home. In his youth he was a friend of Sirius, James and Remus John. They are all aspects of the seeker before he finds the Path. Until the seeker's heart is opened to Tao, and Harry is born, everybody is quite happy to be nice and friendly. Remus John personifies the "good" in the person. James is the seeking influence who flirts with Lily. And Peter is the ego that protects the interests of the personality. Sirius is the mental image of the perfect divine child of God. Snape is their enemy because he personifies the "black" side of the personality. But watch out when Harry is born! Peter and Voldemort are tarred with the same brush when it comes to liberation. If Voldemort's existence is threatened, so is Peter's. For when the new soul is born in the seeker, both the microcosmic self and the personal self have to die. When an ordinary earthly person lives life in this vale of tears, he needs an ego in order to survive. But when the soul is born, the seeker has to hand over the reigns of his life to Him, to Harry. When a seeker has a new soul, he shall want for nothing. Friends, if we could only have an inkling of the intensity with which God loves his Son, we could stop worrying about anything for ever. Harry has enough gold to last for the rest of his life. And do you remember the room of requirement? "Seek ye first the Kingdom and its righteousness and all these other things will be yours also." But there is one condition: the ego has to go. Sorry about that, Scabbers, there's no choice. And Peter knows that. He may not be as clever as James, Sirius and Remus John, but he is extremely cunning. What does he do when Voldemort and he are in danger of being vanquished one day by Harry? Simple! Pretend to be on the good side. Pretend to go along with the seeker. What really happens to the seeker is that the ego starts to play along with the activities of the seeker. It begins to surround the mental image of the Eternal Son of God with delusions, with unfounded speculations, with absolute lies. Prometheus is put in chains. The image of the Imperishable One is isolated, or linked to occultism or religious movements which reinforce the ego. In other words: Sirius is imprisoned! This may be hard to understand. However what this simply means is that before a person can go the Path of Liberation, his ego will urge him to go into directions which seemingly lead to the truth but in fact imprison the seeker in occult practices, or at any rate practices which boost the ego. Just ask yourself if you're a seeker: would you rather listen to a movement that promises you all sorts of wonderful things for yourself, or to a movement that says, "give up your self-interest if you want to be liberated"? or "He who gives up his life for My sake shall find It?" What about this simple but true example from a magazine advertisement: "Thoughts can influence others"? Or would you choose, "Purify your thoughts of self-interest?". It is a fact that every seeker has to go through the occult or ego-religious phase before he can find the true Path. That's why Jo makes such a point of it. She's written a whole book about it! So there we are. Sirius is in prison. James and Lily are dead, but they both live on in Harry. Snape hates Harry because Harry is the Light while Snape is the black aspect of the seeker's past. Remus John looks upon Harry almost as a son because Remus is good, and knows Harry is (potentially) absolute goodness. Peter can now rest easily as Scabbers (the dirty little scab) on Ron's body. However Harry grows older. He is no longer an infant but can act independently. He has defeated Voldemort several times. And a strange event takes place. Ron and Scabbers go to Egypt. Sirius sees a photo of the two of them in front of a pyramid. While the star Sirius, the Bright Morning Star of Egypt, looks upon Ron, the other Sirius, the chained Prometheus, is in prison looking at Ron and Scabbers in front of a pyramid in Egypt. What a coincidence! (No it isn't.) Sirius escapes and goes after Scabbers. Of course, written as this story is by superhuman intelligence, we all think right to the end that Sirius is after Harry. But Sirius loves Harry. He wants only to help Harry, to be his God-Father, to show him WHAT TO DO. He's Harry's future. What does this mean to the apprentice alchemist? It means that when he abandons all attempts to go the path of the liberation of the ego, the mental image of the Son of Eternal Fullness is liberated! If a pupil gives up hope of finding salvation for his ego, which is just a temporary survival mechanism for life in this world, the mental image in the aura will begin to radiate intense light, and will illuminate the Path the seeker needs to go. Sirius will guide his footsteps towards the dawn, the East. And Sirius will come and drive Scabbers away from Ron. What does this mean in practical terms? The mental image of the inner God will move down from its place in the aura and drive the ego out of the solar plexus! There is a phase in the Alchemical Path of Liberation when the mental image of Liberation becomes so powerful and intense that it literally comes down into the body and drives the ego out. It is no longer needed! And what takes its place? Harry's Patronus, the stag, the longing for liberation. To some one to whom the Path of Liberation is new, this may sound like a crazy fairy tale. But Harry Potter tells us that when the new soul has become a conscious, rational being, and its radiant Mental Plan has become powerful enough, there is no further need for an ego. It's not all that crazy when you think about it. Didn't people like Jesus, Gautama the Buddha, Lao Tzu and people like that show total selflessness? They had no ego! When the alchemist surrenders the control of his life to the God within, He will take care of everything. "Come to me, you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest", He says to the seeker, "My yoke is easy, my burden is light". When the alchemist surrenders his life to the Inner Christ a Power of unimaginable beauty and splendour takes over his life. He can let go of all worries and cares, for not a hair on his head can be harmed without permission from the Potter of the Universe. And what happens to poor old Scabbers? He escapes into the aura! In other words he goes back to Voldemort who's his creator and snuggles up there. In the next post we'll go back to Sirius and see what happens to him. It's pretty good, I tell ya! Hans *The whole phase of the Path described above is contained in the book, "The Coming New Man", by Jan van Rijckenborgh (same initials as Jo's) published in 1953. ===== 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 tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 06:38:03 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:38:03 -0000 Subject: Who would Harry save? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123525 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: I think I think Lily was able, with her magic, to put an image of herself in her baby's mind, that would be like an 'imaginary mum' (by analogy with 'imaginary friend') who would cuddle Harry and tell him that he's a good kid who doesn't deserve Dursley abuse and tell him about how decent people behave, thus being that one caring adult said to be necessary to even a 'resilient' child's survival of serious abuse, and an example of goodness he could learn from. > (SNIP)> > When Harry resisted the Imperius Curse, the Curse's Moody-voice in his head told him to jump up on the desk, and "another voice had awoken in the back of his brain. Stupid to do, really, said the voice." I believe that that other voice is what's left of the image- Lily after all these years; she doesn't appear often, she appears as Harry's voice instead of her own, (Snip) Tonks here: Harry did have his loving mother for 15 months before her death. This would have been a very critical time for his emotional and mental development. (Something that Tom Riddle did not have, by the way.) During this time Harry would have taken a mental representation of his mother into himself as part of normal development. This probably contributes to why he is so good. It may not be the only reason, but it did certainly help him to get started on the right footing. (Again something that Tom Riddle did not have.) And this mental representation would have enabled him to *self soothe*. It also contributes to his basic trust, which I do think that he has. As to the wee small voice. Everyone has that. It is a part of each of us if we stop and listen to it. It is our *higher self*. The part of the self that some say is connected to the spiritual world. It often only comes out when a person is in serious danger. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 06:39:47 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:39:47 -0000 Subject: Why distrust Lupin? was: Why Do You Like Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123526 Casey wrote: > I don't believe in ESE!Remus, but I just can't get past the fact > that he didn't tell Dumbledore that Sirius was an anamagus. > Especially after he broke into the Gryffindor common room. Carol adds: That's not all he was concealing. He knew that Sirius knew how to get into the Shrieking Shack and could well be hiding there, and he knew that Sirius knew many different secret passageways into and out of Hogwarts. But Sirius broke in twice, first slashing the fat Lady's portrait and then obtaining the passwords and slashing Ron's bedcurtains, and Lupin said nothing. And he kept the Marauder's Map rather than turning it in to Dumbledore. I don't believe in ESE!Lupin, but I do believe in weak and, in this case, cowardly Lupin. He should have told Dumbledore what he knew at the first opportunity, but the longer he waited, the harder it became. And if you keep putting something off, it will never get done. Was he protecting himself or Sirius? did he even know his own motivation? surely Sirius's actions were those of a vicious would-be murderer? He did not act, as DD says so understatedly, like an innocent man. *We* know that Sirius was innocent of betraying the Potters and killing Peter (but not of wanting to murder him), but Lupin could not have known that. He ought to have spoken and he didn't. Like Casey, I can't get past that, but unlike Pippin, I have no explanation. Not wantng to lose Dumbledore's trust and approval just won't do. The longer he waited, the less DD's trust in him was justified. Carol From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 06:46:17 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:46:17 -0000 Subject: What very Bad Thing Does Harry Do in HBP? In-Reply-To: <200501301806820.SM01056@devbox> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123527 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vivamus" wrote: > Please excuse me if this is incorrect, but I think someone in here > posted a recent quote from JKR, to the effect that Harry does > something very bad in book six. > > ...edited... > > Vivamus bboyminn: I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to but I'll put it out there anyway. A while ago, JKR said this will be Harry's shortest stay at the Dursley's. That lead to speculation as to why, which in turn lead to speculation that Harry would be in trouble again, perhaps for doing magic or whatever, and would have to be pulled out of the Dursleys just as he was in the most recent book. Later JKR was asked if Harry will have to face the Wizard's Court again, or if Harry would leave the Dursley's because he was in trouble (don't remember the exact question). In response to this question, JKR said NO, Harry will leave the Dursley's under more pleasant circumstances. It could be that rumors you heard, or whatever it was that prompted this question, was related to this speculation about why Harry would leave the Dursley's so soon. >From a more general perspective, I think it's safe to say that Harry will do something wrong and get into trouble in each of the remaining books, and very likely more than once in each book. I also foresee and encounter between Harry and Snape very similar to that which you described, only in my version, the next time Harry is captured by Voldemort, Snape will be there with Voldemort and will have to pretend to be a Death Eater to maintain his role as a Spy. I can even envision Snape having to use the Pain Curse on Harry in order to prove his loyalty to Voldemort. There are several variations of this, but in the end, Snape rescues Harry and Friends, and once and for all, proves where his true loyalties lie. Also, in some variations, Snape heroically scarifices himself to save Harry and/or friends. Just a thought. Steve.bboyminn From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 06:52:01 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 06:52:01 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: <41FD5993.8090406@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123528 Kathryn Jones wrote: > Pettigrew, who was apparently as much > a Gryffindor as the rest of them, was > not what I would call the epitome of courage. Pettigrew is indeed not a hero, but I don't recall reading that he was a Gryffindor; if it turns out he was a Gryffindor then yes, my theory about them is seriously weakened. > Cedric, a Hufflepuff, showed as much > courage as Harry Well, almost as much; but I never said a non Gryffindor couldn't show courage. > I see nothing in canon that characterizes Snape as a coward. I do. Eggplant From imnicktwisp at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 04:11:02 2005 From: imnicktwisp at yahoo.com (Nick Twisp) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:11:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore, the Dursleys, & Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123529 Janet > I thought of two reasons, one of which has canon: Mrs. Figg > says that if, in his early years, the Dursleys had thought he > liked spending time with Mrs. Figg they would not have sent > him there. Another reason might be that Mrs. Figg is > a Squib, and that if Harry started spending too much time with > her it might be dangerous to *her.* Dillinger: Figgy is in the Order, old crowd style. She knew the dangers 14 years ago when she accepted the position. I realize there is no canon for Figgy's years spent near Privet Drive, but I suspect that Dumbledore placed her there shortly after leaving a note with baby Harry for Petunia in order for there to be a line of defence against those in the Dark Order who are still interested in Harry's end even after Voldemort's disappearance. The Lestranges and Crouch Jr were still out there. Of course, they were looking for their master and not Harry. Janet: > Remember, Harry's protection only works when he's inside the Dursley > house, Dillinger: My understanding is that his 'protection' is rejuvenated/reenchanted once a year, and he has to go 'home' for said r/r. He seems to frequent angry walks around the neighbourhood, away from the Petunia and Vernon's house, his 'home'. Janet: > ... and Mrs. Figg's only protection appears to be that most of the WW > doesn't know she exists. Dillinger: Maybe. It's better to be underestimated in fight than overestimated. From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 07:19:34 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:19:34 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123530 Unicorn_72 at y... wrote: > To me that is not being brave...I would > consider that being an idiot Being brave and being an idiot are not incompatible states, they can very often be found together. > Its hard to really say hay he's a coward > because he didn't want Harry to see the event. But it's easy to say the mighty Potions Master at Hogwarts was a coward for being afraid of Harry, a mere student, and not allowing him to protect his most secret memories too. > Snape was just trying to protect himself > from further humiliation. Yes, and he didn't give a damn about Harry's humiliation, in fact he reveled in it. Eggplant From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 07:21:22 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:21:22 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123531 SSSusan said: I find it amusing that you use the very *loaded* words "silly" and "insipid" and a clearly sarcastic tone with "suffering saint" when you list the things you do not want to see. Why are they so silly & insipid? What's so horrible about putting others before you in desperate times? They may not be what you want to see, but they're part of what JKR has given us so far, so I can't quite see why you'd expect to see no more of them. > > I mean, if the "choosing what's right over what's easy" discussion > is insipid, then I wonder if you'll really want to keep on reading > ol' JKR's work? 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. ;-) Alla said: I DON'T find it realistic in the slightest (and yes, I know that this is the book about magic, I am only speaking about Harry emotional development) that after all that Harry had been through he will be concerned about saving the world. Tonks here: 1. It is not unusual for someone in a war to have one traumatic event after another with no time to recover, and still go on to be a hero and die a hero's death if necessary. 2. In both war and peace, a person can suffer terrible tragic events and losses in their life and still have a loving heart that give to others. Look at some of the people in the death camps in WWII. Was it Bonhoffer? There were people there that lost their family and did not become bitter, did not give in to the impulse to become like the guards. And there were other that did become like the guards. (*Identification with the oppressor* is a natural defense mechanism.) But many had the deep inner strength to over come things far worst than what has happened to Harry and went on to do whatever they could for others. It is a part of the human spirit that I think that JKR wants to portray in these books. She shows us both the best and worst of the human personality. Then I think she will leave us with the choice as to which path we will each follow, Harrys or LVs. Alla said: I am thinking about the "mastering his emotions in order to be useful". It makes me scared. Tonks here: I know that normally we feel that people have to *work through their emotions* for good mental health, etc. And maybe that is what you are referring to here, since suppressing ones emotions is usually not a good thing and leads to all kinds of problems. But maybe JKR is talking about something else. Don't Wizards heal quicker than Muggles from physical injuries? Maybe they can heal faster from emotional ones as well. So let's say that Harry can and does. Then what Harry need to do is be able to control the emotions that he feels so as to control LV. We have already seen that Snape put his own emotional garbage in the pensive so that it would not get in the way when teaching Harry Occulmency. If you are controlled totally by your emotions then LV can lead you wherever he wants to take you, as we have seen. So I think that is what JKR is talking about when she says that he will have to master his emotions. Tonks-op From casil30 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 04:15:01 2005 From: casil30 at yahoo.com (Lisa C.) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:15:01 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123532 > > > Steph: > > > I was just wondering whether or not anyone ever figured out > > > what happened to Sirius' motorbike > > > Tonks here: > > I think that everyone here decided that it probably made it > > way to Arthur Weasley's home. > > Carol responds: > I don't think we reached any real agreement, actually. Another > possibility that was mentioned is that the motorcycle is running > wild in the Forbidden Forest along with the flying Ford Anglia. I remember reading a post on here (that of course I can't find on here right now) where someone disagreed with it being at Arthur Weasley's house because they think that Fred and George would have found it. 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. It's possible that it could be in his workshop but still be in pieces and that would be why Fred and George never got hold of it. It wouldn't be obvious what it was that way. I have to agree that if it was there and the twins knew what it was, they would have definitely been on it. Casil From eggplant9998 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 07:34:03 2005 From: eggplant9998 at yahoo.com (eggplant9998) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:34:03 -0000 Subject: Why distrust Lupin? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123533 I trust Lupin, I trust him even more than I trust Dumbledore. I can at least conserve of Dumbledore betraying Harry for what he thinks is the greater good, but I can't conserve of Lupin doing that. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 07:44:37 2005 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:44:37 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123534 Tonks wrote: > What I am saying is that sometimes things have a way of working out > for the best in the long run. > So what I am saying is that Harry had a hard time at the Dursley's, > and the side effect of that was the same as the training that a monk > gets. And that is good, because it prepared him to fight evil. Alla replied: > > Ummmm, yes, absolutely good can come out of bad. I don't see how it > is relevant though to the initial assesment of the situation. > Sure, sufferings made Harry stronger. Does it mean that because of > that what Dumbledore did was OK? Not to me, sorry. > Carol responds: Here's a question for Alla and Lupinlore and those who feel as they do. Leaving Dumbledore and his intentions out of the question, would Harry really be better off without the treatment he received from the Dursleys? He can now endure hunger, privation, spiders, teasing and taunting, and even physical abuse such as Umbridge's horrible quill and Voldemort's Crucio, which hurt horribly but left no lasting impact. His suffering has made him resilient. His early friendlessness has made him self-reliant. Would he have been able to face Quirrel!mort in his first year and Diary!Tom in his second year without his background with the Dursleys? And had he not done those things, could he have saved himself and Sirius from the boggart in PoA or survived the TWT, much less the resurrected Voldemort, unaided, in GoF? Please understand that I'm not defending the Dursleys or suggesting that Dumbledore had any such intentions (other than preventing Harry from growing up as a pampered prince and, of course, keeping him alive). But think about it. Suppose he had been brought up in a luxurious home with every need catered to. Even if he wasn't spoiled, wouldn't he be "soft"? Or overprotected and timid because he'd never been confronted and tested? Sleeping in a closet? Yelling? Punches from Dudley? Spiders on his socks? A few missed meals? What are they in comparison with what he's already faced at Hogwarts--a basilisk; a monstrous, man-eating spider; a dragon; Dementors?--not to mention confrontations with Voldemort himself, who fortunately is still not back to his full power and strength. The Dursleys provided a training ground for later hardships and challenges, just as the TWT helped prepare Harry for later battles, some of which he has not yet fault. It won't stop with the MoM. Things are going to get worse, much worse, before they get better, if they ever do get better. If he's prepared, he'll have a chance for survival. If he's not, he'll die. It's not Dumbledore's fault that fate and Voldemort have chosen him to be Weapon!Harry. It *would* be his fault if he allowed Harry to go into that fight unprepared. But I think, with Tonks, that regardless of Dumbledore's intentions and regardless of what he should or should not have done, Harry's ten years of living with the Dursleys helped to shape him into the person he needs to be to defeat Voldemort. Please answer the question(s) and leave Dumbledore out of it for now. We know what you think on that point. I want you to look at it from this angle, not considering Harry's feelings but his unavoidable fate. Carol, who is pretty sure that an upbringing like Hermione's would not have served Harry as well as sleeping in that closet From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 07:48:55 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 07:48:55 -0000 Subject: The Cemetery at Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123535 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hogsheadbarmaid" wrote: (snip) > 3) It is an ancient and long forgotten place. The founders and > maybe a couple other people are buried there. The trio stumbles upon it while on some adventure. Information gained by finding these graves changes some basic assumptions about... (snip) Tonks here: Hogwarts is a castle. I do not know anything about the graveyards at a castle. But it may be important. Someone with more knowledge of old English castles will have to help. Geoff, are you there? I have been wondering for awhile about all of these ghost. There seem to be a lot of Knights and others (Barron, Lords, Ladies) that go with a royal court. So what can the ghost tell us that they haven't?? And we have never been told about the Blood Barron. I am still sure that is it Unicorn blood on his robes. Any ideas? Tonks_op From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Mon Jan 31 07:58:04 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:58:04 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pensieve memories/ Cowards Message-ID: <64.4dc5957c.2f2f3f0c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123536 In a message dated 1/30/2005 10:54:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, eggplant9998 at yahoo.com writes: Kathryn Jones wrote: > Pettigrew, who was apparently as much > a Gryffindor as the rest of them, was > not what I would call the epitome of courage. Pettigrew is indeed not a hero, but I don't recall reading that he was a Gryffindor; if it turns out he was a Gryffindor then yes, my theory about them is seriously weakened. > Cedric, a Hufflepuff, showed as much > courage as Harry Well, almost as much; but I never said a non Gryffindor couldn't show courage. > I see nothing in canon that characterizes Snape as a coward. I do. Eggplant ****************************************************** Chancie: Sorry to "squish" your theory Eggplant, but here's a quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sirius Riddle: What houses were Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, James Potter, and Peter Pettigrew in? Everyone tells me they were all in Gryffindor but I won't believe it unless I hear it from Ms. Rowling herself! JK Rowling says: This is JK herself saying that they were indeed in Gryffindor! JK Rowling's World Book Day Chat, March 4, 2004 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hope that helps! Also if you need to find a quote you can search in the QQQ (Quick Quotes Quill) it has pretty much every quote from JKR, and it's really easy to search (which is a big plus, considering what it takes to search some sites!). The site address is: _http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/_ (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/) I recommend using Madam Scoop's Index. Especially if your looking for a specific quote. Hope that helps. Chancie~who can't believe she's stayed up till midnight, and knows she's going to regret it when her daughter wakes up in the morning and she has to get up with her! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From udderpd at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 31 08:46:27 2005 From: udderpd at yahoo.co.uk (udder_pen_dragon) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:46:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] H. B. Prince New? Theory In-Reply-To: <20050130040010.88396.qmail@web53109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050131084628.37208.qmail@web25307.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123537 Hi all I have read a lot of theories as to who is the H.B.Prince and it occurred to me that maybe the half blood prince is not a who but a what. Why couldn't "The Half Blood Prince" be the name of a Pub be the name of a Pub near wherever Harry goes after he leaves the Dursley's in the summer? TTFN UdderPD --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 08:59:32 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:59:32 -0000 Subject: Sirius' motorbike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123538 Casil: > > I remember reading a post on here (that of course I can't find on > here right now) where someone disagreed with it being at Arthur > Weasley's house because they think that Fred and George would have > found it. 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. It's possible that it > could be in his workshop but still be in pieces and that would be why > Fred and George never got hold of it. It wouldn't be obvious what it > was that way. I have to agree that if it was there and the twins knew > what it was, they would have definitely been on it. Finwitch: I have never understood what Arthur Weasley (aside of his Muggle-things-collection and the Flying Ford Anglia) would have to do with Sirius' Motorbike. How would *he* get it? We only know (for certain) that Hagrid got it as he arrived to # 4 Privet Drive on it - with Harry. Then he flies off with intention to return it. (Sirius was probably in Azkaban at this point). Next, Harry dreams of it. (for some reason...) Next (possible) mention of this is when Hagrid tells Harry he *flew* onto that rock where Harry *finally* gets his letter. Somehow I doubt there was a flying animal strong enough to carry Hagrid out there -- eh- like Fawkes. (Because then Hagrid wouldn't really need an owl to send off the letter, and why didn't the bird? come in with him?). Nah. I'd say Hagrid had the flying motorbike there. (I certainly can't imagine Hagrid on a broomstick, can you?) What happened to it afterwards, is speculation. Question 1: Did Hagrid go back & pick it up (and return the boat so Dursleys could get off) or is it STILL there? If latter, case closed. Question 2: If Hagrid DID pick it up.. When did he do so? Where did he put it? Did he perhaps break it into parts sometime during Book3, believing Sirius Black betrayed James& was after Harry? Or did he, upon learning (from Dumbledore, I'd imagine) that Sirius was innocent - (Sirius was dogging by Hagrid's hut in the GoF...) - *return* it to Sirius as he had intended? You know - Hagrid and Sirius, if any, know what it is to be put into Azkaban for something you didn't do without so much as a trial - when someone you considered a friend had framed you.. (Hm - Sirius may have even given his letters to Dumbledore trough Hagrid! No one would wonder about Hagrid (with cat-allergy and affection to beasts) having a big dog around...) Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 09:23:12 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:23:12 -0000 Subject: H. B. Prince New? Theory In-Reply-To: <20050131084628.37208.qmail@web25307.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, udder_pen_dragon wrote: > > > > Hi all > > I have read a lot of theories as to who is the H.B.Prince and it occurred to me that maybe the half blood prince is not a who but a what. > > Why couldn't "The Half Blood Prince" be the name of a Pub be the name of a Pub near wherever Harry goes after he leaves the Dursley's in the summer? Finwitch: Er.. Because it's not a chapter title but a book title? Philosopher's stone: clearly a 'what', a stone which Hagrid removes from Gringotts and is later hidden in Hogwarts... Chamber of Secrets: A place at Hogwarts, been there since Slytherin left it, if not before, concealing a monster(baslisk). Prisoner of Azkaban (clearly, a person, Sirius Black by name. One Who excapes A much as Harry escapes his 'prison' - and later turns out to be Harry's caring godfather - Shrieking Shack, Hogwarts...) Goblet of Fire. The central item for selecting the School Champions - and one who also turns into a portkey, delivering Harry&Cedric to the graveyard. Again, this thing is located at Hogwarts.. Order of the Phoenix. Organisation, composed of several people - some of whom have been at Hogwarts, and some still are. They're there in the beginning (because Harry goes to the HQ after the Dementor attack) and in the end (because of the DE invasion within the Ministry). Most importantly, Dumbledore is the head and the Secret Keeper for the Order. Now, if HB Prince were to be a pub somewhere not Hogwarts-connected, it wouldn't be tied to Hogwarts, and therefore a bit unfit to title a book. (unless Harry spends the whole year there instead of Hogwarts, but I doubt that). Ok, it *could* be a statue/an animal/any person/a title given to, for example, the best male half blood of the year/a spell/a potion... Uh... I just wish July came soon! I want that book! -- Finwitch From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 09:25:10 2005 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:25:10 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123540 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I DON'T find it realistic in the slightest ( and yes, I know that > this is the book about magic, I am only speaking about Harry > emotional development) that after all that Harry had been through he > will be concerned about saving the world. > > After OOP he has SO MANY issues to work through starting with > Sirius' death. I disagree that WW well being would be the first > thing on his mind. > > Am I confusing , Susan? If those were the books NOT in the fantasy > genre, I would say that I expect years for Harry to come to more or > less normal emotional state. > According to your way of thinking, it doesn't make sense for Harry to have done any of things he has done so far. Orphaned as a baby, raised by the Dursleys - why did Harry care enough to risk his life in order to protect the Philosophers Stone? He was treated by most of the school as a dangerous criminal during most of CoS - where did he get the emotional resources to care enough to risk his life to save Ginny? And so on. We see, after Sirius' death, a very poignant moment that Harry has with Luna. For the first time, he has an adult conception of what it is to be somebody else - he feels true compassion, clearly seeing her beyond her weirdness and nerdiness. Realistic or not, the pain Harry feels over the loss of Sirius made him more compassionate. Since the WW is made of *people* who would suffer terribly if Voldemort takes over, Harry will feel the need to stop Voldemort even more urgently now. My personal view is that Harry will feel that he has lost the way, but that due to insecurity and guilt, not because he won't be able to care. Naama From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 09:36:27 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:36:27 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123541 Carol: > But I think, with Tonks, that regardless > of Dumbledore's intentions and regardless of what he should or should > not have done, Harry's ten years of living with the Dursleys helped to > shape him into the person he needs to be to defeat Voldemort. Finwitch: Well, yes, BUT 1) Even if this rough shaping was necessarry pre-Hogwarts, it is NOT that now. Harry's already shown what he can do. He could of been at Dursleys for the whole summer, instead of barely escaping. Why did Harry go back??? 2) He had Sirius since the end of Book 3. Yes, well, Harry could at least threaten the Dursleys with Sirius... I think Harry would of gone and live with Sirius had the rat remained caught - and never mind about Dumbledore, his plans or some prophecy. 3) Why wasn't Harry to be in 13 GP before the Dementors came? Didn't seem safe to me, and certainly not necessary. And I'm sure Sirius would have been in better mood if Harry had been there instead of the Dursleys... (Maybe S would have preferred his own place, where ever that was...) Hey-- why didn't Harry and Sirius go and live in a place like 12 GP at the end of the 4th book? Or even the Shrieking Shack? Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 09:50:35 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:50:35 -0000 Subject: What very Bad Thing Does Harry Do in HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123542 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Vivamus: > Please excuse me if this is incorrect, but I think someone in here > posted a recent quote from JKR, to the effect that Harry does > something very bad in book six. > > > Sherry now: > > I haven't read this, but if it is true, it would seem to be a kind > of stale plot device now. After all, Harry already feels guilty for > Cedric and Sirius. Whether or not we the readers believe he is > guilty--which I certainly do not--he thinks he is. How many > innocent lives can one teenage boy feel responsibility for losing? > That would be too much to bare without cracking up, I'd think. > Besides, guilty Harry is getting a little boring. I want to shake > him already and say, come on, kid, lay the guilt where it > belongs, with Voldemort. But that's not how he's made. > > > > Alla: > > Oh, yes. I'd say if Jo will throw a little bit more gult on Harry, I > will be even more suprised if he won't go crazy. > He will have enough to deal with over his guilt in Sirius' death, I > think. > > Nevertheless, it is certainly possible. We can have dead Dumbledore, > Snape, Ron, Hermione,etc and Harry feeling guilty over any one of > those deaths. I think that feeling guilt where guilt is really with > Voldemort and his minions is an essential part of Harry's character. > > Vivamus, I haven't read it either. Could you provide the link, > please? Finwitch: I don't know about this 'very bad thing' Harry will do-- I thought his attempt of an 'unforgivable' at the end of OOP counts for one. Is he going to successfully cast one in the next book or just lose control, causing something like a house explosion, death of Vernon/Marge/Dudley/someone else? I think that - if there was any proper guardian - like Sirius - living & figured out about Bellatrix-business, Harry would be in BIG trouble. Sirius (in case he didn't *really* die) might decide to let Harry *see* the consequences by having Harry watch his memories of Azkaban in a pensieve for example - while praising just about everything else Harry did... Finwitch From Vivamus at TaprootTech.com Mon Jan 31 10:11:40 2005 From: Vivamus at TaprootTech.com (Vivamus) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:11:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What very Bad Thing Does Harry Do in HBP? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200501310512406.SM01056@devbox> No: HPFGUIDX 123543 > > Vivamus: > > Please excuse me if this is incorrect, but I think someone in here > > posted a recent quote from JKR, to the effect that Harry does > > something very bad in book six. > > > > Sherry now: > > > > I haven't read this, but if it is true, it would seem to be > a kind of > > stale plot device now. > > > > Alla: > > Vivamus, I haven't read it either. Could you provide the > link, please? > > > > Valky: > I could be wrong, but this might actually be a residual of > the Mooseming posts excitement over christmas. > I recall a mooseming thread that was revived in which Jo > (Sturgess) posited that Harry would do something very bad in > HBP, it came up at the time when speculation was high that > these posts might be canon. > That's quite possibly what Vivamus is remembering. > Sorry to burst the bubble. Ouch > > Valky (back to earth since Jo.sturgess, revealed her true identity > recently.) :D Sigh. Time to eat some crow, here. This is what I get for posting a brainstorm before researching it. Valky is right. Here is the quote: > I would like to add to this theory and say Cho, the betrayer, will > come to a sticky end (probably inadvertently by Harry's hand, although > this is based on a different theory that Harry is going to do > something very bad in the next book). And yes, it was by mooseming, as part of the discussion about the butterfly on JKR's website changing colors from Ravenclaw to Slytherin, and "cho" meaning "butterfly" in Japanese and Korean. My apologies for painting that fish red. I do think it likely, however, that Harry will do something really bad in HBP. He hasn't really done anything bad yet, although he could get in a lot of trouble for trying to crucio Bellatrix, as finwitch suggested. Still, he was fighting a DE who was trying to kill him, and who was obviously taking great pleasure in the thought of torturing people into insanity, AND who was obviously much stronger and more capable than he was. His biggest screw up by far (IMO) has been going to the MoM despite all warnings, but that's still a foolish mistake, not acting with evil intent. He spent most of OOtP in rage and guilt, and now he is personally responsible for Sirius' death. We've talked before at length about his grief process, but I think part of it is going to involve a conscious rejection of doing the right thing. I don't think he is going to make a stupid mistake, I think he is going to deliberately do something that he knows is very wrong and will cause serious harm. 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. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 10:14:41 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:14:41 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123544 > Valky: > Oh my, I *do* get irritated when I am reminded of this one. It's > such a niggling itch that won't go away. > How the hell was snivelling cowardly Peter Pettigrew *ever* a > Gryffindor? The numero uno prereq for a Gryff student is bravery, so > whatever did the sorting hat see in Peter that could be called brave? > > There has to be something? > Perhaps the sorting hat offered him Slytherin by virtue of his > propensity to do what it takes to be on the winning team. But he was > afraid of Slytherin and asked the hat not to put him there. But then > still again WHY Gryffindor? the sorting hat might have seen > something deep deep deep deep deeeeeeep inside him, maybe that we > just can't see? > Finwitch: I think there IS something. True, Pettigrew is a rat, and therefore not about to do anyting to risk of his life. However, his EXTREME survival instinct aside - some things he did/does in order to survive do require courage. Like er-- 1) He dares question Voldemort, though not openly defy. (suggest another in stead of HP) 2) He also cuts off his finger to run from Sirius (and later his right hand where Harry's watching). *I* couldn't do it! The thought of cutting off my own limbs... 3) While some might not see his whining and begging as brave, well, considering that Voldemort will find it irritating, I'd say it was. (And I'm positive the finger-less Pettigrew didn't whine, when he had nothing to gain from it!) Finwitch From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Jan 31 10:34:26 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:34:26 -0000 Subject: Luna's Mother's Death- Correction (Wizards and firearms ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123545 Becky: > > I agree with all that's been said. I just want to add a further > complication to wizards defending themselves against firearms. It is > quite clear that most wizards don't know what a gun is. PoA - > 'Muggles have been told that Black is carrying a gun (a kind of > metal wand which Muggles use to kill each other)' and in OotP we see > Kinglsey refer to 'firelegs' which Arthur corrects him should > be 'firearms'. Seems to me that it would make it much harder for a > wizard to defend himself against the un-known. If a Muggle pointed a > gun at them, would they even know how dangerous that could be? Would > they know to defend themselves? > If it really were dangerous for them. Did anybody notice that at St. Mungo's there is no ward for 'muggle' diseases, wounds etc? So apparently they do not need to fear cancer, heart disease, normal accidents and any other sure muggle killers. But with people who can heal a broken ankle with a singel spell that does not surprise me much. About firearms and children's books. I don't know who posted that (and I'm a bit too lazy to search back for it, sorry) I think that this is an American point of view. I don't know if the British firearm laws are more or less stict as ours, but no way are they as lax as in the USA, where you can actually buy guns and bullets at a supermarket (gasp, I did not believe this was true the first time I heard about it). What sane person would want such a dangerous thing as a gun in his house anyway? So for people of the ww to get hold of a gun, they would really have to know their way into the muggle world, especially the illegal parts of it. Somehow this strikes me as unlikely. Gerry From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Jan 31 10:48:35 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 10:48:35 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123546 "koinonia02" wrote: > > > Does that mean Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw > > students are also cowards? > "eggplant9998" wrote: > No, it means that if you are a Gryffindor then you are not a coward, > and it means that if you are not a Gryffindor then you may or may not > be a coward. In Snape's case he is a coward. Sure, changing sides and spying for the other side when Voldemort was at the hight of his powers and doesn't require any bravery at all. Gerry, who thinks it perfectly logical that a teacher that teaches a potential privacy invading subject as occlumency takes care of himself. Very sensible i.m.h.o. From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 11:12:32 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:12:32 -0000 Subject: I'd like feedback on this theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123547 "Janet Anderson" : --- > One: He deserts his post guarding Harry, disobeying orders and without any > plausible excuse. Note that this gives the Dementors a shot at Harry. Finwitch: It also meant that Harry got to be in the HQ. Maybe it was a trick? The twins definately would be after getting Harry out of there, given the slightest inclination - like Hedwig pecking Ron&Hermione.. and Harry had given them 1000 Gs for the shop (minus new dressrobes for Ron). And Sirius may have also been with it... (look how keen he's to defend his position as Harry's guardian. Bet he was hurt that Dumbledore decided to keep Harry at the Dursleys...) Mind, Sirius does tell Harry that while MF is a thief and a culprit, he's also useful... > Two: He is, or trying to be, a corrupting influence on Fred and George. On > the surface, his stories may be funny, but as Molly instinctively realizes, > those two are the most likely to absorb Mundungus's unethical ways because > they don't take very many things seriously; cheating someone would just be a > game to them. Finwitch: Says Molly, who doesn't approve WWW - which is what F&G are handling MF for. Molly suspected that F&G got the money for their shop (which they have been up to for ages, MF around or not) for selling stolen cauldrons by MF... Of course, the money was a gift from Harry instead. It seems more likely that F&G use him as a suppliant for ingredients. (Apparently they're also taking doxies from the house...) > Three: He steals silver from Grimmauld Place, which means he is either > stealing from Molly (another Order member) or from Sirius (another Order > member *and his host*). This, to my mind, proves that he has no honor. Finwitch: You mean the silver Sirius was putting into a sack? 'Silverware with Black crest on it' -- 'That will come off, though'. Apparently Sirius was more than willing to get *rid* of that Silver and didn't mind if MF took it away for him... (for Lupin's sake as silver is harmful to werewolves - and because he didn't want anything to remind him of his childhood in there...) For all I know, Sirius was GIVING it to him. Nah-- I think that all the Dark-Arts things there that Sirius wanted to be rid of - were the things MF carried off and sold. (and got ingredients for F&G - against Molly's and Moody's wishes, but oh well) Think not, though. He's the Thief, working for the good Side; he won't let a business oppurtunity to pass away, but he does work for the good side, the Order. In quite many Fantasy stories I've read, there is the Thief in the 'good' side. No one of the others *likes* these vices of his, they cause a bit of problems & irritation, but nevertheless, they're tolerated because they also make this Thief useful... He knows how to get out from the tight spot, you see, deliver information from filthy places (like how Sirius etc. learned about Harry&DA in the Hog's Head).. I'd say F&G filled the role of the Thief in the earlier books and at Hogwarts - knowing places (and giving Harry the map). What I'm saying is that well, it's a bit like F&G for Harry in school, Snape&Fletcher for Dumbledore in the world. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 11:27:43 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:27:43 -0000 Subject: Luna's Mother's Death- Correction (Wizards and firearms ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123548 Gerry: > About firearms and children's books. I don't know who posted that (and > I'm a bit too lazy to search back for it, sorry) I think that this is > an American point of view. I don't know if the British firearm laws > are more or less stict as ours, but no way are they as lax as in the > USA, where you can actually buy guns and bullets at a supermarket > (gasp, I did not believe this was true the first time I heard about > it). What sane person would want such a dangerous thing as a gun in > his house anyway? So for people of the ww to get hold of a gun, they > would really have to know their way into the muggle world, especially > the illegal parts of it. Somehow this strikes me as unlikely. 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 -- A coldblooded murderer uses the killing curse. No trace in the body. And then he can transfigure the body into a bone to hide it better. No Muggle will ever figure out what happened. And just to add in - use Time Turner for a food Alibi. For strictly defensive use: well, with stunners and disarming spells and such - why use an item that could kill when you don't want it to? AND, there IS one gun (a rifle) mentioned. Vernon bought one, and what happens? Hagrid twists it so that the thing is useless... That's it, guns are completely useless to wizards. It simply isn't practical for any wizard to buy guns; wands are more effective, more tidy, etc. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 11:39:09 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:39:09 -0000 Subject: WW Cultural bias re clothes and cupboard? In-Reply-To: <20050131000721.146.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123549 > Arynn replies, > It's not that the "room" had no windows, it's that the "room" was so small. It's not even big enough for Harry to stand upright in. I don't know how it is in other countries, but in America, if people keep their animals in conditions like that, they loose thier animals. > > I know wizards can magically expand small spaces, but as Harry is underaged, he would get in trouble for that. My question is why didn't Dumbledore do it? Finwitch: First off, since the first Hogwarts letter (which Harry didn't get to read) arrived, Harry was moved into a larger bedroom. AND, he was SO underage he wasn't even going to Hogwarts yet, he didn't even have a wand... and we never saw any warning owls about any magic Harry did until after he'd been a year at Hogwarts. (apparently Hermione didn't get any when she was practicing her spells?) But well... as much as Harry liked to have the room - he would prefer *the letter*, even if it meant he still had to stay in the cupboard. I don't think the size is the issue. No. It's the fact they *locked* it, and Harry had to trick himself out for food in order to survive... Finwitch From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Jan 31 11:41:10 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:41:10 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123550 My personal view is that Harry will feel that he has lost the way, but that due to insecurity and guilt, not because he won't be able to care. Naama This is straight from the horse's mouth - so to speak!! JKR: "In book six, the wizarding world is really at war again and [Harry] has to master his own feelings to make himself useful." [WBD- 04] So it seems that you are on the right track, Naama! Brothergib From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 12:14:29 2005 From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:14:29 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123551 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant9998" Message 123528 wrote: > > Kathryn Jones wrote: > Pettigrew is indeed not a hero, but I don't recall reading that he >was a Gryffindor; if it turns out he was a Gryffindor then yes, my >theory about them is seriously weakened. "K": J.K. Rowling's World Book Day Chat: March 4, 2004 Sirius Riddle: What houses were Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, James Potter and Remus Lupin in? Everyone tells me they were all Gryffindor, but I won't believe it unless I hear it from Ms. Rowling herself! JK Rowling says: This is JK herself saying that they were indeed in Gryffindor! Eggplant - Message 123530 >But it's easy to say the mighty Potions Master at Hogwarts was a >coward for being afraid of Harry, a mere student, and not allowing >him to protect his most secret memories too. "K": I see no cowardice in that action at all. If anything it would seem a smart move especially if there is a part of Voldemort residing in Harry, which I do believe in. I still think there is much more to the Occlumency lessons and we are missing it. Harry isn't a mere student, BTW. He's the prophecy boy who has powers he received from one of the most powerful wizards ever. And if that wizard is sharing a body with Harry, well, I'd be careful also. But I personally am not really interested in discussing so called cowardness as I believe there are far more interesting and important parts to Occlumency than that. Eggplant: >Yes, and he didn't give a damn about Harry's humiliation, in fact he >reveled in it. "K": I can't recall that at all. Sure never saw Snape jumping around in glee. It's just another area we will have to disagree on. Valky - Message 123516 >Gosh I just loathe this question, it makes no sense whatsoever. (not >meaning to offend with my ranting, sorry Julie and Koinonia and >eggplant) "K": Oh, that's fine. :-) I understand. However brave one might think Peter is, he's still nothing more than an evil turkey butt in my eyes. From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Jan 31 12:37:39 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:37:39 -0000 Subject: Slytherin & Gryffindor: Misconceptions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123552 I have always held several beliefs about SS (as I'm sure has everyone). 1. He is inherently evil - like LV 2. He left Hogwart's due to an agreement to admit 'impure' wizards/witches 3. He created the COS to purge the school of 'impure' blood 4. The great frienship between GG and SS, does not make sense However, I was reading COS, yesterday. I was attempting, for the zillionth time, to find the link between Books 2 & 6. I came across Professor Binn's description of the COS and suddenley, there seemed an alternative explanantion for my potential misconceptions. 1. SS was worried about Muggle attitudes to witches and wizards. I do not think he was worried about 'purity of blood' as much as he was worried about a potential threat to Hogwarts. 2. SS was worried that admittance of 'impure' wizards would eventually alert the Muggleworld to Hogwarts existence and therefore threaten that existence. 3. What if SS created the COS as a protective mechanism. As a founder, he must have loved Hogwart and would not want it destroyed. If Muggle's ever threatened Hogwarts, then the heir of Slytherin could use the Basilisk to purge the school of Muggle invaders!! 4. All the above would suggest that SS was an honourable wizard and therefore a friendship between GG and SS is more likely. Also, if GG is the HBP (as has been suggested) it would explain why he would not budge on the issue of 'blood purity'. Read the chapter and let me know what you think!! (Somewhere in the middle of COS!). Interestingly, JKR could reveal all this in Book 6 without really giving us any further clues to the eventual outcome! Brothergib From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 13:40:29 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:40:29 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123553 Carol responds: Here's a question for Alla and Lupinlore and those who feel as they do. Leaving Dumbledore and his intentions out of the question, would Harry really be better off without the treatment he received from the Dursleys? He can now endure hunger, privation, spiders, teasing and taunting, and even physical abuse such as Umbridge's horrible quill and Voldemort's Crucio, which hurt horribly but left no lasting impact. His suffering has made him resilient. His early friendlessness has made him self-reliant. Would he have been able to face Quirrel!mort in his first year and Diary!Tom in his second year without his background with the Dursleys? And had he not done those things, could he have saved himself and Sirius from the boggart in PoA or survived the TWT,much less the resurrected Voldemort, unaided, in GoF? Please understand that I'm not defending the Dursleys or suggesting that Dumbledore had any such intentions (other than preventing Harry from growing up as a pampered prince and, of course, keeping him alive). But think about it. Suppose he had been brought up in a luxurious home with every need catered to. Even if he wasn't spoiled, wouldn't he be "soft"? Or overprotected and timid because he'd never been confronted and tested? snip. It's not Dumbledore's fault that fate and Voldemort have chosen him to be Weapon!Harry. It *would* be his fault if he allowed Harry to go into that fight unprepared. But I think, with Tonks, that regardless of Dumbledore's intentions and regardless of what he should or should not have done, Harry's ten years of living with the Dursleys helped to shape him into the person he needs to be to defeat Voldemort. Please answer the question(s) and leave Dumbledore out of it for now.We know what you think on that point. I want you to look at it from this angle, not considering Harry's feelings but his unavoidable fate. > > Carol, who is pretty sure that an upbringing like Hermione's would not > have served Harry as well as sleeping in that closet Alla: Carol, I am not quite sure how to answer your question. Of course, Harry's upbringing shaped him. Good came from evil thing. I loved Phoenixgod's analogy - if I throw you in the room with axe wielding maniac, suspecting that you can be a martial arts master, it still does not make my actions right (Sorry, since you did mention Dumbledore in your post, I could not leave him completely out :o)) By the way, after OOP, I can not even say that I completely agree that Harry's ubringing made him stronger and better able to face Voldemort. If he was brought in the LOVING home ( not luxiruous, LOVING), he would have been loved ( not soft, LOVED) and was able to trust adults) and maybe just maybe if he was told to study Occlumency, he would be able to trust the words' of adults around him, NOT questioning hteir words, because he used to be self reliant and trust only himself and his friends. Just my opinion, Alla From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 13:52:05 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:52:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Dursleys-What DD Knew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123554 Snow: Who's choice? > Or was it Lily?who chose her son's fate by protecting Harry with her > blood that did actually save her son's life. Finwitch: But: Pettigrew chose to sell the Potters to Voldemort. There would have been no need for all the Dursley-business if he had been a true friend, as the Fidelius Charm would have protected them. Voldemort chose to kill James&Lily and attempt on Harry. Of course, had he not been the murdering lunatic he was, well... no prophecy, no Dark Lord, no nothing.. James chose to fight to protect his family. Lily chose to protect Harry, giving her own life instead. But don't forget that James & Lily had also chosen for Sirius to be Harry's guardian if they were to die, so we're up with other choices... Hagrid who took Harry to Dumbledore instead of giving him to Sirius. Whole punch of wizards who didn't bother to give poor Sirius a trial, including Barty Crouch Sr and Cornelius Fudge. (if they had, I believe Sirius would have insisted upon taking baby Harry, after all that secret-keeper-switch-thing became cleared). I just wonder - would Sirius following Hagrid instead of going after the rat changed anything? Particularly as Dumbldedore believed Sirius to have betrayed the Potters? Would he have listened then - as he didn't before or after Fudge & co sent him to Azkaban, not until Sirius broke out (and giving Harry an example via TV!)... But all in all, I think I'm placing the blame on Voldemort. Finwitch From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jan 31 14:07:20 2005 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:07:20 -0000 Subject: WW Cultural bias re clothes and cupboard? In-Reply-To: <20050131000721.146.qmail@web31107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123555 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Arynn Octavia wrote: > > Arynn replies, > It's not that the "room" had no windows, it's that the "room" was so small. It's not even big enough for Harry to stand upright in. I don't know how it is in other countries, but in America, if people keep their animals in conditions like that, they loose thier animals. > > I know wizards can magically expand small spaces, but as Harry is underaged, he would get in trouble for that. My question is why didn't Dumbledore do it? Pippin: Do you have canon for the room being so small Harry couldn't stand upright in it? Maybe it *was* magically expanded. Pippin From gbannister10 at aol.com Mon Jan 31 14:19:21 2005 From: gbannister10 at aol.com (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:19:21 -0000 Subject: Is Harry arrogant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > Aisbelmon at h... said: > > >I agree with what you say eggplant, but nevertheless Harry > >purposefully takes on bigger and more advanced scary foes than he > >should be able to handle, he doesn't think twice about that they > >might be too much for him to handle, so hence he has a faint sense > >of arrogance about him, like a soldier - a bulletproof mentality. Janet Anderson: > I would say this was an advanced example of the famous Gryffindor courage. > Possibly combined with the teenage feeling of immortality. And also, even > when it occurs to him that he might (or probably will) lose, he maintains > that he has to try to at least do *something* rather than run away, pretend > nothing's wrong (like Fudge) or surrender to the other side (like Peter > Pettigrew). Remember when he told Ron and Hermione that he might die > fighting Voldemort over the Sorcerer's Stone or hiding in Privet Drive, but > either way he would never go over to the Dark Side? Geoff: I am inclined to agree with much of what Janet says. Looking back on my own teenage years (allowing for a foggy Pensieve!), certainly teenage boys have a feeling of immortality. We are becoming our own boss, we are physically almost fully grown, the world is before us, no ties, no major responsibilites. Accidents, disappointments, deaths are things which happen to other people and, of course, we are going to be great - we are going to change the world. Harry arrogant? Nope. Just normal. Coming down to earth is a process which takes over later...... From neferiet at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 12:20:55 2005 From: neferiet at yahoo.com (Cindi H) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 04:20:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: I'd like feedback on this theory (Mundungus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050131122056.16010.qmail@web30903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123557 Janet Anderson wrote: It has been said repeatedly that during the first Voldemort incursion, it was very difficult to know who to trust. That was part of the tragedy that killed the Potters and separated their friends from each other. In that case, a well-placed spy was the culprit. Many people have put forth the theory that there is or will be a well-placed and unsuspected spy in this incursion as well. Ideas as to who it could be are varied. Some of the people suspected are Snape (of course), Lupin, Percy (some people think he's a spy for Dumbledore et al now; some think he'll work for Voldemort in the future), Filch ... the list is endless. But as far as I know, none of the theorists have mentioned the person I suspect: Mundungus Fletcher. Cindi writes: I have often wondered about Mundungus. He is a crook and Molly doesn't trust him. I agree with that. Janet wrote: The next thing we hear about him is in Goblet of Fire: he is trying to defraud the Ministry. Mr. Weasley (I think) says that after the Death Eater incident at the Quiddich World Cup, in which many people lost tents and property, Mundungus put in a voucher for a fancy replacement tent with all the luxuries. "But I happen to know that he'd been sleeping under a cloak propped up with two sticks," he says. Cindi writes: Another example of our friend the crook: trying to defraud the Ministry. Janet wrote: We see quite a lot of him in Order of the Phoenix. Two or three things about him make me dislike and distrust him intensely and suspect that he is at best a weak link in the Order. One: He deserts his post guarding Harry, disobeying orders and without any plausible excuse. Note that this gives the Dementors a shot at Harry. Cindi writes: In the criminal mind of Mundungus, he had a very good reason to leave. If he had been truly committed to guarding Harry, then he could have found a replacement to cover for him. this does not necessarily implied that he is a traitor. His priorities are just screwed up! Janet wrote: Two: He is, or trying to be, a corrupting influence on Fred and George. On the surface, his stories may be funny, but as Molly instinctively realizes, those two are the most likely to absorb Mundungus's unethical ways because they don't take very many things seriously; cheating someone would just be a game to them. Cindi writes: Here I think his influence with Fred and George is limited. After all they are fairly good at price bartering themselves and probably can hold their own with Mundungus. They do realize they are pranksters, however they mentioned in OoTP that they may have stepped a toe or two over the line. Janet wrote: Three: He steals silver from Grimmauld Place, which means he is either stealing from Molly (another Order member) or from Sirius (another Order member *and his host*). This, to my mind, proves that he has no honor. Cindi writes: I don't believe he stole the silver from Grimmauld Place. He commented..."This solid silver mate? Yes, said Sirius, surveying it with distaste. Finest fifteenth-century goblin-wrought silver, embossed with the Black family crest. That's come off, though, muttered Mundungus, polishing it with his cuff. Obviously Sirius could care less about the silver goblet. He may have told Mundungus to take what he wanted since they were cleaning house. He is a crook. He simply has no honor. Janet wrote: He was in the first Order of the Phoenix, and may well have been loyal then. But I suspect he may be willing to sell *anything.* Stolen goods are, after all, his specialty -- see his excuse as to why he wasn't on duty, and his stories to Fred and George. To him, it may well be, anything is for sale, including himself, his loyalties, and the other members of the Order. Or maybe he sees everyone as a mark, and loyalties are just conveniences. He may well be the double agent everyone thinks Snape is. Or Voldemort may offer the better payment. Cindi writes: Sirius commented that Mundungus "is useful, knows all the crooks...But he is very loyal to Dumbledore, who helped him out of a tight spot once." I think it would be helpful if we knew how loyal Mundungus was and the particulars surrounding how Dumbledore helped him. This is along the same lines that Dumbledore trusts Severus Snape. Why?? Janet wrote: When I posted this theory on another list, some people said Mundungus was just *too* obvious and therefore probably wasn't any more than he appeared. Yeah, right. "Hide in plain sight" is one of JKR's mottoes. And "comic relief" is almost as good a way to hide things -- look at Scabbers -- (or, possibly, Ludo Bagman?). Cindi writes: I think Mundungus could betray the Order for the write price, but again why is he so loyal to Dumbledore and will the strength of that loyalty hold? From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 14:28:21 2005 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:28:21 -0000 Subject: Lack of trust/No Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123558 Alla: > > If he was brought in the LOVING home ( not luxiruous, LOVING), he > would have been loved ( not soft, LOVED) and was able to trust > adults) and maybe just maybe if he was told to study Occlumency, he > would be able to trust the words' of adults around him, NOT > questioning hteir words, because he used to be self reliant and > trust only himself and his friends. Finwitch: Something came up to my mind about Harry's lack of trust considering this Occlumency. 1) Dumbledore was acting oddly - more distant than usual. 2) Harry has a scar-vision that saves Arthur Weasley 3) The friendly adults near Harry are greatful for this. 4) Dumbledore, however, tells Harry - trough Snape whom Harry never trusted though Dumbledore did - that Harry ought to learn a skill that prevents him from having visions. No one tells him why. 5) Let's not forget the friendly seeming fake!Moody, who was a DE in disguise, using polyjuice. No one, including DD, was able to tell him from the real Moody - until *after* Harry was in danger and cleared most of it off himself... Harry never realised it, but... a what if: Dumbledore could have been tricked and replaced by a DE/Voldemort by means of polyjuice potion. If they could do that to a paranoid auror, well, I suppose they could do it to Dumbledore, too. Given the information Harry had, that would have been a reasonable conclusion, and the action is NOT to learn Occlumency. You don't take orders from the enemy, right? It is entirely possible that Harry, without realising it, jumped right to the action part... NOT learning Occlumency. Simply because something was wrong in the picture! Besides, Sirius was against it. And Sirius was giving answers... when Sirius was (seemingly?) agreeing to the lessons were to continue, Snape had given up. And Lupin was with him. Well - as much as Harry trusted them both, well - still no reason. No Occlumency. Can't do it. What's with Sirius, now... And then Harry finds out there's a Confundus Curse (which Sirius might have been subjected to) making you say the opposite you want to say, as the auror puts it on the SNEAK Marietta; The one looking like Dumbledore says "I'm not going hiding" and then outs them all, *leaves* with that "Study Occlumency" - when he's OBVIOUSLY going to hiding... Then Harry has vision about Sirius being tortured. (Now, if Harry - somewhere in his subconcious) believes that Sirius was under some sort of spell (Imperius/Confundus) earlier, believing he's taken and tortured - despite of Hermione's objections - actually, I don't see how Harry could have been believing differently. Finwitch From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 14:42:29 2005 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:42:29 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123559 > Valky: > Oh my, I *do* get irritated when I am reminded of this one. It's > such a niggling itch that won't go away. > How the hell was snivelling cowardly Peter Pettigrew *ever* a > Gryffindor? The numero uno prereq for a Gryff student is bravery, so > whatever did the sorting hat see in Peter that could be called brave? (snip) Ginger: I wonder where the sorting hat thought he *would* fit. No brains, no ambition, no loyalty, no bravery. My best guess is that the hat looked inside his head and asked, "Hmm, well, lad, you seem, erm, equally suited for all the houses the same. What quality do you most want to be, erm, expanded in yourself?" To which Peter replied, "I want to be brave!" The hat sighed a great relief and announced, "GRYFFINDOR!" I used to wonder the same about Neville, but those doubts were erased. Ginger, with nothing intelligent to add. From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk Mon Jan 31 15:15:36 2005 From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (Edis) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:15:36 -0000 Subject: (Wizards and firearms ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123560 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: >>AND, there IS one gun (a rifle) mentioned. Vernon bought one, (in PS/SS) One of the unrealistic bits of the books too! How did Uncle Vernon get a rifle legally in Britain? You need a licence and police vetting and all sorts of legal hassle... getting to Little Whingeing from Paddington Station is realistic by comparison. Edis From cmjohnstone at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 15:51:16 2005 From: cmjohnstone at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:51:16 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/cowards Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123561 Valky: > Oh my, I *do* get irritated when I am reminded of this one. It's > such a niggling itch that won't go away. > How the hell was snivelling cowardly Peter Pettigrew *ever* a > Gryffindor? The numero uno prereq for a Gryff student is bravery, so > whatever did the sorting hat see in Peter that could be called brave? (snip) Leah writes; If Peter is in Gryffindor, then I'd always assumed that the Gryffindor-type bravery which the Sorting Hat saw in Peter had yet to be revealed to us. He does now owe Harry a life-debt, which is going to have to be paid at some point. I imagine this is when Peter will suddenly make contact with his inner lion. Leah From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 31 16:17:42 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:17:42 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123562 Barmaid now: > Why are these either/or kinds of issues? Why does Harry have to > *either* deal with all his grief *or* step up and do his part > to "save the world"????? I find it particularly puzzling that the > camp of "Harry having to take time to deal with his personal > troubles" is often portrayed as *realism* while the "step up and > fulfill his role in the world" view is slated as the *fantasy* or > fairytale nature of the story. It seems to me that in *reality* > people rarely have the luxury of just disengaging from their > responsibilities and sorting out their *issues*... at least in my > little corner of so called reality this seems to be true. I think > we will see a complex blend of *silliness & insipidity* (well said > SSSusan!) and some heart wrenching hard times for our hero. I > think Alla is right that it may well take Harry years to deal with > all his grief, and we will never see most of those years from JKR's > perspective (thank god for fan fiction!). But while he is working > all of that out he will still have to fulfill his role in the world. > > Please know I am saying all of this with a smile on my face and > with no malice for any opinion that differs from mine. Really. SSSusan: Absolutely! This is exactly what I meant, even if I didn't state it well. I think Harry *may* have a period -- a fairly short period of a few months -- where he's pissed at DD or is skeptical about trusting him & following his instructions. Or it may be something which resurfaces now & again over time. Both would be totally believable & understandable, imo. OTOH, I think that Harry, being the Harry we've seen so far, *will* do exactly what you've said, Barmaid -- disengage from his "issues" in order to address the reality he's facing. This is not, under ordinary circumstances, a necessarily wise thing to do, but the fact is, these are NOT ordinary circumstances. This is WHY I've said I think Harry will set aside his own concerns to a degree in order to work for the greater good, and WHY I've argued that he should find a way to work w/ Snape (if he has to) and WHY I've argued that standing up to DJU, esp. after McGonagall's warning, wasn't a very smart thing to do. All of these tie into one thing: These are NOT ordinary times. If Voldy *weren't* back, if VWII *hadn't* begun, I would encourage: 1) anyone like Harry to go right ahead & work on all those issues now; 2) anyone in Harry or Neville's situation to consider several options for what to do about The Snape Problem; and 3) anyone like Harry to have stood up to DJU and let her have it for her lies and refusal to believe him and her inhumane punishment. But all of that is set aside for me, I'm afraid, when the stakes are this high. Once the war is over, by all means, I'd handle each of these situations differently than I'm "advising" Harry to handle them now. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 31 16:36:49 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:36:49 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: <64.4dc5957c.2f2f3f0c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123563 Kathryn Jones wrote: > > Pettigrew, who was apparently as much a Gryffindor as the rest > > of them, was not what I would call the epitome of courage. Eggplant [I believe] added: > Pettigrew is indeed not a hero, but I don't recall reading that he > was a Gryffindor; if it turns out he was a Gryffindor then yes, my > theory about them is seriously weakened. Chancie then supplied this: > Sorry to "squish" your theory Eggplant, but here's a quote > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Sirius Riddle: What houses were Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, > James Potter, and Peter Pettigrew in? Everyone tells me > they were all in Gryffindor but I won't believe it unless I hear > it from Ms. Rowling herself! > > JK Rowling says: This is JK herself saying that they were indeed > in Gryffindor! > > JK Rowling's World Book Day Chat, March 4, 2004 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SSSusan: Just to throw a bit of a monkey wrench into things, remember that the question was actually either ODDLY asked or, as most of us assume, MISTAKENLY asked. Here is the actual text, per TLC's quotes section: >>>Sirius Riddle: What houses were Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, James Potter and Remus Lupin in? Everyone tells me they were all Gryffindor, but I won't believe it unless I hear it from Ms. Rowling herself! JK Rowling says: This is JK herself saying that they were indeed in Gryffindor! <<< SSSusan again: Note that the questioner actually named Lupin twice and left Pettigrew out. Now, I don't think this was intentional, and I *doubt* JKR answered it only because it left out Pettigrew, but.... ?? Siriusly Snapey Susan, respectfully requesting that people put attributions before EACH segment of a response. Just putting one's name at the top or bottom of a post, if the post includes several "back & forth" responses, makes it very difficult to keep attributions correct when snipping downthread. IOW, it really helps if it looks like this: A wrote: >blah blah blah blah... B: But yadda yadda yadda... A wrote: > What I think is... B: OTOH, it could be that... & etc. Thank you. :-) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 31 16:42:29 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:42:29 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123564 Finwitch asked: > Hey-- why didn't Harry and Sirius go and live in a place > like 12 GP at the end of the 4th book? Or even the Shrieking Shack? SSSusan: Maybe because, if Voldy found out they were there, there would be no protection there? As opposed to whatever the magic is at 4 Privet Drive, where apparently Voldy & his DEs *can't* attack him? The Shrieking Shack, by way of protection, seems only to have the rumors which surround it and scare people off. Granted, the likelihood of the secret keeper ratting *again* on 12 GP, as happened w/ Godric's Hollow, seems small, but who wants to risk it? In fact, why take either risk on a place which doesn't have a surefire, can't- attack set-up over one which *does* have it? Siriusly Snapey Susan From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Jan 31 16:50:35 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:50:35 -0000 Subject: Slytherin & Gryffindor: Misconceptions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123565 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > 1. SS was worried about Muggle attitudes to witches and wizards. I do > not think he was worried about 'purity of blood' as much as he was > worried about a potential threat to Hogwarts. > 2. SS was worried that admittance of 'impure' wizards would > eventually alert the Muggleworld to Hogwarts existence and therefore > threaten that existence. > 3. What if SS created the COS as a protective mechanism. As a > founder, he must have loved Hogwart and would not want it destroyed. > If Muggle's ever threatened Hogwarts, then the heir of Slytherin > could use the Basilisk to purge the school of Muggle invaders!! > 4. All the above would suggest that SS was an honourable wizard and > therefore a friendship between GG and SS is more likely. Also, if GG > is the HBP (as has been suggested) it would explain why he would not > budge on the issue of 'blood purity'. > > > > Brothergib Hickengruendler: I agree with everything I quoted, except the conclusion. I think Slytherin probably had some right to be worried, that the muggles would find out about the wizarding world and maybe would pose a danger. However, that does not justify mass murder (or attempted mass murder, since "only" Myrtle actually died). Therefore even if Slytherin's motives are somehow understandable, that does in no way excuse his actions (if, and that if shouldn't be forgotten, it really happened how it was told in CoS. After all, the whole thing is only a legend, maybe Slytherin just had some eccentric hobby and studied the Basilisk and put it into the Chamber, to make sure that only a Parselmouth, to whom it doesn't pose as much of a danger, can find it). For example, if I killed somebody because he had blackmailed me, then my motives would be somewhat understandable, but the deed itself still would be evil. Hickengruendler From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 31 16:50:51 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:50:51 -0000 Subject: More on firearms (was: Luna's Mother's Death- Correction (Wizards & firearms )) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123566 Gerry: > > So for people of the ww to get hold of a gun, they > > would really have to know their way into the muggle world, > > especially the illegal parts of it. Somehow this strikes me as > > unlikely. 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 -- > > A coldblooded murderer uses the killing curse. No trace in the body. > And then he can transfigure the body into a bone to hide it better. > No Muggle will ever figure out what happened. SSSusan: This is all true, but there is at least one distinct advantage for guns over wands; that is, that in order to get the weapon to work, a person using a gun doesn't have to *mean* it to the degree one apparently does when using the Unforgivables. I mean, personally, I think this is a nice safeguard, but the "advantage" of a gun is that one can simply pick it up and use it, whether the intention to kill is super-strong or not. Do you know what I mean? A person could have reservations, but just manage to pull that trigger, and it works. Whereas, as Harry found out, he used his wand & his anger to fire off a Crucio! at Bella, and it still failed because he didn't mean it enough. Siriusly Snapey Susan From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Jan 31 16:59:36 2005 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:59:36 -0000 Subject: Slytherin & Gryffindor: Misconceptions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123567 > Hickengruendler: > > I agree with everything I quoted, except the conclusion. I think > Slytherin probably had some right to be worried, that the muggles > would find out about the wizarding world and maybe would pose a > danger. However, that does not justify mass murder (or attempted mass > murder, since "only" Myrtle actually died). Agreed. Clearly SS was a flawed individual. Even if COS is a protective measure, it is over protective. THere was an incident on the Tube recently where a father punched a man for standing on his child and making them cry. However, the poor man fell awkwardly, bumped his head and died. Being over-protective does often have serious consequences. However, the point remains that SS was probably a decent human being - unlike his descendant!! Brothergib From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 17:00:57 2005 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:00:57 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123568 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: Finwitch asked:> Hey-- why didn't Harry and Sirius go and live in a place like 12 GP at the end of the 4th book? Or even the Shrieking Shack? > > SSSusan: > Maybe because, if Voldy found out they were there, there would be no protection there? As opposed to whatever the magic is at 4 Privet Drive, where apparently Voldy & his DEs *can't* attack him? > According to rumors, though, Harry will haev his shortest stay at the Dursleys in HBP. With Voldemort having Harry's blood in him now, it's possible to break the 'charm' that protects him at the house on Privet Drive and more than likely that will be the first chapter of the new book. I could actually go along with cubfan on 12GP since it was made a 'secret' location, only Sirius wasn't living there at the time. It was only at the beginning of OOP that we see everyone cleaning the place up and beginning to use it. As for the other place, ewww, who would want to 'live' at the Shrieking Shack? Besides SSSusan is right..no protection at all. Kathy From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 17:10:08 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:10:08 -0000 Subject: H. B. Prince New? Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123569 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote: > Finwitch: > > Er.. Because it's not a chapter title but a book title? > > Philosopher's stone: clearly a 'what', (Snip)> Chamber of Secrets: A place at Hogwarts, (Snip). > Prisoner of Azkaban (clearly, a person, (snip)> > Goblet of Fire. The central item for selecting the School Champions - (snip> Order of the Phoenix. Organisation, composed of several people - (snip> > Now, if HB Prince were to be a pub somewhere not Hogwarts- connected, it wouldn't be tied to Hogwarts, and therefore a bit unfit to title a book. Tonks here: Well it could be Trevor as some of us have suggested. On the other hand it could be a legion, a myth, a story that the children investigate to see what truth there may be in it. That might take them to the graveyard at Hogwarts. They might start interviewing the ghost who must know something. Etc. Tonks_op Who also wants July to come, but not too soon. Waiting is half the fun. From chnc1024 at AOL.COM Mon Jan 31 17:14:23 2005 From: chnc1024 at AOL.COM (chnc1024 at AOL.COM) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:14:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius' motorbike Message-ID: <46.621a65d3.2f2fc16f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123570 In a message dated 1/31/2005 1:01:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, finwitch at yahoo.com writes: Next (possible) mention of this is when Hagrid tells Harry he *flew* onto that rock where Harry *finally* gets his letter. Somehow I doubt there was a flying animal strong enough to carry Hagrid out there -- eh- like Fawkes. (Because then Hagrid wouldn't really need an owl to send off the letter, and why didn't the bird? come in with him?). Nah. I'd say Hagrid had the flying motorbike there. (I certainly can't imagine Hagrid on a broomstick, can you?) ***************************************************** Chancie: Do we know that Threstrals aren't strong enough to transport Hagrid? Since discovering them, I had always assumed that was how he flew to meet Harry. Besides, Hagrid is an extremely loyal person. Do you really see him riding on Sirius's bike to meet up with Harry??? I don't! I still say that Hagrid either threw it in the lake, or as others have said in the forbidden forest. Hagrid wouldn't (in my opinion at least) use anything that belonged to a traitor! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 17:35:43 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:35:43 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123571 > Finwitch asked: > > Hey-- why didn't Harry and Sirius go and live in a place > > like 12 GP at the end of the 4th book? Or even the Shrieking Shack? > > > SSSusan: > Maybe because, if Voldy found out they were there, there would be > no protection there? As opposed to whatever the magic is at 4 > Privet Drive, where apparently Voldy & his DEs *can't* attack him? > > The Shrieking Shack, by way of protection, seems only to have the > rumors which surround it and scare people off. Granted, the > likelihood of the secret keeper ratting *again* on 12 GP, as > happened w/ Godric's Hollow, seems small, but who wants to risk > it? In fact, why take either risk on a place which doesn't have a > surefire, can't-attack set-up over one which *does* have it? > Dungrollin: DD's the secret-keeper for the Order, and he's not going to be intimidated into revealing the location of 12GP. And Sirius says "My father put every security measure known to wizardkind on it when he lived here. It's unplottable [...] and now Dumbledore's added his protection, you'd be hard put to find a safer house anywhere." 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? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 17:44:20 2005 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:44:20 -0000 Subject: WW Cultural bias re clothes and cupboard? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123572 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > Do you have canon for the room being so small Harry couldn't > stand upright in it? Maybe it *was* magically expanded. > > Pippin Tonks now: I think that when Harry was young the room would have been just find size wise. A room under the stairs can have quite a bit of room. I always thought of his room being about the size of a walkin closet that we had under the stairs when I was a kid. It was about the same size as my small bedroom. A small kid could have been happy in there. Quiet place all to himself to hid from the brat upstairs. Of couse as Harry got bigger then it would have become a problem. And, of course, they should not lock him in it. I think of that whole scene in a more symbolic context. Like Muggles locking the magic part of themselves in the forgotten cupboard. Pretent it isn't there, too dangerious to look at and understand. Doesn't fit with the scientific mind, etc. Tonks_op From trekkie at stofanet.dk Mon Jan 31 17:45:10 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:45:10 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I'd like feedback on this theory References: Message-ID: <00c101c507bc$9cc4b3b0$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 123573 > He may well be the double agent everyone thinks Snape is. Or Voldemort > may > offer the better payment. > > When I posted this theory on another list, some people said Mundungus was > just *too* obvious and therefore probably wasn't any more than he > appeared. > Yeah, right. "Hide in plain sight" is one of JKR's mottoes. And "comic > relief" is almost as good a way to hide things -- look at Scabbers -- (or, > possibly, Ludo Bagman?). > > > Please discuss. > > > Janet Anderson You may VERY well be onto something here. He might even be a death eater - perhaps the "one that has left Voldie forever?" That would mean that Snape WAS present on the Graveyard, but again, I have always assumed that much. Hmm.. I like your theory :o) ~TrekkieGrrrl From trekkie at stofanet.dk Mon Jan 31 18:18:40 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:18:40 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry and starvation References: Message-ID: <014701c507c1$4a4f22f0$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 123574 ----- Original Message ----- From: "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? Perhaps the Blood thing made the protection of Privet Drive stronger? Harry was able to leave the house and go to school and stuff while living in Privet Drive, whereas I don't think it would be wise for him to cruise around at Grimmauld Place 1-11. He is safe INSIDE GP 12, but apparently he can move around in the neighborhood of Privet Drive. That IS one of the things that has irked me too though :o) ~TrekkieGrrrl From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 31 18:19:22 2005 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:19:22 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123575 Finwitch asked: > > > Hey-- why didn't Harry and Sirius go and live in a place > > > like 12 GP at the end of the 4th book? Or even the Shrieking > > > Shack? SSSusan: > > Maybe because, if Voldy found out they were there, there would be > > no protection there? As opposed to whatever the magic is at 4 > > Privet Drive, where apparently Voldy & his DEs *can't* attack him? > > > > The Shrieking Shack, by way of protection, seems only to have the > > rumors which surround it and scare people off. Granted, the > > likelihood of the secret keeper ratting *again* on 12 GP, as > > happened w/ Godric's Hollow, seems small, but who wants to risk > > it? In fact, why take either risk on a place which doesn't have > > a surefire, can't-attack set-up over one which *does* have it? Dungrollin: > DD's the secret-keeper for the Order, and he's not going to be > intimidated into revealing the location of 12GP. And Sirius > says "My father put every security measure known to wizardkind on > it when he lived here. It's unplottable [...] and now Dumbledore's > added his protection, you'd be hard put to find a safer house > anywhere." > > 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? SSSusan: Thanks for the canon on 12 GP, Dung; I confess to having forgot about that. :-| At this point, since Harry's almost of age, I could see his staying there being allowed. *Unless* DD knows more about this Privet Drive protection thing than we do -- like that Harry has to be there for the *reverse* protection of the Dursleys to stay active? That's all supposition on my part, of course, but I rather like the notion that DD offered them such protection when they took Harry in. Just kinda thinking out loud here. Siriusly Snapey Susan From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 18:18:09 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:18:09 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, what you do and don't want to see In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123576 Barmaid now: Why are these either/or kinds of issues? Why does Harry have to *either* deal with all his grief *or* step up and do his part to "save the world"????? I find it particularly puzzling that the camp of "Harry having to take time to deal with his personal troubles" is often portrayed as *realism* while the "step up and fulfill his role in the world" view is slated as the *fantasy* or fairytale nature of the story. It seems to me that in *reality* people rarely have the luxury of just disengaging from their responsibilities and sorting out their *issues*... at least in my little corner of so called reality this seems to be true. I think we will see a complex blend of *silliness & insipidity* (well said SSSusan!) and some heart wrenching hard times for our hero. I think Alla is right that it may well take Harry years to deal with all his grief, and we will never see most of those years from JKR's perspective (thank god for fan fiction!). But while he is working all of that out he will still have to fulfill his role in the world. Please know I am saying all of this with a smile on my face and with no malice for any opinion that differs from mine. Really. SSSusan: Absolutely! This is exactly what I meant, even if I didn't state it well. I think Harry *may* have a period -- a fairly short period of a few months -- where he's pissed at DD or is skeptical about trusting him & following his instructions. Or it may be something which resurfaces now & again over time. Both would be totally believable & understandable, imo. OTOH, I think that Harry, being the Harry we've seen so far, *will* do exactly what you've said, Barmaid -- disengage from his "issues" in order to address the reality he's facing. This is not, under ordinary circumstances, a necessarily wise thing to do, but the fact is, these are NOT ordinary circumstances. This is WHY I've said I think Harry will set aside his own concerns to a degree in order to work for the greater good, and WHY I've argued that he should find a way to work w/ Snape (if he has to) and WHY I've argued that standing up to DJU, esp. after McGonagall's warning, wasn't a very smart thing to do. All of these tie into one thing: These are NOT ordinary times. If Voldy *weren't* back, if VWII *hadn't* begun, I would encourage: 1) anyone like Harry to go right ahead & work on all those issues now; 2) anyone in Harry or Neville's situation to consider several options for what to do about The Snape Problem; and 3) anyone like Harry to have stood up to DJU and let her have it for her lies and refusal to believe him and her inhumane punishment. But all of that is set aside for me, I'm afraid, when the stakes are this high. Once the war is over, by all means, I'd handle each of these situations differently than I'm "advising" Harry to handle them now. Siriusly Snapey Susan Barmaid again: Hi SSSusan! The only thing I would have a *very small* disagreement with you on is the idea that under "ordinary circumstances" Harry could take the time to deal with his *issues*. I guess recently I have been seeing that really life is never *ordinary* and there is always more than one thing going on for any one person at any one time. It is the rare, not the ordinary, person that has the luxury of focusing *only* on themselves or *only* on their role in the Big Bright/Dark World. I see the heroism in Harry, even just the Harry we know up to this point, as at least partly about his ability to do what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, no matter what else may be going on at that moment. I would argue, from a mental health standpoint that this can actually be good. This is not necessarily the same as suppressing or not dealing with his emotions. It is simply having the ability to do more than one thing, be engaged in more than one process, at a time. I think we are pretty much agreeing, Susan, it is maybe just a matter of emphasis! --Barmaid From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 18:33:32 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:33:32 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, re: Harry's Grief In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123577 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > My personal view is that Harry will feel that he has lost the way, > but that due to insecurity and guilt, not because he won't be able > to care. > > Naama > This is straight from the horse's mouth - so to speak!! > > JKR: "In book six, the wizarding world is really at war again and > [Harry] has to master his own feelings to make himself useful." > [WBD-04] > > So it seems that you are on the right track, Naama! > > Brothergib bboyminn: I think it's important for people to realize that "[Harry] has to master his own feelings to make himself useful" is a complex process and not an instantaneous event. It is a complex process with many stages and many parallel tracks, and many complex internal and external issues that have to be resolved. In addition, the loss of a loved one in the manner that Harry lost Sirius is something that even once resolved is will still effect a person for a life time. Certainly there is going to be grief, and grief is a long complex process with many aspects. Further, Harry has reason to feel grief on many fronts in his life. For example, I think Harry will go through something mirroring the grieving process around finding out about the Prophecy and his role in it. I can see Harry going through a 'why me?' anger stage. I can see a stage of denial where he tries to convince himself the Prophecy could be all about Neville (a very short stage of denial, I suspect). A further stage of denial in which Harry refuses to accept his fate. He flatly refuses to cooperate in allowing fate or Dumbledore or the wizard world to force him into this role. I can also see grief around that fact that people are dying because of him, even if he is not personally the direct cause, he will certainly feel he is the indirect cause, and a danger to all who are close to him. Harry will therefore try to withdraw from his friends in order to protect them. Ultimately though, on all these fronts, he will realize that he will have to face his destiny. He will reach the 'acceptance' stage of grieving and from there move on. So, I think all through the next book, we will see Harry going through the various stages of Grief and doing so on many fronts, and in many large and small ways. But I see no reason for that to stop the larger story from moving forward. As others have said, even in the depths of our greatest dispair, we can't stop the world, life, or time from marching ever onward. Despite our greatest resistance, life goes on. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 18:42:00 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:42:00 -0000 Subject: Lack of trust/No Occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123578 Finwitch: Something came up to my mind about Harry's lack of trust considering this Occlumency. 1) Dumbledore was acting oddly - more distant than usual. 2) Harry has a scar-vision that saves Arthur Weasley 3) The friendly adults near Harry are greatful for this. 4) Dumbledore, however, tells Harry - trough Snape whom Harry never trusted though Dumbledore did - that Harry ought to learn a skill that prevents him from having visions. No one tells him why. 5) Let's not forget the friendly seeming fake!Moody, who was a DE in disguise, using polyjuice. No one, including DD, was able to tell him from the real Moody - until *after* Harry was in danger and cleared most of it off himself... Harry never realised it, but... a what if: Dumbledore could have been tricked and replaced by a DE/Voldemort by means of polyjuice potion. If they could do that to a paranoid auror, well, I suppose they could do it to Dumbledore, too. Given the information Harry had, that would have been a reasonable conclusion, and the action is NOT to learn Occlumency. You don't take orders from the enemy, right? It is entirely possible that Harry, without realising it, jumped right to the action part... NOT learning Occlumency. Simply because something was wrong in the picture! Besides, Sirius was against it. And Sirius was giving answers... snip Alla: Your scenario sounds very plausible to me and I perfectly understand Harry imagining something like that. I was just saying in response to Carol's post that in OOP we finally saw ( entirely in my opinion) that even in order to be a better warrior ( and I don't agree that that is all that Harry is supposed to be) his ubringing may have NOT been all that good, because he learned not to trust adults and in OOP adults around him were not his enemies (You'll forgive me if I leave a question mark over Snape's name, but surely everybody else cared about Harry and wanted to help him, not to harm him). Just my opinion, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 18:50:48 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:50:48 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry in Book VI, re: Harry's Grief In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123579 Steve: snip So, I think all through the next book, we will see Harry going through the various stages of Grief and doing so on many fronts, and in many large and small ways. But I see no reason for that to stop the larger story from moving forward. As others have said, even in the depths of our greatest dispair, we can't stop the world, life, or time from marching ever onward. Despite our greatest resistance, life goes on. Alla: Steve, I snipped your excellent post, because I LOVED your scenario. I don't want Harry to stop being a Hero, but I want him to be the one in a "realistic" way ( if something like that even possible :o)) You said that "mastering his emotions" will not be instantaneous process. Well, I sure hope so, but I still have my doubts. :o) I just don't want the process of Harry "dealing" to be dropped. Anyways, if JKR follows your scenario, I will be one happy reader. JMO, Alla From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 19:03:45 2005 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:03:45 -0000 Subject: Privet Drive (was Harry and starvation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123580 > Dungrollin: > > DD's the secret-keeper for the Order, and he's not going to be > > intimidated into revealing the location of 12GP. And Sirius > > says "My father put every security measure known to wizardkind > > on it when he lived here. It's unplottable [...] and now > > Dumbledore's added his protection, you'd be hard put to find a > > safer house anywhere." > > > > 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? > TrekkieGrrrl wrote: Perhaps the Blood thing made the protection of Privet Drive stronger? Harry was able to leave the house and go to school and stuff while living in Privet Drive, whereas I don't think it would be wise for him to cruise around at Grimmauld Place 1-11. He is safe INSIDE GP 12, but apparently he can move around in the neighborhood of Privet Drive. That IS one of the things that has irked me too though :o) Dungrollin: Hmmm... Safe enough to wander around Privet Drive and get attacked by Dementors? And SSSusan wrote: > *Unless* DD knows more about this Privet Drive protection thing > than we do -- like that Harry has to be there for the *reverse* > protection of the Dursleys to stay active? That's all supposition > on my part, of course, but I rather like the notion that DD > offered them such protection when they took Harry in. > Dungrollin: Indeed, I wouldn't put it past DD to know more than he was letting on... One thing I'm sure of though, is that if Mrs. Figg is DD's local guardian for Harry, she will know all the ins and outs of this protection business. And if she was in the Order the last time around, she would have known James and Lily too. I shall be ticked off if book 6 doesn't open with Harry having tea with her and asking some important questions (and about those Kneazles, too). Mind you, he *is* a teenage boy, and unfortunately batty old women with too many cats and houses that smell of cabbage have a tendency to remain batty old women with too many cats and houses that smell of cabbage - even when you know that they're batty for an interesting reason. So he may still avoid her as much as he can, and conveniently (for the plot) forget to ask any interesting questions. Oooh I hope not. From trekkie at stofanet.dk Mon Jan 31 19:12:08 2005 From: trekkie at stofanet.dk (TrekkieGrrrl) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:12:08 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Privet Drive (was Harry and starvation) References: Message-ID: <016a01c507c8$c2cee600$640aa8c0@LHJ> No: HPFGUIDX 123581 > TrekkieGrrrl wrote: > Perhaps the Blood thing made the protection of Privet Drive > stronger? Harry was able to leave the house and go to school and > stuff while living in Privet Drive, whereas I don't think it would > be wise for him to cruise around at Grimmauld Place 1-11. He is safe > INSIDE GP 12, but apparently he can move around in the neighborhood > of Privet Drive. > That IS one of the things that has irked me too though :o) > > Dungrollin: > Hmmm... Safe enough to wander around Privet Drive and get attacked > by Dementors? No, as we've seen :o). 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. ~TrekkieGrrrl From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Jan 31 19:10:37 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:10:37 -0000 Subject: Slytherin & Gryffindor: Misconceptions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123582 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > > Agreed. Clearly SS was a flawed individual. Even if COS is a > protective measure, it is over protective. THere was an incident on > the Tube recently where a father punched a man for standing on his > child and making them cry. However, the poor man fell awkwardly, > bumped his head and died. Being over-protective does often have > serious consequences. However, the point remains that SS was probably > a decent human being - unlike his descendant!! > > Brothergib Hickengruendler: But there is IMO a difference between this incident and Slytherin's behaviour. The father in your example obviously overreacted, which lead to the poor other person's death. But it was an accident. Slytherin however planned murder. Your example would IMO be closer, if the child's father had pulled a gun and shot the other person. As it currently seems, I see no excuse for Slytherin, who was an accomplice in murder. However, maybe it isn't how it was told in CoS, and the Basilisk was in the Chamber for another reason, which IMO is a possibility, although I don't think it's very likely. But if we will learn something like this, I might reconsider my opinion about him, otherwise I see him as a villain and murderer. Hickengruendler From vuurdame at xs4all.nl Mon Jan 31 15:21:42 2005 From: vuurdame at xs4all.nl (festuco) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:21:42 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123583 Valky: > There has to be something? > Perhaps the sorting hat offered him Slytherin by virtue of his > propensity to do what it takes to be on the winning team. But he was > afraid of Slytherin and asked the hat not to put him there. But then > still again WHY Gryffindor? the sorting hat might have seen > something deep deep deep deep deeeeeeep inside him, maybe that we > just can't see? > Well, true courage is not about brave deeds, but about overcoming fear. A very fearful person may very well be much braver than the average super hero, who after all does mostly stuff that is for him not really dangerous. Peter choose the winning side, and was a spy for them. Still a dangerous position, though not a sympathetic one. Probably almost as dangerous as Snape's was, who did exactly the opposite. Peter discovered that Voldy wanted more of him than just a change of sides. It seems Voldy likes to break people, especially his own, and Peter surely seems broken to me. Gerry From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 19:20:24 2005 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:20:24 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123584 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > > Dungrollin: > DD's the secret-keeper for the Order, and he's not going to be > intimidated into revealing the location of 12GP. And Sirius says "My > father put every security measure known to wizardkind on it when he > lived here. It's unplottable [...] and now Dumbledore's added his > protection, you'd be hard put to find a safer house anywhere." > > 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. In otherword, cover all the bases and seek the middle ground. Harry has the ulitmate protection at the Dursleys, no one can touch him there, but as time goes on, that 'fortress', while remaining very effective, becomes somewhat less practical. 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. So, indeed Grimmauld Place is safe, but not as safe as the Dursley's which is shielded by the Blood Protection Charm. That said, the Dursley's protected environment does have other disadvantages. Grimmauld place, while not quite as safe, is far more practical. So each place has it's pluses and minuses. But it would be foolish to not place Harry at the Dursley's for at least a couple of weeks a year until he is 'of age'. It would be foolish to throw away the safety of the Blood Protection Charm when it can be maintained at such a small price. I think that is part of the motivation of the intervention at the end of OotP. They realize that it's becoming more impractical to keep Harry at the Dursley's, none the less that is his place of greatest protection. So, now they are just maintaining it as a token. I'm not saying that was the sole reason. Given the trama and loss Harry has recently suffered, it's reasonable for the Order and Friends to not want Harry to suffer any more. I suspect THAT is the primary reason. But, I think they are foolish if they abandon the level of protection Harry has at the Dursleys. So, now part of the reason that Harry's stay will be the shortest, is because, his continued presents there only servers to preserve the Blood Protection. Beyond that, his presents at Grimmauld Place or any other secure place in the wizard world is very safe, and far more practical and functional. In each book, Harry is pulling farther away from the Dursley's and become more integrated into the wizard world. He is gradually coming of age as a wizard, and from a practical stand point, the Dursley's becomes less important. 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. Just at thought. Steve/bboyminn From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 20:01:54 2005 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:01:54 -0000 Subject: I'd like feedback on this theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123585 Janet Anderson:"Many people have put forth the theory that there is or will be a well-placed and unsuspected spy in this incursion as well. Ideas as to who it could be are varied. Some of the people suspected are Snape (of course), Lupin, Percy (some people think he's a spy for Dumbledore et al now; some think he'll work for Voldemort in the future), Filch ... the list is endless. But as far as I know, none of the theorists have mentioned the person I suspect: Mundungus Fletcher." Mundungus is a realistic possibility, no doubt, although he may be less well placed than others would be. I'd be surprised if DD, Lupin, et. al. spilled their guts in front of him. Heck, Mung would be a great way to seed disinformation to the DE's, either with his cooperation or unwittingly. Doesn't Mundungus serve as a contrast to the DE's, though? He's a crook but not a DE, a guy who isn't above fencing cauldrons but somehow different than the cruel, sadistic DE's? It's like comparing a Nazi to a pickpocket. I always get a feeling of contradiction when we get into discussions about highly placed traitors. What's stopping Dumbledore from dosing everybody with Veritaserum once a month? Why can't DD, an accomplished Legilimens, detect betrayal? It's never explained. As far as Percy is concerned, either he's a spy for Dumbledore or his relevance is over. He may be forgiven by his family and welcomed back, but unless he was in fact a mole for Dumbledore he shouldn't be trusted or let in on *anything,* period, end. As a matter of fact, I'd feed him a red herring and see if it got back to me that the DE's had heard it. Jim Ferer From pegruppel at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 20:57:01 2005 From: pegruppel at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:57:01 -0000 Subject: I'd like feedback on this theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Janet Anderson" wrote: > When I posted this theory on another list, some people said Mundungus was > just *too* obvious and therefore probably wasn't any more than he appeared. > Yeah, right. "Hide in plain sight" is one of JKR's mottoes. And "comic > relief" is almost as good a way to hide things -- look at Scabbers - - (or, > possibly, Ludo Bagman?). > > Now Peg: Well, I've wondered about Mundungus, myself. The useful function, beyond comic relief, that he seems to serve is as the eyes and ears of the Order in the lower reaches of the WW. I think he's a potential liability--if the DE's got hold of him, I suspect he'd blab everything he could think of at the mere mention of the Cruciatus Curse. Of course, the DEs would kill him anyway, just so he couldn't go and tattle on them to the Order. I don't believe (although with JKR, one never knows, does one?) that he's spy material. I do believe that he's in the storyline for more and better purposes. I think that he, in the company of the Weasley twins, are going to come into play in a plot to foil the DEs. I haven't really worked this out, because I just thought of it, so I'll get back to you . . . I can think of one other possible use for old Dung: Set a thief to catch a thief. He knows how the underworld works, and he knows how to work in it. He, like Scabbers, as you said, may well have more depths than we know about. The whole outcome of the books may hinge on the actions of one seedy small-time thief and con artist. Peg From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 21:39:39 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:39:39 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123587 "Pyros Wife" writes: >I believe FIRMLY that Lily and Petunia's parents were both wizards! >Petunia must be a squib, it explains her contempt for anything >magical....ANYTHING! It's been mentioned before that Petunia is not a squib and most of us believe she will produce latent witch powers before the end of the series. However, I've never seen a question regarding Dudley. JKR clearly states that Dudley is not a wizard, so if Petunia is a witch, that would make Dudley a squib, correct? 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? I would love to know if there is any rhyme or reason to this, other than "JKR wants it that way." Rather like Katherine Kurtz did in the Deryni series. Although the characters look down their noses at "half-Deryni" it turned out that the Deryni gene was passed through the mother to the child and there was no such thing as "half- Deryni" either you were Deryni or you weren't. JKR's witch/wizard talent is the same, either you are magical or you aren't (half-muggle doesn't mean less talented) but I would like to know how the gene is passed down - and where do muggles like Hermione's parents pick it up? A witch/wizard far back in their past? How far back? Nicky Joe From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 21:41:01 2005 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (xcpublishing) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:41:01 -0000 Subject: Pensieve memories/ Cowards Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123588 Valky: >Oh my, I *do* get irritated when I am reminded of this one. It's >such a niggling itch that won't go away. >How the hell was snivelling cowardly Peter Pettigrew *ever* a >Gryffindor? The numero uno prereq for a Gryff student is bravery, so >whatever did the sorting hat see in Peter that could be called brave? In Peter's case, I think it was actually more of the Hat seeing what Peter was NOT. Ambitious? His only ambition seemed to be wanting to stay alive - he doesn't seem to be grasping at power. I think the only reason he became Voldemort's boy was because Voldie snatched him up and threatened him. He certainly didn't join LV to gain anything other than keeping his precious skin intact. So, NOT Slytherin. Loyal? Well, we know he sold out his dearest friends at the drop of a hat, not to mention Dumbledore and the rest of the good people in the WW, so NOT Hufflepuff. And Intelligent? I think if Peter had any intelligence he could have come up with a way out of selling his soul to Voldemort and sacrificing his friends to save his butt. So, NOT Ravenclaw. What did that leave? Gryffindor. And weasel though he was, you have to admit it was rather brave of him to go seek out the evil misty Voldemort after his Scabbers gig was up. A true coward would have tried to go hide under the farthest rock, but not our brave little Peter. He was too cowardly to save his friends, but brave enough to try to save his hiney, yet again, by seeking out the person that would fry him on the spot if he wasn't so darned useful. Nicky Joe From hhbarmaid at gmail.com Mon Jan 31 21:55:41 2005 From: hhbarmaid at gmail.com (hogsheadbarmaid) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 21:55:41 -0000 Subject: H. B. Prince New? Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123589 Tonks here: Well it could be Trevor as some of us have suggested. On the other hand it could be a legion, a myth, a story that the children investigate to see what truth there may be in it. That might take them to the graveyard at Hogwarts. They might start interviewing the ghost who must know something. Etc. Tonks_op Who also wants July to come, but not too soon. Waiting is half the fun. Now The Barmaid: Hummmm very interesting idea Tonks! I like this one... yes I do. This legend or story could come out in relation to the war somehow. The trio goes on a quest to find the truth of the legend... very much the way they approached things in PS/SS and CoS, but they know more now and have more skill. I like that your idea brings in the graveyard, of course, and I do think there is room for the ghosts to play a larger role, especially because they *must know stuff* as they have been around for (we assume) a long time. Very interesting idea indeed! --Barmaid From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Jan 31 22:48:01 2005 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:48:01 -0000 Subject: The Mauraders' Generation -- no parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123590 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "xcpublishing" wrote: > > 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. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 22:08:30 2005 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:08:30 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123591 > Carol responds: > Here's a question for Alla and Lupinlore and those who feel as they > do. Leaving Dumbledore and his intentions out of the question, would > Harry really be better off without the treatment he received from the > Dursleys? Harry might have been even better off if he had been raised by Mad Eye Moody if trying to toughen him up is something thats a factor. Hell, Mad Eye would have taught him all the skills he would have needed to survive and he would have protected the kid with his life and formidable skills. Despite that, somehow I doubt anyone is going to advocate the Mad Eye Daycare center for orphans under prophecy. > Please understand that I'm not defending the Dursleys or suggesting > that Dumbledore had any such intentions (other than preventing Harry > from growing up as a pampered prince and, of course, keeping him > alive). But think about it. Suppose he had been brought up in a > luxurious home with every need catered to. Even if he wasn't spoiled, > wouldn't he be "soft"? Or overprotected and timid because he'd never > been confronted and tested? You make the assumption that only a person raised in harsh conditions can be 'tough'. I don't think so. Bill and Charlie Weasley are tough guys capable of handling themselves, yet they were raised in a supportive and loving home (have to admit that even though I hate Molly). They didn't get beat up or locked up or put on a starvation diet in their childhood and somehow both manage to handle themselves in dangerous jobs and even thrive (veela girlfriend is definitely thriving :). 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. > Carol, who is pretty sure that an upbringing like Hermione's would not > have served Harry as well as sleeping in that closet. Being raised in a loving and secure home is always better than the alternative. Is Harry strong because of his upbringing? Yeah, he is. Would he have been just as strong being raised by a better family? You betcha phoenixgod2000, for whom this arguement has made appreciate his parents all the more. From Rachel_Maine at baylor.edu Mon Jan 31 15:48:55 2005 From: Rachel_Maine at baylor.edu (raesstienway) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:48:55 -0000 Subject: I'd like feedback on this theory (Mundungus) In-Reply-To: <20050131122056.16010.qmail@web30903.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123592 Rachel writes: Interesting theory, I could see this going both ways, Mundungus could betray the OotP as mentioned or he could stay loyal. . Really this does depend on why he is loyal to Dumbeldore and if this loyalty will hold, as mentioned by Cindi. Cindi writes: > I think Mundungus could betray the Order for the write price, but again why is he so loyal to Dumbledore and will the strength of that loyalty hold? Here is my thought: Rachel Writes: Has Dumbeldore ever helped anyone out of a scrape that did not invoke complete loyalty? Look at his whole staff, even crazy Trelwany is loyal, so would he really help this "good" thief and have no issues with him being in the Order if this was ever to be a problem. Seems to me that none of the order members have all their eggs in one basket and that after last time they are sure to be very shrewd. So, yes it very well could be Mundungus, but my suspision is that even if it is him they will discover him early on and kick him out, or even more likely not reveal that they know and feed him false info that will then be passed to V. But then again, JKR is writing this not me so we will have to wait and see..... Rachel > > From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Mon Jan 31 23:21:02 2005 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:21:02 -0000 Subject: Is Harry arrogant? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123593 > > Aisbelmon at h... said: > > Harry purposefully takes on bigger and more advanced scary foes than he should be able to handle, he doesn't think twice about that they might be too much for him to handle, so hence he has a faint sense of arrogance about him, like a soldier - a bulletproof mentality. > > Janet Anderson: > > I would say this was an advanced example of the famous Gryffindor courage. Possibly combined with the teenage feeling of immortality. And also, even when it occurs to him that he might (or probably will) lose, he maintains that he has to try to at least do *something* rather than run away, pretend nothing's wrong (like Fudge) or surrender to the other side (like Peter Pettigrew). Remember when he told Ron and Hermione that he might die fighting Voldemort over the Sorcerer's Stone or hiding in Privet Drive, but > > either way he would never go over to the Dark Side? > > Geoff: > I am inclined to agree with much of what Janet says. Looking back on my own teenage years (allowing for a foggy Pensieve!), certainly > teenage boys have a feeling of immortality. We are becoming our own boss, we are physically almost fully grown, the world is before us, no ties, no major responsibilites. Accidents, disappointments, deaths are things which happen to other people and, of course, we are going to be great - we are going to change the world. > > Harry arrogant? Nope. Just normal. > > Coming down to earth is a process which takes over later...... 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. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 23:25:03 2005 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:25:03 -0000 Subject: Harry and starvation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123594 Carol, who is pretty sure that an upbringing like Hermione's would not have served Harry as well as sleeping in that closet. Phoenixgod: Being raised in a loving and secure home is always better than the alternative. Is Harry strong because of his upbringing? Yeah, he is. Would he have been just as strong being raised by a better family? You betcha phoenixgod2000, for whom this arguement has made appreciate his parents all the more. Alla: Phoenixgod, I am in absolute agreement with your post, therefore I snipped it. :o) Actually, I am mainly replying because of Carol's remark, which I confess to misunderstand somehow when I read her post initially. Yes, just as you do, I think that being raised in "loving" family can make you stronger, not weaker. I would say that Hermione manages to hold her own in Trio's adventures pretty well for the most part. I mean they all screw up one time or another, but Hermione seems to be pretty tough to me. I think that upbringing like Hermione's would have done lots of good to Harry, although we don't know much about her upbringing, of course, we can guess that her parents love her, taught her to like books ( a lot :o)), etc. Just my opinion, Alla From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 31 20:21:53 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:21:53 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...(TT during PoA) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123599 Ginger: > I hope this makes things easier for you, although I have a feeling I > may have muddied things by adding the last two paragraphs. Feel free > to ignore them should you feel a headache coming on. > > Cheers, and the painkiller of your choice, Ginger 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. From sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 31 20:34:33 2005 From: sandra87b at yahoo.co.uk (sandra87b) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:34:33 -0000 Subject: Time Turner...Harry2 Arrived at 6pm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 123600 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! 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. (Do excuse the following bits in capital letters, they're only there because I can't do italics to show the emphasise!) She goes for the easy option of saying what happened WITH an intervention, but doesn't even attempt to say HOW that intervention could ever have actually happened. 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. That's the first timeline, and any future events need to stem FROM that rather than DESPITE that. To really get your heads around the dilemma, try The Guardian Of Time, because that has a similar self-intervention which tackles all the issues - and I think it's because of how that's portrayed that the PoA kind of gets to me so much - it plain old don't work. Sandra. From jlnbtr at yahoo.com Mon Jan 31 23:16:12 2005 From: jlnbtr at yahoo.com (Juli) Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:16:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Mauraders' Generation -- Genetics In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050131231612.74158.qmail@web53107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 123619 > > wrote: > > > > > 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? Juli: Genetics are kinda tricky, there's only one way for Mendelian genetics to work in the WW: The wizard gene (W) is a dominant trait in wizards so every son/daughter will be a wizard, but if both parents are heterocygotes (Ww), their children have 3 ossibilities: WW (wizard), Ww (wizard)and ww (squib). this could explain squibs. Muggle-born wizards could be explained this way: in this case (muggle families), the wizard gene is recesive (m)so if we've got to heterocygote parents Mm and Mm (both muggles) then their children have these possibilities: MM (muggle), Mm (muggle), mm (wizard). An other possibility is spontaneous mutation for muggle families where a M could change into m, but the chances for this are way to small, they can't account for all muggle-borns. So my advice to you is to stop trying to make sense out of it and just play along. Juli __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com